Theories of Consciousness

[anonymous66]

Just nondualism, nondual thinking (without any extra stuff like Advaitan texts etc.) It's not really a theory though, it's fact.

How is it different from the Western idea of materialism/physicalism? - which adherents claim is nondualist.

Adherents of materialism claim that it's monist because the braindead Western philosophers told them so. But materialism was born from the original material/mental duality, and then the mental part was made not-fundamental or non-existent. This however preserved the original duality on a deep level. Materialism is a dualism-based pseudo-monism.

Eastern nondualism really has no dualism in it.

Can you tell us more about Eastern nondualism, or point us to some resources?

[anonymous66]

Anyone else enjoy exploring the different theories of Consciousness? I'd like to be able to understand as many of them as I can.
.......

So - Daniel Dennett and his book Bacteria to Bach and Back. He throws quite a bit of criticism at substance dualism... but doesn't even mention the existence of property dualism/panpsychism (that I recall, anyway). So I wondered if property dualism was compatible with the ideas that Dennett presented in his book.

But the more I think about it... it appears that if Dennett is right, then what we humans experience as 1st person subjective experiences we experience because of the way humans evolved along with human culture. So, presumably, other organisms don't have those 1st person experiences. However, organisms on earth could continue to evolve and some day have the same type of 1st person experiences as humans do, as long as they have a culture that is similar enough to ours. I'm not sure if Dennett would preemptively deny that a Korg - like being is possible (assuming a culture that is similar enough to ours in the right ways).

It appears to me that Dennett actively dissuades people from trying to understand how or why consciousness arose from presumably unconscious material. Like he just wants people to accept consciousness as a brute fact - and stop worrying about the "little details".

[Flannel Jesus]

It appears to me that Dennett actively dissuades people from trying to understand how or why consciousness arose from presumably unconscious material. Like he just wants people to accept consciousness as a brute fact - and stop worrying about the "little details".

What makes it appear that way to you?

[anonymous66]

It appears to me that Dennett actively dissuades people from trying to understand how or why consciousness arose from presumably unconscious material. Like he just wants people to accept consciousness as a brute fact - and stop worrying about the "little details".

What makes it appear that way to you?

I'll have to see if I can find the video or magazine article again.

[anonymous66]

It appears to me that Dennett actively dissuades people from trying to understand how or why consciousness arose from presumably unconscious material. Like he just wants people to accept consciousness as a brute fact - and stop worrying about the "little details".

What makes it appear that way to you?

I'll have to see if I can find the video or magazine article again.

It was this article in the New Yorker (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017 ... f-the-soul). I see now the context was Chalmer's interest in the "hard problem" of consciousness (the philosophical question of how and why physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience)- and Dennett shuts him down.. "He told Chalmers that there didn’t have to be a hard boundary between third-person explanations and first-person experience—between, as it were, the description of the sugar molecule and the taste of sweetness. Why couldn’t one see oneself as taking two different stances toward a single phenomenon? It was possible, he said, to be 'neutral about the metaphysical status of the data.' From the outside, it looks like neurons; from the inside, it feels like consciousness. Problem solved."

[Age]

This appears to be a problem for materialism. I understand materialism to be saying that everything can be defined and explained in terms of its physical properties. If so, then what is the mass of a thought? How much space does it take up?

Maybe as much as light, itself.

How is light, itself, defined and explained in terms of its physical properties, exactly?

Is there a so-called 'problem' for so-called 'materialism', here?

If yes, then how, why, and what, exactly?

Light is made up of photons, which are particles with physical properties.

If you say so, but do others agree with you?

If no, then who of you is actually Correct, exactly?

And, if photons are considered to be particles, thus they can be considered as matter, then could they be just matter without mass.

Which then the question could be, what is the mass of a light photon?

And, my answer would be, 'maybe as much as thought, itself.

[Flannel Jesus]

What makes it appear that way to you?

I'll have to see if I can find the video or magazine article again.

It was this article in the New Yorker (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017 ... f-the-soul). I see now the context was Chalmer's interest in the "hard problem" of consciousness (the philosophical question of how and why physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience)- and Dennett shuts him down.. "He told Chalmers that there didn’t have to be a hard boundary between third-person explanations and first-person experience—between, as it were, the description of the sugar molecule and the taste of sweetness. Why couldn’t one see oneself as taking two different stances toward a single phenomenon? It was possible, he said, to be 'neutral about the metaphysical status of the data.' From the outside, it looks like neurons; from the inside, it feels like consciousness. Problem solved."

I don't think he sounds like he's saying "don't try to figure it out or put research in"

[Skepdick]

Anyone else enjoy exploring the different theories of Consciousness? I'd like to be able to understand as many of them as I can.

...

Have you considered the possibility that your approach is misguided?

Any adequate theory of consciousness would have to account for the theorizer; and the process of theorizing.

Such a theory would have to acount for itself.

[accelafine]

The more I think about this the more silly the 'consciousness' theories sound. No one even knows what they mean by 'consciousness'. We have brains. Our brains enable us to think about stuff, just as we have evolved hands that enable us to do other stuff. What else is there to know? Occam's razor every time. If 'consciousness' means thinking about stuff then yeah, everything with a brain is 'conscious' (unless of course it's unconscious). And who are we to presume to know what ants and cockroaches are thinking about?

[Skepdick]

The more I think about this the more silly the 'consciousness' theories sound. No one even knows what they mean by 'consciousness'. We have brains. Our brains enable us to think about stuff, just as we have evolved hands that enable us to do other stuff. What else is there to know? Occam's razor every time. If 'consciousness' means thinking about stuff then yeah, everything with a brain is 'conscious' (unless of course it's unconscious). And who are we to presume to know what ants and cockroaches are thinking about?

That's where all symbolism gets you. Magic word. Denotes... no idea what.

Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. --Ludwig Wittgenstein

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem

[accelafine]

Ironic then that nearly everyone on here is incapable of expressing themselves coherently using language. I have absolutely no clue what point you are trying to make.

[Skepdick]

Ironic then that nearly everyone on here is incapable of expressing themselves coherently using language. I have absolutely no clue what point you are trying to make.

I am not trying to make any kind of point.

I am simply drawing your attention to the fact that others have arrived at similar conclusions/understanding/insights of the situation and the problem is well-documented. The human activity of denoting using symbols has pitfalls. Such as chasing your own tail on "consciousness".

The game is rigged. If you are going to play - know why.

I can always point out that meta-cognition is necessary but insufficient for conscience, but then I'd have to tell you what cognitionis. And I can't be bothered.

[accelafine]

Everyone on here is so fucking exhausting.

[Skepdick]

Everyone on here is so fucking exhausting.

Perhaps you want to unpack this on a couch. With a therapist.

You feeling of exhaustion doesn't make others exhausting.

[accelafine]

Everyone on here is so fucking exhausting.

Perhaps you want to unpack this on a couch. With a therapist.

You feeling of exhaustion doesn't make others exhausting.

Fuck off and learn some writing skills. Insinuations and gibberish are no substitute for clear communication of thoughts.