RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless?

RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tweakabelle -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/22/2011 5:12:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I think of my body as being much like any other machine, it is just an organic machine that houses my consciousness. You're positive it isn't modelling or creating your consciousness, then? That's a pretty crude and chauvinistic looking form of dualism, julia. Isn't there a bit of a dilemma here? On one hand, we can adopt the post-modernist option and say that consciousness can only be comprehended through its effects. Without these effects it is irrelevant. In this view consciousness becomes subjectivity, the relationship between the agent and the society it inhabits. Nothing precedes or exceeds it. While it's not without merit, this view strikes me a being a trifle glib. OTOH we can consider consciousness as a thing-in-itself, which seems to leave the door ajar for all kinds of excesses, of which the dualism identified above is just one example. Wouldn't this amount to repeating Descartes' error? While I'm far from categorical on the issue, I feel there are advantages available in conceptualising consciousness as something other than a 100% personal internal possession. Gender might be a useful analogy here. Gender is commonly believed to an internal possession. In practice it's subject at all times to external validation and approval (if in doubt, ask any gender rebel). In that sense at least, gender is less than a 100% personal possession.

rawtape -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/22/2011 5:25:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: rawtape let's look at social constructs like money, tenure, citizenship, and baseball's "balls and strikes." All of these constructs/concepts have meaning now, but at one point in our history as a species, they didn't. So yes, I think, social constructs serve as an example of where we created meaning out of nothing; not overnight, but from nothing nevertheless. I do like this line of argument. But doesn't it beg the question: What's not a social construct/concept? What Anscombe called "brute facts" -- examples like say, mountain or water. Now, we can use labels called mountain or water as social constructs, but I think most of us (weak constructivists) would agree that mountains and water would still exist if the human race were to instantaneously disappear tomorrow. I don't think the same can be said of baseball's "balls and strikes."

tweakabelle -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/22/2011 5:36:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: IceDemeter Do the current theories in physics not include energy as being material? Would thoughts and concepts not be energies, and thus, material? The current edge of physics, until the LHC starts giving us something interesting, is that mass is frequency. Literally. What we measure and experience as masses are patterns of vibration in the pure energy of a dynamical void. If that energy was quiescent, the universe as we know it would disappear. So, it is perhaps interesting to note in this context that the "void" (sunyata, emptiness, "no thing"-ness) is a common metaphor for pure consciousness in some systems of thought. Thus, for example, from the Yoga Sutras: 1:2 Yoga is the stilling of the fluctuations of the mind 1:3 When that is accomplished, the seer abides in his true nature From the viewpoint of the Yoga Sutras (and Sankhya philosophy) whatever possesses "thing"-ness is prakriti, material, including thoughts. I suppose a Western reductionist view would equate thoughts with brain activity and agree. K. I find this an interesting perspective. I hope I'm not being too reductionist in the following speculation. Most of us would, I feel, more or less automatically conceive of consciousness a something wholly internal, a personal possession if you like. This view set out above seems to posit that "pure consciousness" is something that attainable through certain practices and/or states of being, if I understand it correctly. This seems to me to saying that through that act of attaining, that consciousness-experienced-by-an-individual merges/integrates with a much greater thing. This seems to me inconsistent with a notion of consciousness as wholly internal and/or purely an individual experience. That there is (at least) an element of an individual's consciousness external to the individual's physiology. If this is the case, doesn't this have truly profound implications? Please pardon the clumsy phrasing but I'm feeling my way through here. I feel safe in saying that English was not designed with this kind of speculation in mind. [:D]

juliaoceania -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/22/2011 5:37:59 PM)
quote: While I'm far from categorical on the issue, I feel there are advantages available in conceptualising consciousness as something other than a 100% personal internal possession. Gender might be a useful analogy here. Gender is commonly believed to an internal possession. In practice it's subject at all times to external validation and approval (if in doubt, ask any gender rebel). In that sense at least, gender is less than a 100% personal possession. Are you talking about identity of the consciousness, the ego if you will? I think consciousness is possibly much more flexible than the identity we assign it through our material experience. It is why meditation (the quieting of the physical structure perhaps?) can prove to be enlightening on many levels.

