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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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."

quote:

Since gender roles are culturally determined, and the cues of genderedness are also culturally determined, these identities are transactional on a cultural level.

quote:

Could it be that 'meaning' is the greatest human achievement/invention/construct/narrative of them all?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

grand leaps over tall buildings.

you only need on living human to give meaning.  has nothing to with a social context.

try again.

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

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.