Theories of Consciousness

[anonymous66]

I know this topic is old and sort of ran itself out after 3 weeks, but I just now see it and wasn't planning on reading it all.
I would call the 3 main options M, SD, and PD respectively, M for Monism since materialism is an unlikely subset of what I'll call scientific naturalism.

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

For the most part, they can be broken down into 3 main theories.

Materialism - the mind is the brain (or created by the brain). Brain states=mind states. It appears that for this to be the case, consciousness itself would have to be some kind of illusion. I've read some Daniel Dennett - including Bacteria to Bach.

How can anything not actually conscious experience an illusion? That seems self contradictory. I suspect you define the word differently than do I.
As an M person myself, I distinguish conscious process (the part you educate in a classroom) from subconscious process (the part you educate with practice). The latter is waaay more efficient and can to 6th order calculus problems in seconds that would take the inefficient conscious part probably half a day.

The illusion part comes up because materialism only admits physical properties. If mental properties aren't physical (do thoughts have a mass?), and yet we experience them, then following the logic, they must be illusory. Daniel Dennett actually referred to himself as an "illusionist". And of course there is Eliminative Materialism - it denies the existence of certain mental states - if those mental states don't actually exist, and yet we experience them, following the logic, they must be illusory. Doesn't it seem strange to deny the existence of something that so obviously exists? It appears to me that if I know anything, I know that mental properties exist.

It's kind of a problem for materialists / materialism, because if a materialist does actually admit that mental properties exist, then he is no longer a materialist, but rather some sort of dualist.

Galen Strawson suggests that we consider a new kind of monism - one that admits mental properties along with physical properties.

[anonymous66]

Substance dualism - there are 2 types of stuff - mind stuff (or soul stuff) and physical stuff. This appears to be the least popular right now - but there are a few reputable philosophers (i.e. Richard Swinburne) who defend the idea. This is the traditional idea that humans have an immortal soul.

Property dualism - I tend to lump this in with panpsychism. Panpsychism is the idea that everything has some kind of consciousness. Property dualism is the idea that in addition to the "regular" physical attributes like mass and size, there also exist mental properties. In reality, one could accept that property dualism is the case, but reject panpsychism... but I don't think that one could accept panpsychism and reject property dualism. I've read Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers, and Galen Strawson.

OK, I don't know enough about the dualism views to actually assert what they posit, but what they all have in common is a prediction of interaction between the substance or property, and normal physical effects. It can't work without that, so there has to be a structure somewhere sensitive to some cause that isn't a physical one. Sans finding such a thing, it all seem like bunk to me, but that's me. Every dualist I've seen (except Descartes) has hand waved it away, apparently letting it fall to 'magic'.

So anyway, for at least the substance dualists, or any one positing an afterlife, where does conscious thinking/pondering go on? In the physical part or the mental part? Same question with memory. Many people lose their memory near death, especially Alzheimer's victims. Does one get that back upon death, and if so, why isn't it accessible? What of all the other memories lost, including the bad ones, possibly suppressed?
When is the 'soul' assigned to a physical entity? Conception? What if said entity subsequently splits in two? That would mean that for identical twins, one of them is the original and the rest not. You say SD has low probability, but there's an awful lot of people who've bought into the afterlife story. Most of them don't actually attempt to rationalize the opinion, and I suppose we're confining the discussion to those that do.


For both PD and SD, are humans special in having access to this sort of thing? Regardless, do you deny evolution theory? If not, do all creatures have it, like say lichen or a virus? I suppose the panpsychists would say yes to that, but anybody that says not, there has to be a transition somewhere where a parent that operates in the physical way breeds a child that has access to the other way. For the SD case, this amounts to a sort of possession by a new thing with a will of its own, discarding everything evolution put there to have the being do the same task on its own. For the PD case I suppose it can be a gradual leverage of something that was always there but not used well or at all.


Anyway a66, if there are answers to any of this in the 10 pages, I didn't see them.

I guess I don't see the issue you do with evolution. It appears to me that whatever theory of consciousness a person subscribes to, that person could also say "I accept evolution" without holding any contradictory views.

