On Mar 21, 4:22Â am, EdgarO...@
att.net wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2:36Â pm, "andy-k" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>>> I invite all those interested in a novel approach to the so called
>>> 'Hard Problem of Consciousness' and how it is related to the
>>> structure of physical reality and the nature of the observer in
>>> modern science to take a look at my paper
>>>
http://EdgarLOwen.com/hardproblem.pdf. All serious comments would
>>> be welcome either directly to my email or in response to this post.
>
>> In your essay you write:
>
>>> "Consciousness, in the fundamental sense of the hard problem, is
>>> something in which individual content may appear, rather than the
>>> sequence of content itself."
>>> [...]
>>> "The diverse contents of consciousness are recognized as forms in the
>>> medium of consciousness itself."
>>> [...]
>>> "But what is this underlying substance of consciousness that remains as
>>> individual contents subside?"
>>> [...]
>>> "So it is this direct experience of the present moment that remains
>>> that is the essence of what we mean by consciousness itself, as
>>> opposed to its contents. It is the presence and source of this
>>> underlying field of consciousness that the hard problem seeks to
>>> address. For without this underlying consciousness, there can be no
>>> consciousness of individual content."
>
>> It seems clear that you regard consciousness as a medium within which the
>> "contents of consciousness" arise. You may be aware of William James' essay
>> "Does Consciousness Exist?" in which he demolishes the idea of consciousness
>> as substance. If so then I'd be interested to hear your counter-argument.
>> If you're not aware of this essay then you may find it interesting:
>
>
> Andy-k,
>
> Thanks for the link. I read it some time ago in college. I wouldn't
> quite say that I regard consciousness as a medium as that implies it
> is some sort of medium independent of the rest of physical reality.
> I'm not suggesting that at all. The basic idea is that what produces
> consciousness is simply the flow of clocktime through the present
> moment. Everything that has actual reality exists only in this present
> moment and every entity 'experiences' impinging events within that
> present moment according to its own particular structure. So every
> entity has a kind of proto-consciousness. Humans 'experience' events
> in the present moment in terms of their particular cognitive and
> sensory structures just as do all entities. The result for humans is
> called human consciousness. Consciousness is simply the reality of the
> present moment in terms of an observer's structure.
>
> Edgar- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I apologize for cutting in, but I wanted to respond to this comment,
and esp. to the idea contained in last sentence.
The clear expression of ideas is appreciated, which helps to inspire a
response. I will mention first that, we might consider filtering our
observations though an understanding of brain function itself -- that
is, the words we choose with which to describe thoughts, ideas, and
experiences, are literally products of our brain processes, and must
therefore be taken with a grain of salt. The observer must be
observed through an additional layer of detached observation in order
to clarify why we are describing things with the terms we use.
Also, one might more correctly claim that "Consciousness is the
connected movement of coordinated associational processes over time,
culminating in that (result) which our brain activity triggers its
language cortex to describe as 'conscious experience' ". Notice that
thought, language, etc., are processes, thus require time. Otherwise,
I would begin by saying "Th..." frozen at that moment, and the full
linguistic course of communication would not even proceed to "The" --
that is, at any instant we have a fragment and not the whole, and
therefore, brain activity at any moment is part of a developing
totality which can only be considered "consciousness" over time. The
course of thinking, and of fleshing out ideas, requires time also. To
test this, engage in thought, and have someone suddenly interrupt you
-- the process is aborted midway and conceptualization is
fragmentary. Furthermore, isn't it true that, the rapid activation of
abstract representative centers denotes the working brain -- that is,
the mind -- and that chains of neuronal activation also require time
(and this is different from the computer analogy or mathematical
analogy which can represent an entire program or formula frozen in an
instant of time, even though it involves procedure over time for a
living brain to comprehend and cognize either)? If consciousness
reflects a process rather than a momentary state -- rather than a
sequence of moments each of which is sufficient to describe
consciousness (again, do not be fooled by the computer analogy, since
semiconductors operate on a very different principle from living
cells), then a segment of time is required in order to grasp its
significance fully.
We often follow analogies too closely, too literally, and comparing
the brain to a computer or to a mathematical equation on a blackboard,
in my opinion, is not quite accurate. Living cells, and all the
movement that implies, have something to do with consciousness, and
that is a riddle that our necessarily mortal and limited brains may
not be able to grasp intuitively. Thus "It seems this way" -- the
intuitive approach -- may be no more accurate than intuitive attempts
to refute quantum mechanics, which are proven to be wrong, and so on.
I will add that, the consciousness' self-observations are woefully
subjective and ought not to be mixed or confused with entirely
objective scientific scrutiny, or else errors will result. This may
call for a definite division between philosophy and neuroscience,
although the two may be integrated so long as their independent
implications and definitions are respected.