tweakabelle -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/22/2011 6:05:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: While I'm far from categorical on the issue, I feel there are advantages available in conceptualising consciousness as something other than a 100% personal internal possession. Gender might be a useful analogy here. Gender is commonly believed to an internal possession. In practice it's subject at all times to external validation and approval (if in doubt, ask any gender rebel). In that sense at least, gender is less than a 100% personal possession. Are you talking about identity of the consciousness, the ego if you will? I think consciousness is possibly much more flexible than the identity we assign it through our material experience. It is why meditation (the quieting of the physical structure perhaps?) can prove to be enlightening on many levels. More about the ways in which we think about and understand these things. I'd prefer to avoid the notion of identity (as its commonly used) altogether. Most of us think of our genders as personal possessions ("my" gender, we "belong" to a gender etc). To perform any gender successfully, we communicate a series of coded signals ( appearance, dress, ......) that allows others to 'read'/interpret the gender we are performing. If those signals aren't readable or are read as incomplete then, external approval is withheld and the performace fails. The authenticity of one's gender is then called into account. Transgender is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. But transgender people only differ from the rest of us in that they perform these rituals consciously, as a consequence of choosing their gender role. If you think about it (and most of us don't) the rest of us do precisely the same, only sub-consciously - we've been doing the same thing automatically since birth. Not dissimilar to an actor performing a role on stage..... requiring audience approval. In as much as 'our' genders rely on this external approval, they cannot be said to be purely internal possessions can they? I am suggesting that our notions of consciousness might benefit if we think about it as having an essential element that is external to the physical body, not as something wholly within. It could tie in with what you're saying as one aspect of the flexibility of consciousness (the external world is forever changing, no?) . I hope that helps, or have I (as usual) made the whole thing as clear as mud? [:D]

Kirata -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/22/2011 6:09:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rawtape I'm talking about a deeper level of understanding/meaning here, one that allows you to manipulate/hack this particular facet of consciousness, and at a more subtle level than say, clubbing the subject or feeding/injecting it with psychoactive substances. In other words, that it may be possible for our state of mind and emotions to be manipulated without our knowledge or consent? Well, I think that happens all the time, as a consequence of the fact that we are also tightly coupled to our environment. There is the sea of electromagnetic and noise pollution that so many of us live in, just for starters. And that's without even mentioning advertising! Heh. But yes, if that's where you're going, I think the possibility that some advanced technique might be employed against us for nefarious purposes cannot be dismissed. Or, for that matter, that we might one day employ such a technique for pleasure, like a recreational drug. I would prefer, however, that instead of playing with fun (or nasty) toys, we would begin to realize how much the environment affects us, and to design our environments for better effect. And, too, that we would begin to be as interested in understanding consciousness as we are in understanding the brain, instead of falsely assuming that the coupling between the two establishes an equivalence. K.

juliaoceania -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/22/2011 6:12:51 PM)
Since gender roles are culturally determined, and the cues of genderedness are also culturally determined, these identities are transactional on a cultural level. I think transgendered people will often report that they did not have to affect these cultural cues of the gender they weren't born to, but that often it comes rather naturally for them... which is why they switch.

tweakabelle -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/22/2011 6:32:51 PM)
quote: quote: I do like this line of argument. But doesn't it beg the question: What's not a social construct/concept? What Anscombe called "brute facts" -- examples like say, mountain or water. Now, we can use labels called mountain or water as social constructs, but I think most of us (weak constructivists) would agree that mountains and water would still exist if the human race were to instantaneously disappear tomorrow. I don't think the same can be said of baseball's "balls and strikes." Fair enough point. However in a discussion of this nature ("RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless?") is that strictly relevant? The 'meanings' of 'brute facts' such as mountain and/or water aren't really in dispute here. Nor could they be said to be human achievements/inventions/narratives. It seems to me that the notion of consciousness is of a wholly different order. If you agree, then my second question remains....... Could it be that 'meaning' is the greatest human achievement/invention/construct/narrative of them all?

tweakabelle -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/22/2011 6:44:11 PM)
quote: Since gender roles are culturally determined, and the cues of genderedness are also culturally determined, these identities are transactional on a cultural level. Yes. This is the point here. Most of us regard gender as wholly and deeply personal, something basic to our constitution. Many believe (falsely IMHO) that gender is explicable by reference to biology alone. In fact, it has a considerable external/social/cultural element. I am wondering if consciousness is the same. Something we tend to conceive of as personal internal basic to our make up. Some ppl have even claimed on this thread that is explicable by reference to its physical phenomena alone. Is there a significant element of human consciousness that is external to our bodies? And if there is how is this manifest? What are its effects on individuals and their experience of themselves? Doesn't this necessitate a radical shift in the way most of us conceive of human consciousness?