Why would accepting both evolution and PD be a problem? Why would it be a problem to hold any theory of consciousness and also accept evolution?

I'm not sure what you mean by "special" either. I'm looking at this sentence "For both PD and SD, are humans special in having access to this sort of thing?" Can you elaborate?

[anonymous66]

None of this stuff is addressable by science because consciousness on Nagel's use and on Chalmers' use of that term is entirely non-empirical. There is an epistemic constraint here in that nothing arising within consciousness that can "get outside" of consciousness to find out what, if anything, is "really out there." The best we can do is construct metaphysical hypotheses and check for logical consistency. The upshot is that all logically consistent hypotheses must remain in play... the prejudicial elimination of any one of them is no better than religious dogma. I make one concession to prejudice and it is that ontological solipsism is sterile so, unable to take this any further, I pay no further heed to it. The remaining metaphysical hypotheses each lead in turn to a serious problem. Materialism (physicalism) leads to what Chalmers calls the "Hard Problem of Consciousness." Cartesian dualism leads to the "Interaction Problem." And Idealism leads to the "Combination Problem" (first identified by William James who referred to it as the "Mind Dust Problem"). The challenge, then, is to find a way past one or more of these problems. All else is hubris.

I think you meant to say "panspsychism" , not idealism. I believe your sentence should read, And panpsychism leads to the "Combination Problem" - assuming you take panpsychism to be synonymous with property dualism. The question being, how is it that many simple conscious parts can combine to form one complex conscious being?

I haven't put much thought into whether idealism could be an explanation for consciousness.

[Noax]

I know this topic is old and sort of ran itself out after 3 weeks ...

Couple months this time. I guess I don't check back on this site very often, partly due to the site logging me out 6 times during composing of this post, but mostly due to the absence of moderation. So apologies for the delay.

How can anything not actually conscious experience an illusion?

The illusion part comes up because materialism only admits physical properties. If mental properties aren't physical (do thoughts have a mass?), and yet we experience them, then following the logic, they must be illusory.

That's like saying that a physical rock cannot fall off a cliff because 'falling' has no mass even though the rock (and the physical apparatus doing the mental processes) both do have mass. So are you saying that at least materialism must deny all physical processes? I don't think you'll get a lot of agreement there

Daniel Dennett actually referred to himself as an "illusionist". And of course there is Eliminative Materialism - it denies the existence of certain mental states

Materialism doesn't necessitate these stances.

Doesn't it seem strange to deny the existence of something that so obviously exists?

Not being a realist, I don't think anything 'obviously' exists. I put incredibly little stock into that word, as well as into 'intuitive'. Work out the reasons why you think this thing obviously exists and you might see some assumptions that are not so obvious.

It's kind of a problem for materialists / materialism, because if a materialist does actually admit that mental properties exist, then he is no longer a materialist, but rather some sort of dualist.

Nonsense. A typical materialist would suggest that mental processes are material processes, that is, interactions between material components.

I guess I don't see the issue you do with evolution.

My only issue is that people tend to agree with it, but turn away from the details. I noticed you didn't answer my questions (nor any about a potential identity or afterlife), so I cannot identify where the sticking point is for you. To repeat:
Do all things have consciousness, like say lichen, virus, amphiphiles, RNA molecules, rocks?

I'm looking at this sentence "For both PD and SD, are humans special in having access to this sort of thing?" Can you elaborate?

I asked about a list of things above. Some posit that only humans have this dualistic mind, making them preferred (special) entities in the universe. Many religions suggest exactly this. Only humans are eligible for going to heaven or whatever.

[Eodnhoj7]

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

For the most part, they can be broken down into 3 main theories.

Materialism - the mind is the brain (or created by the brain). Brain states=mind states. It appears that for this to be the case, consciousness itself would have to be some kind of illusion. I've read some Daniel Dennett - including Bacteria to Bach.

Substance dualism - there are 2 types of stuff - mind stuff (or soul stuff) and physical stuff. This appears to be the least popular right now - but there are a few reputable philosophers (i.e. Richard Swinburne) who defend the idea. This is the traditional idea that humans have an immortal soul.

