3 ms·

If you believe consciousness exists, and that the universe is real, then it's pretty much tautological that the universe is a system which includes consciousnes

If you believe consciousness exists, and that the universe is real, then it's pretty much tautological that the universe is a system which includes consciousness, which is a very, very tiny step away from stating that the universe itself is conscious --- not by way of mysticism, but simply by redefining your terms. In much the same way, my house can be considered a data processing device, because it contains a computer. (Well. Several computers. Many computers.) The problem is, what do we do with this now? There's never been any physical evidence that consciousness is a real thing or can effect the world in any way other than via the actions of people who believe they are conscious (which, speaking from my perspective of a person who believes they are conscious, is no small thing); the only real consequences of deciding that we are part of a greater conscious system are going to be philosophical. And there are plenty of existing philosophical systems which believe that already --- you mention Buddhism. And while I do think that believing that we're part of the world, rather than being somehow separate from it, is definitely a good idea, I'm an engineer. This seems dissatisfying. Is there anything else can we do with this idea?

aaimnr 10y ago
I agree that it doesn't have to be in any way mystical and that it comes to redefining what's fundamental and what's merely constructed or emergent (although it's a very tricky term). In the panpsychist approach neither matter nor consciousness can be reduced to the other one. For more engineering approach to the problem, there's lot we can do. One way would be to study in more and more details the correlates of consciousness to understand the "linking" mechanism better. Anil Seth describes this approach here: https://aeon.co/essays/the-hard-problem-of-consciousness-is-a-distraction-from-the-real-one https://aeon.co/essays/the-hard-problem-of-consciousness-is-.... On the other hand, if consciousness indeed is a fundamental attribute of reality, we should extend the 'engineering' to cover also the 'mind' part of reality. This is exactly what meditation is - to train the mind so that it can see more and more clearly all the components of conscious experience until it reaches the bottom. As a result you come up with a number of 'edge cases' - interesting states that can be used to reason about this reality conceptually. There are eg. 'experience of space itself', experience of consciousness (so called immaterial Jhanas) or finally experience caused by calming the unconscious mind to the extent that it stops projecting any content into conscious mind, while the latter is still operating. This (supposedly) leads to realisation by the mind itself that the 'experienced world' is nothing but its creation. Of course we all can understand it conceptually, but this experience leads to permanent change in perception (you can't "unsee it") which becomes as objective as the human mind can possibly be. Meaning, that it realises in every moment that each experience is its own creation. It may all seem mystical, exotic or plain crazy, but there's no other way to understand the mind than through the mind itself, if the discussed hypothesis is true.
md224 10y ago
> the only real consequences of deciding that we are part of a greater conscious system are going to be philosophical I think the question of consciousness is critical in at least one domain: the question of whether or not consciousness survives beyond the death of the physical body (and, relatedly, whether it precedes the birth of the body). If we bracket away religious doctrine and just focus on the facts of the matter, this debate hinges on how consciousness relates to the physical body it inhabits. Is it created by the body, or does it merely use the body as a conduit? My boy William James gave a great lecture† in 1897 where he claimed that scientific understanding had not yet ruled out immortality, since it was unknown whether this relationship between mind and body was productive (body creates mind) or transmissive (body filters mind). I could be wrong, but I think this is still an open question, and it very much depends on understanding the true nature of consciousness. That's why the Hard Problem is so awesome. † https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/jimmortal.html https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/jimmortal.html (published in 1898)
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  It's quite definitively created by the body. It's very difficult to explain certain phenomena otherwise. Like, certain people will get a right-hemisphere stroke that not only removes their ability to use their left arm, but also causes them to deny that they aren't able to use their left arm. And this is temporarily suppressed by squirting cold water into the left ear. We're getting more and more detail in the nuts-and-bolts models of how the brain constructs experiences and consciousness. IMO it's a just a matter of time before there are no mysteries left, and every high level description of human experience can be broken down into smaller details recursively until what's left is low-level descriptions of neurons.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    While I too believe consciousness is material, those observations don't prove it, they just demonstrate that consciousness can be influenced by the material world.
    - 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

aaimnr 10y ago

I agree that it doesn't have to be in any way mystical and that it comes to redefining what's fundamental and what's merely constructed or emergent (although it's a very tricky term). In the panpsychist approach neither matter nor consciousness can be reduced to the other one. For more engineering approach to the problem, there's lot we can do. One way would be to study in more and more details the correlates of consciousness to understand the "linking" mechanism better. Anil Seth describes this approach here: https://aeon.co/essays/the-hard-problem-of-consciousness-is-a-distraction-from-the-real-one https://aeon.co/essays/the-hard-problem-of-consciousness-is-.... On the other hand, if consciousness indeed is a fundamental attribute of reality, we should extend the 'engineering' to cover also the 'mind' part of reality. This is exactly what meditation is - to train the mind so that it can see more and more clearly all the components of conscious experience until it reaches the bottom. As a result you come up with a number of 'edge cases' - interesting states that can be used to reason about this reality conceptually. There are eg. 'experience of space itself', experience of consciousness (so called immaterial Jhanas) or finally experience caused by calming the unconscious mind to the extent that it stops projecting any content into conscious mind, while the latter is still operating. This (supposedly) leads to realisation by the mind itself that the 'experienced world' is nothing but its creation. Of course we all can understand it conceptually, but this experience leads to permanent change in perception (you can't "unsee it") which becomes as objective as the human mind can possibly be. Meaning, that it realises in every moment that each experience is its own creation. It may all seem mystical, exotic or plain crazy, but there's no other way to understand the mind than through the mind itself, if the discussed hypothesis is true.

md224 10y ago

> the only real consequences of deciding that we are part of a greater conscious system are going to be philosophical I think the question of consciousness is critical in at least one domain: the question of whether or not consciousness survives beyond the death of the physical body (and, relatedly, whether it precedes the birth of the body). If we bracket away religious doctrine and just focus on the facts of the matter, this debate hinges on how consciousness relates to the physical body it inhabits. Is it created by the body, or does it merely use the body as a conduit? My boy William James gave a great lecture† in 1897 where he claimed that scientific understanding had not yet ruled out immortality, since it was unknown whether this relationship between mind and body was productive (body creates mind) or transmissive (body filters mind). I could be wrong, but I think this is still an open question, and it very much depends on understanding the true nature of consciousness. That's why the Hard Problem is so awesome. † https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/jimmortal.html https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/jimmortal.html (published in 1898)

ThrustVectoring 10y ago
It's quite definitively created by the body. It's very difficult to explain certain phenomena otherwise. Like, certain people will get a right-hemisphere stroke that not only removes their ability to use their left arm, but also causes them to deny that they aren't able to use their left arm. And this is temporarily suppressed by squirting cold water into the left ear. We're getting more and more detail in the nuts-and-bolts models of how the brain constructs experiences and consciousness. IMO it's a just a matter of time before there are no mysteries left, and every high level description of human experience can be broken down into smaller details recursively until what's left is low-level descriptions of neurons.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  While I too believe consciousness is material, those observations don't prove it, they just demonstrate that consciousness can be influenced by the material world.
  - 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]