juliaoceania -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/22/2011 7:04:05 PM)
quote: Could it be that 'meaning' is the greatest human achievement/invention/construct/narrative of them all? We are the gods we worship Now is this meaning that is created together metaphysical?

rawtape -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/22/2011 7:44:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Fair enough point. However in a discussion of this nature ("RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless?") is that strictly relevant? The 'meanings' of 'brute facts' such as mountain and/or water aren't really in dispute here. Nor could they be said to be human achievements/inventions/narratives. It seems to me that the notion of consciousness is of a wholly different order. If you agree, then my second question remains....... Could it be that 'meaning' is the greatest human achievement/invention/construct/narrative of them all? TB, I am going to say not, for what I think are a slew of subjective reasons. First, "greatest" is a rather a vague and slippery term in this context for me. I know I tend to go on about definitions (probably a consequence of the residual OCD baggage that tends to accompany most geneticists), but like Humpty Dumpty, I am more comfortable when I can get a word to mean "just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." Second, "greatest human achievement/invention/construct/narrative" has, to me, a certain whiff of volition/intention/agency about it. I find "meaning" in the context of how we are using it here to be almost unconscious, an incidental, almost accidental consequence of the fact that we exist and function in a culture, one which communicates. Third, if, as I just suggested, culture and communication are prerequisites for establishing meaning, and meaning is almost an incidental byproduct, then again it fails to impress me with its "greatness". I am more inclined to see culture and the fact that we are social creatures, as "greater" achievements. Though, if you press me on it, I'll be forced to admit that those didn't require much volition on our part either -- and were most likely simple artifacts of selective pressures. And I dare say some would argue that certain emergent properties like "meaning" are "greater" than the multiplicity of simple social/cultural interactions from which they arose. But, as I've said previously, this is an extremely subjective appraisal; coloured obviously by my biases and how I respond to certain words.

tweakabelle -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/22/2011 11:43:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rawtape quote: tweakabelle Could it be that 'meaning' is the greatest human achievement/invention/construct/narrative of them all? TB, I am going to say not, for what I think are a slew of subjective reasons. First, "greatest" is a rather a vague and slippery term in this context for me. [.....] I find "meaning" in the context of how we are using it here to be almost unconscious, an incidental, almost accidental consequence of the fact that we exist and function in a culture, one which communicates. Third, if, as I just suggested, culture and communication are prerequisites for establishing meaning, and meaning is almost an incidental byproduct, then again it fails to impress me with its "greatness". I am more inclined to see culture and the fact that we are social creatures, as "greater" achievements. Though, if you press me on it, I'll be forced to admit that those didn't require much volition on our part either -- and were most likely simple artifacts of selective pressures. And I dare say some would argue that certain emergent properties like "meaning" are "greater" than the multiplicity of simple social/cultural interactions from which they arose. Thanks for a lucid response. Please don't ever think I'll be dissatisfied with subjective answers. Quite the opposite! You will hear me dissent rather loudly if any one ever claims "objective' status. Objectivity seems to me further down the track than humans are capable of progressing. So I don't ever seek or expect anything other than subjective answers. I do take your point about my sloppy almost promiscuous use of "greatest". While hierarchies don't interest me much, I did want to emphasise the importance of the achievement of meaning in the scheme of things. Yes I agree that "culture and communication are prerequisites for establishing meaning,". Just to get to that point of consensus seems to justify the discussion that preceded it to me. And I like the idea of viewing this and similar matters as "emergent properties". For me this is a promising way of progressing understanding in areas that have long been immobilised by the sterile logjam also known as the nature/nurture argument. There seems to me to be a number of 'conditions of possibility' that must be present (or pre-exist if you prefer) before this emergent property can develop. We could list a brain of a certain complexity, a culture of a certain degree of sophistication/development, the existence of a language or efficient communication code among them. I'd like to posit the need of cultures and social structures to reproduce and perpetuate themselves as part of that mix. If this suggestion is valid, it redirects our attention on the operations of power and to a certain extent vindicates Nietzsche's ideas on power, language and morality. In this view, the act of creating, attributing or defining meaning is seen as operation/avenue to power. Is this one of the "selective pressures" you had in mind?