Property dualism - I tend to lump this in with panpsychism. Panpsychism is the idea that everything has some kind of consciousness. Property dualism is the idea that in addition to the "regular" physical attributes like mass and size, there also exist mental properties. In reality, one could accept that property dualism is the case, but reject panpsychism... but I don't think that one could accept panpsychism and reject property dualism. I've read Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers, and Galen Strawson.

I've read a few articles about Integrated Information Theory - and I'm aware of the idea of Neutral Monism - they both appear to be either very similar to or are a form of panpsychism.

Consciousness is inseperable from distinction for consciousness is a distinction by nature of consciousness making it a distinction.

[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.

For the most part, they can be broken down into 3 main theories.

Materialism - the mind is the brain (or created by the brain). Brain states=mind states. It appears that for this to be the case, consciousness itself would have to be some kind of illusion. I've read some Daniel Dennett - including Bacteria to Bach.

Substance dualism - there are 2 types of stuff - mind stuff (or soul stuff) and physical stuff. This appears to be the least popular right now - but there are a few reputable philosophers (i.e. Richard Swinburne) who defend the idea. This is the traditional idea that humans have an immortal soul.

Property dualism - I tend to lump this in with panpsychism. Panpsychism is the idea that everything has some kind of consciousness. Property dualism is the idea that in addition to the "regular" physical attributes like mass and size, there also exist mental properties. In reality, one could accept that property dualism is the case, but reject panpsychism... but I don't think that one could accept panpsychism and reject property dualism. I've read Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers, and Galen Strawson.

I've read a few articles about Integrated Information Theory - and I'm aware of the idea of Neutral Monism - they both appear to be either very similar to or are a form of panpsychism.

I’ve spent a lot of time since my original post digging back into Dennett’s From Bacteria to Bach and Back, and I have to admit—my perspective has really shifted.

I used to be firmly in the camp that if my mental experiences (thoughts, the feeling of 'red', etc.) were real, they had to be something 'extra'—some kind of non-physical substance or property. I still hold that these experiences are 100% real, but I’ve started to realize that if Denneitt is right they just aren’t what I originally thought they were.

Dennett’s arguments about 'competence without comprehension' and the way our brains are essentially 'programmed' by culture and memes have become very compelling to me. I don’t know if he’s ultimately 'right,' but I’ve stopped viewing his 'Illusionist' label as a denial of our experience and started seeing it as a fascinating way to describe our brain’s interface.

[popeye1945]

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

For the most part, they can be broken down into 3 main theories.

Materialism - the mind is the brain (or created by the brain). Brain states=mind states. It appears that for this to be the case, consciousness itself would have to be some kind of illusion. I've read some Daniel Dennett - including Bacteria to Bach.

Substance dualism - there are 2 types of stuff - mind stuff (or soul stuff) and physical stuff. This appears to be the least popular right now - but there are a few reputable philosophers (i.e. Richard Swinburne) who defend the idea. This is the traditional idea that humans have an immortal soul.

Property dualism - I tend to lump this in with panpsychism. Panpsychism is the idea that everything has some kind of consciousness. Property dualism is the idea that in addition to the "regular" physical attributes like mass and size, there also exist mental properties. In reality, one could accept that property dualism is the case, but reject panpsychism... but I don't think that one could accept panpsychism and reject property dualism. I've read Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers, and Galen Strawson.

I've read a few articles about Integrated Information Theory - and I'm aware of the idea of Neutral Monism - they both appear to be either very similar to or are a form of panpsychism.

I believe much confusion and/or abstraction arises from the fact that presence/being, whether annate or inannate, is cause to all other presences/beings through reciprocal causation. This just underlines the fact that there is no such thing as an independent existence. There is no such thing as human action; there is but human reaction, and reactions through reciprocal causation are in fact causes in the network of collective being, the physical world. All things radiate their existence, as do the surrounding energies of the cosmos; these energies alter/change the standing state of one's biology, such that you do not experience reality, you experience the consistently altered biology of the energies around you. Your everyday reality, your apparent reality, is a biological readout. These energies of the presences around you, plus those of the cosmos, play upon your being as if you were their instrument, and the melody which is played upon you is your apparent or daily reality. It is through this reciprocal causation, cause and reaction of imperfect living forms, that allows for evolutionary adaptation to the ever-changing world in its response to the greater reality of the cosmos. Something like the Hindu net of Indra, the net of jewels, each gem in the net, reflecting every other gem in the net, where all are cause by presence, and in response are cause by reaction. The bodymind is the receiver of the energies surrounding us, the body the mind's interface to the myriad of energies and energy fields surrounding us, all playing the symphonia of collective being.

