[FRIAM] Is consciousness a mystery? (used to be "mystery...deeper".T

[Prof David West]

I am very sympathetic to your point that a serious discussion requires a framework of some sort. I am not sure about a list of scalar questions. More sure about some kind of platforming, i.e., each conversant setting forth from whence their particular perspective, specific foundational ideas, will shape their contributions to the discussion.

I have seen evidence of the existence of such platforms, sometimes overlapping, in the discussion so far. You and Eric, Glen and Marcus, Nick and Pierce, Eric and I, ...

A general statement of my own: philosophies of pan-psychism, Buddhist epistemology and metaphysics, Quantum Consciousness with current fascination with Penrose's and Hameroff's Orch-OR, and personal experience via hallucinogens.  Of course these would have to be made much more explicit, with references, to constitute a true platform.

davew


On Wed, Jul 10, 2024, at 11:10 AM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> Before questing for El Dorado, some caveats:
> 1. I cannot participate as deeply as I otherwise would because I have a pile of work I need to apply myself to.
> 
> 2. It appears to me that there would be value in a pre-discussion survey where willing participants answered scalar valued questions (strongly disagree..strongly agree, NA) regarding their beliefs about consciousness. Questions could include: consciousness is a thing, consciousness is a heritable trait, consciousness is given by the material world, One exhibits degrees of consciousness, Language is necessary for consciousness, propositional logic is a useful tool for the analysis of consciousness, consciousness is the same thing as subjective experience, etc... The hope would then be to understand what people expect from the conversation and to make coping with another's perspective easier (localizing another's hut). Perhaps we could start with pooling a set of questions to ask one another?
> 
> My personal preferences include ideas not that dissimilar to Eric's. I tend to rely on the idea that others made of the same kind of stuff as me likely have experiences similar to my own. I feel that the burden of proof is on those that postulate p-zombies (or any other anti-object) and that they ought to not only provide these objects, but show me how they can be anything but transient here in this world. I wish to give privileged ontological status to those that have struggled and fought to exist here in the world. While I enjoy counterfactuals as much as the next nerd, it is difficult enough to study and understand what is already here.
> 
> Like Brouwer and others, I find existence claims mostly unsatisfying. While it may be the case that we experience stuff, it may also be the case that we cannot reason solely from the data provided by this claim. This happens quite a lot in analytic traditions (formal philosophy, mathematics, logic, etc...), so my mentioning it should not be too controversial or over anyone's head.
> 
> Anyway, that is what I have for now.
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20240713/45d2f159/attachment.html>