Real0ne -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/23/2011 3:43:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Others might want to look at agency of human beings.... how are you using the word agency? Our ability to act... from wikipedia in the sociological/philosophical context In philosophy and sociology, Agency is the capacity of an agent (a person or other entity) to act in a world. In philosophy, the agency is considered as belonging to that agent even if that agent represents a fictitious character, or some other non-existent entity. The capacity to act does not at first imply a specific moral dimension to the ability to make the choice to act, therefore moral agency is a distinct concept. In sociology, an agent is an individual engaging with the social structure. Notably, though, the primacy of social structure vs. individual capacity with regard to persons' actions is debated within sociology. This debate concerns, at least partly, the level of reflexivity an agent may possess. from an anthropological context (the one most associated with my train of thought) we have determinism and structure, and then we have the agency of individuals to impact the structure. impressive to bad the foundations with that regard are such a black hole the rest notwithstanding. not so sure I want to devote the time to even scratching the surface on this. suffice to say for those who get it, its a fiction.

Real0ne -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/23/2011 3:46:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rawtape quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Fair enough point. However in a discussion of this nature ("RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless?") is that strictly relevant? The 'meanings' of 'brute facts' such as mountain and/or water aren't really in dispute here. Nor could they be said to be human achievements/inventions/narratives. It seems to me that the notion of consciousness is of a wholly different order. If you agree, then my second question remains....... Could it be that 'meaning' is the greatest human achievement/invention/construct/narrative of them all? TB, I am going to say not, for what I think are a slew of subjective reasons. First, "greatest" is a rather a vague and slippery term in this context for me. I know I tend to go on about definitions (probably a consequence of the residual OCD baggage that tends to accompany most geneticists), but like Humpty Dumpty, I am more comfortable when I can get a word to mean "just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." Second, "greatest human achievement/invention/construct/narrative" has, to me, a certain whiff of volition/intention/agency about it. I find "meaning" in the context of how we are using it here to be almost unconscious, an incidental, almost accidental consequence of the fact that we exist and function in a culture, one which communicates. Third, if, as I just suggested, culture and communication are prerequisites for establishing meaning, and meaning is almost an incidental byproduct, then again it fails to impress me with its "greatness". I am more inclined to see culture and the fact that we are social creatures, as "greater" achievements. Though, if you press me on it, I'll be forced to admit that those didn't require much volition on our part either -- and were most likely simple artifacts of selective pressures. And I dare say some would argue that certain emergent properties like "meaning" are "greater" than the multiplicity of simple social/cultural interactions from which they arose. But, as I've said previously, this is an extremely subjective appraisal; coloured obviously by my biases and how I respond to certain words. grand leaps over tall buildings. you only need on living human to give meaning. has nothing to with a social context. try again.

mnottertail -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/23/2011 3:53:33 PM)
yeah, pound your pud in a bathroom by your lonesome for 60 years and tell us about your singular accomplishments.

Real0ne -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/23/2011 4:14:08 PM)
at least I dont shoot blanks.

mnottertail -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/23/2011 4:26:19 PM)
That would not be a big selling point with women here, in your case, I warrant, I'd avoid bringing that up.

Real0ne -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/23/2011 4:52:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail That would not be a big selling point with women here, in your case, I warrant, I'd avoid bringing that up. I have never thought of the women here in such a poor light.

juliaoceania -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/23/2011 4:57:14 PM)
quote: grand leaps over tall buildings. you only need on living human to give meaning. has nothing to with a social context. try again. How simple things are in your world.

juliaoceania -> RE: Human Consciousness - Meaningful or Meaningless? (6/23/2011 4:58:49 PM)
quote: Please don't ever think I'll be dissatisfied with subjective answers. Quite the opposite! You will hear me dissent rather loudly if any one ever claims "objective' status You speak my language there! quote: Yes I agree that "culture and communication are prerequisites for establishing meaning,". Just to get to that point of consensus seems to justify the discussion that preceded it to me. And I like the idea of viewing this and similar matters as "emergent properties". For me this is a promising way of progressing understanding in areas that have long been immobilised by the sterile logjam also known as the nature/nurture argument. Have you heard of Clifford Geertz?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.201172E-02