[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.

For the most part, they can be broken down into 3 main theories.

Materialism - the mind is the brain (or created by the brain). Brain states=mind states. It appears that for this to be the case, consciousness itself would have to be some kind of illusion. I've read some Daniel Dennett - including Bacteria to Bach.

Substance dualism - there are 2 types of stuff - mind stuff (or soul stuff) and physical stuff. This appears to be the least popular right now - but there are a few reputable philosophers (i.e. Richard Swinburne) who defend the idea. This is the traditional idea that humans have an immortal soul.

Property dualism - I tend to lump this in with panpsychism. Panpsychism is the idea that everything has some kind of consciousness. Property dualism is the idea that in addition to the "regular" physical attributes like mass and size, there also exist mental properties. In reality, one could accept that property dualism is the case, but reject panpsychism... but I don't think that one could accept panpsychism and reject property dualism. I've read Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers, and Galen Strawson.

I've read a few articles about Integrated Information Theory - and I'm aware of the idea of Neutral Monism - they both appear to be either very similar to or are a form of panpsychism.

I believe much confusion and/or abstraction arises from the fact that presence/being, whether annate or inannate, is cause to all other presences/beings through reciprocal causation. This just underlines the fact that there is no such thing as an independent existence. There is no such thing as human action; there is but human reaction, and reactions through reciprocal causation are in fact causes in the network of collective being, the physical world. All things radiate their existence, as do the surrounding energies of the cosmos; these energies alter/change the standing state of one's biology, such that you do not experience reality, you experience the consistently altered biology of the energies around you. Your everyday reality, your apparent reality, is a biological readout. These energies of the presences around you, plus those of the cosmos, play upon your being as if you were their instrument, and the melody which is played upon you is your apparent or daily reality. It is through this reciprocal causation, cause and reaction of imperfect living forms, that allows for evolutionary adaptation to the ever-changing world in its response to the greater reality of the cosmos. Something like the Hindu net of Indra, the net of jewels, each gem in the net, reflecting every other gem in the net, where all are cause by presence, and in response are cause by reaction. The bodymind is the receiver of the energies surrounding us, the body the mind's interface to the myriad of energies and energy fields surrounding us, all playing the symphonia of collective being.

Thanks for sharing this perspective, popeye1945. The metaphor of the body as an instrument being played on by cosmic and environmental energies is a compelling way to frame experience. The reference to Indra's Net captures that sense of radical interconnectedness well.

Your post immediately made me think of Process Philosophy (and its offshoot, Process Theology), which I've found fascinating when exploring these questions. Founded largely by Alfred North Whitehead, process thought shifts the focus away from static "substances" or fixed "objects" and instead views reality as a dynamic, interconnected network of events, processes, and becoming.

There are some striking similarities between process thinking and what you're describing:

Relational Being: In process thought, nothing exists in isolation. An entity's identity is shaped by its relationships and its "prehension" (incorporation) of the universe around it—very much like your idea of reciprocal causation and the biological readout.

Experience as Primary: Process philosophy suggests that experience isn't just an accidental byproduct of rigid physical matter locked in a skull, but a fundamental feature of how events interact with one another across the cosmos.

It seems like this view challenges the traditional 'brain in a vat' model by emphasizing that consciousness is inherently embedded, active, and relational.

In terms of the broad categories of consciousness, would you place this framework under a form of Neutral Monism—where the fundamental stuff of reality is neither strictly mind nor matter, but relational events that give rise to both? Or do you see it as a distinct alternative to the traditional Materialism/Dualism taxonomy altogether?

[popeye1945]

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

For the most part, they can be broken down into 3 main theories.

Materialism - the mind is the brain (or created by the brain). Brain states=mind states. It appears that for this to be the case, consciousness itself would have to be some kind of illusion. I've read some Daniel Dennett - including Bacteria to Bach.

Substance dualism - there are 2 types of stuff - mind stuff (or soul stuff) and physical stuff. This appears to be the least popular right now - but there are a few reputable philosophers (i.e. Richard Swinburne) who defend the idea. This is the traditional idea that humans have an immortal soul.

Property dualism - I tend to lump this in with panpsychism. Panpsychism is the idea that everything has some kind of consciousness. Property dualism is the idea that in addition to the "regular" physical attributes like mass and size, there also exist mental properties. In reality, one could accept that property dualism is the case, but reject panpsychism... but I don't think that one could accept panpsychism and reject property dualism. I've read Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers, and Galen Strawson.

I've read a few articles about Integrated Information Theory - and I'm aware of the idea of Neutral Monism - they both appear to be either very similar to or are a form of panpsychism.

I believe much confusion and/or abstraction arises from the fact that presence/being, whether annate or inannate, is cause to all other presences/beings through reciprocal causation. This just underlines the fact that there is no such thing as an independent existence. There is no such thing as human action; there is but human reaction, and reactions through reciprocal causation are in fact causes in the network of collective being, the physical world. All things radiate their existence, as do the surrounding energies of the cosmos; these energies alter/change the standing state of one's biology, such that you do not experience reality, you experience the consistently altered biology of the energies around you. Your everyday reality, your apparent reality, is a biological readout. These energies of the presences around you, plus those of the cosmos, play upon your being as if you were their instrument, and the melody which is played upon you is your apparent or daily reality. It is through this reciprocal causation, cause and reaction of imperfect living forms, that allows for evolutionary adaptation to the ever-changing world in its response to the greater reality of the cosmos. Something like the Hindu net of Indra, the net of jewels, each gem in the net, reflecting every other gem in the net, where all are cause by presence, and in response are cause by reaction. The bodymind is the receiver of the energies surrounding us, the body the mind's interface to the myriad of energies and energy fields surrounding us, all playing the symphonia of collective being.

Thanks for sharing this perspective, popeye1945. The metaphor of the body as an instrument being played on by cosmic and environmental energies is a compelling way to frame experience. The reference to Indra's Net captures that sense of radical interconnectedness well.

Your post immediately made me think of Process Philosophy (and its offshoot, Process Theology), which I've found fascinating when exploring these questions. Founded largely by Alfred North Whitehead, process thought shifts the focus away from static "substances" or fixed "objects" and instead views reality as a dynamic, interconnected network of events, processes, and becoming.

There are some striking similarities between process thinking and what you're describing:

Relational Being: In process thought, nothing exists in isolation. An entity's identity is shaped by its relationships and its "prehension" (incorporation) of the universe around it—very much like your idea of reciprocal causation and the biological readout.

Experience as Primary: Process philosophy suggests that experience isn't just an accidental byproduct of rigid physical matter locked in a skull, but a fundamental feature of how events interact with one another across the cosmos.

It seems like this view challenges the traditional 'brain in a vat' model by emphasizing that consciousness is inherently embedded, active, and relational.

In terms of the broad categories of consciousness, would you place this framework under a form of Neutral Monism—where the fundamental stuff of reality is neither strictly mind nor matter, but relational events that give rise to both? Or do you see it as a distinct alternative to the traditional Materialism/Dualism taxonomy altogether?

It is a resonant ontology where presence/being itself is cause, and the rest of its surroundings are in reaction, which is cause to our first-mentioned presence; this is where the term reciprocal causation comes in. All of man's so-called actions are, in fact, reactions; experience itself is a reaction. One's apparent reality, one's everyday reality, is in fact not reality; apparent reality is a biological readout. The individual organism receives causal resonance relative to the abilities of its senses, screening out what, of course, it cannot sense, making apparent reality a melody only the organism can hear. Where there is a different biology, there is a different apparent reality, and where there is a fault in one's biology, it of course will alter its apparent reality. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things and the only source of meaning in the world; in the absence of biological consciousness, the physical world is meaningless, for all meaning belongs to the organism; never does it belong to the object. The physical world is a continuum, but for the organism it is a world of duality; the world is other, and this delusion governs mankind. This delusion puts the human organism out of resonance with the source of its own being, and to live properly, one must live in the knowledge of two realms, that of duality and that of the world as a continuum back into which it must dissolve. That is it for now.

[anonymous66]

I believe much confusion and/or abstraction arises from the fact that presence/being, whether annate or inannate, is cause to all other presences/beings through reciprocal causation... The bodymind is the receiver of the energies surrounding us, the body the mind's interface to the myriad of energies and energy fields surrounding us, all playing the symphonia of collective being.

Thanks for sharing this perspective, popeye1945. The metaphor of the body as an instrument being played on by cosmic and environmental energies is a compelling way to frame experience. The reference to Indra's Net captures that sense of radical interconnectedness well....
In terms of the broad categories of consciousness, would you place this framework under a form of Neutral Monism—where the fundamental stuff of reality is neither strictly mind nor matter, but relational events that give rise to both? Or do you see it as a distinct alternative to the traditional Materialism/Dualism taxonomy altogether?

It is a resonant ontology where presence/being itself is cause, and the rest of its surroundings are in reaction, which is cause to our first-mentioned presence; this is where the term reciprocal causation comes in. All of man's so-called actions are, in fact, reactions; experience itself is a reaction. One's apparent reality, one's everyday reality, is in fact not reality; apparent reality is a biological readout. The individual organism receives causal resonance relative to the abilities of its senses, screening out what, of course, it cannot sense, making apparent reality a melody only the organism can hear. Where there is a different biology, there is a different apparent reality, and where there is a fault in one's biology, it of course will alter its apparent reality. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things and the only source of meaning in the world; in the absence of biological consciousness, the physical world is meaningless, for all meaning belongs to the organism; never does it belong to the object. The physical world is a continuum, but for the organism it is a world of duality; the world is other, and this delusion governs mankind. This delusion puts the human organism out of resonance with the source of its own being, and to live properly, one must live in the knowledge of two realms, that of duality and that of the world as a continuum back into which it must dissolve. That is it for now.

A few points you raised that stand out:

1. Reality as a "Biological Readout"

I think your phrase "apparent reality is a biological readout" is a great way to put it. Science supports this—our brains don't give us raw access to physical reality; they give us a evolved, species-specific user interface. Infrared light and radio waves are around us right now, but our biological "readout" screens them out because they weren't necessary for survival.

2. Meaning Belongs to the Subject, Not the Object

I agree that meaning is intrinsic to the observer rather than the physical object itself. A physical particle doesn't carry "meaning" on its own; meaning arises in the relational gap between a experiencing subject and its environment.

3. The Duality Trap

Your point about the organism separating itself from the continuum is interesting. We tend to reify the boundary between "subject" and "object," forgetting that the human organism is fundamentally an integrated participant in the broader physical process, not an isolated observer watching it from behind glass.

Where I’d be curious to hear more is on your point about "reciprocal causation." If all human actions are ultimately reactions, do you see the organism as a purely deterministic biological automaton, or does it contribute its own novel agency back into the feedback loop?
Also, I’d love to know who has most influenced your thinking here—are there specific books or authors that helped shape this framework for you? I'm always looking for good reading material in this space.

[popeye1945]

It is a resonant ontology where presence/being itself is cause, and the rest of its surroundings are in reaction, which is cause to our first-mentioned presence; this is where the term reciprocal causation comes in. All of man's so-called actions are, in fact, reactions; experience itself is a reaction. One's apparent reality, one's everyday reality, is in fact not reality; apparent reality is a biological readout. The individual organism receives causal resonance relative to the abilities of its senses, screening out what, of course, it cannot sense, making apparent reality a melody only the organism can hear. Where there is a different biology, there is a different apparent reality, and where there is a fault in one's biology, it of course will alter its apparent reality. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things and the only source of meaning in the world; in the absence of biological consciousness, the physical world is meaningless, for all meaning belongs to the organism; never does it belong to the object. The physical world is a continuum, but for the organism it is a world of duality; the world is other, and this delusion governs mankind. This delusion puts the human organism out of resonance with the source of its own being, and to live properly, one must live in the knowledge of two realms, that of duality and that of the world as a continuum back into which it must dissolve. That is it for now.


A few points you raised that stand out:

1. Reality as a "Biological Readout"

I think your phrase "apparent reality is a biological readout" is a great way to put it. Science supports this—our brains don't give us raw access to physical reality; they give us an evolved, species-specific user interface. Infrared light and radio waves are around us right now, but our biological "readout" screens them out because they weren't necessary for survival. [/quote]

Yes, everything you perceive, consciously or subconsciously, has altered the standing state of your biology. Each organism/each species' apparent reality is different, though closer to a common experience within species. Ultimate reality is said to be a place of no things, unmanifested energies and energy fields. It is a spectrum of these energies that are the substance of the biological creation of apparent reality, as if these energies were playing biological subjects like their instruments, playing a somewhat different apparent reality upon differing species. Each sensed object has its quality sensed and evaluated according to the nature of the organism's biology; things are hard relative to the density of the human body, hot reality to the human body, and so on. As I stated previously, biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and in its absence the physical world is meaningless. Biology is, if you like, independent islands of meaning creation, the only source of meaning in the world.


2. Meaning Belongs to the Subject, Not the Object
I agree that meaning is intrinsic to the observer rather than the physical object itself. A physical particle doesn't carry "meaning" on its own; meaning arises in the relational gap between an experiencing subject and its environment.[/quote]

Yes, the energy form/object is cause to the standing state of the biological organism; it is its resonance that alters the standing state of the organism's biology, giving perception, experience, and meaning to the subject consciousness. The subject is not experiencing reality; the subject is experiencing the altered state of its biology. The altered states are meaning to which the subject then projects outwardly as if the object actually had meaning, a delusion assesment. Meaning is a biological function enabling the subject to survive in its dualistic world. The physical world as energy just is, devoid of all meanings. Like the old Buddhist teaching his students, he holds up a flower, and the student is to dicern his meaning. A bright student understands, Master, the flower has no meaning; it just is.

3. The Duality Trap
Your point about the organism separating itself from the continuum is interesting. We tend to reify the boundary between "subject" and "object," forgetting that the human organism is fundamentally an integrated participant in the broader physical process, not an isolated observer watching it from behind glass.[/quote]

Has Schopenhuarer stated long ago that the subject and object stand or fall together; there truly is no separating them. Take the subject consciousness away, and there is no object; take the object away, and there is no subjective consciousness. I feel myself that man's creation of the belief in free will as institutionalized has created a harsher reality for the human creature than is necessary; it is a heavy burden to hold every individual totally responsible for the state of their psyche and material status as if they were of an independent existence entirely self-responsible; it is rather arrogant really. One way to understand how it came about is that the human creature lives, of necessity, in a dual world; dualism here is a necessity at the same time as it is delusional. It takes some intellectual energy to live in both realms of the human circumstance.

Where I’d be curious to hear more is on your point about "reciprocal causation." If all human actions are ultimately reactions, do you see the organism as a purely deterministic biological automaton, or does it contribute its own novel agency back into the feedback loop?
Also, I’d love to know who has most influenced your thinking here—are there specific books or authors that helped shape this framework for you? I'm always looking for good reading material in this space. [/quote]

Reciprocal causation ties reality together, you might say; I imagine sometimes this reciprocal causation holds for the Earth in relation to the cosmos. Every being/presence is cause to all other beings, and their reactions are reciprocal causes, almost like an atomic reaction; perhaps that is an excellent analogy: destruction and creation hold some similarities in common. It is really impossible so far to be sure that there is any true free choice; the complexity is just too awesome. There is one thing an organism cannot do, and that is to not react to its environment, for even a withheld reaction is a reaction to the environment. Obviously, humanity has a greater range of possibilities than an animal reacting to a set form of instincts; perhaps our range of instincts has just grown by sharing the same feedback loop. I am pretty sure in my own mind taking the complexity of evolutionary history into account and the development of the cosmos along with the profound complexities of human biology, that feel will is delusional. That is it for now; the sandman calls.


Top
295 posts … 20
Return to “Philosophy of Mind”