Because I’m watching the way you use your words.
Case in point.
Then you toss in stuff like this, that has nothing to offer to this discussion, especially since you make it sound as if I don’t grasp Hasen’s findings, or somehow dispute the point about life on other planets.
**Philosophy of space and time** is the branch of [philosophy](Philosophy - Wikipedia) concerned with the issues surrounding the ontology, epistemology, and character of space and time. While such ideas have been central to philosophy from its inception, the philosophy of space and time was both an inspiration for and a central aspect of early analytic philosophy. The subject focuses on a number of basic issues, including whether time and space exist independently of the mind, whether they exist independently of one another, what accounts for time’s apparently unidirectional flow, whether times other than the present moment exist, and questions about the nature of identity (particularly the nature of identity over time).
So why do you dismiss this, without any of this serious thought you think other philosophical musing deserves. This is boiling the issue down to its most basic components, which is always a good place to start with complex systems that overwhelm our understanding.
Heck for that matter why doesn’t an important fundamental lesson such as: “We can not understand an organism without understanding its environment.” get so much as a raised eyebrow?
I wish you’d spend less time trying to reframe and misinterpret what I’m trying to explain, and more time actually thinking about it. It’s not magical, it’s actually pretty dang fundamental and insightful when it comes to grasping our human condition (limitations).
That’s just it, I don’t grasp why we make it so hard for us to understand. It’s all really rather simple and straightforward. But we gotta climb out of our “Abrahamic ego-centric self-obsessed shackles” to manage it.
Why do you want to dumb it all down to local stuff. It is all connected from the BB on .
What is it that you want to do with Earth Centrism or Geo Centrism?
Some kind of worship?
And who is Abraham and what did he have to say about the Earth and the Universe? Remember I am an Atheist. I worship science, not Scripture.
Hmmm, now there’s a philosophical question. I went through phases of magical thinking, religion, mystical stuff, before settling on scientific methods, and I acknowledge the limits of that. So, it was hard, and I all the tools of the modern to overcome it and the advantages of my culture.
A lot of people aren’t allowed to go to school, or have a really crappy one. I could do a longer proof of how hard it is if you’d like
You’re right, Earth is our home planet. We are part of the reality that is Earth. No doubt. That is why we call Earth a Macrobiome.
But we know more about the earth’s microbiome than about any other cosmic object. We basically study only what lies in front of us.
We even know that we are destroying it with our wanton disregard for the natural laws that keep the earth in dynamic balance.
But why should we not study barren planets like Mars that may help us understand how the death of a planet may avoided.
My point is that according to Hazen, the earth is an ordinary planet and that the universe is full with earthlike planets in various stages of evolution that may give clues as to how to fix what’s gone wrong on Earth.
Dumb it down to local stuff?
Local stuff?
You mean like our human consciousness and how we perceive the world around us?
Well, it seems to me, how humans think about things, and the reasons why we think about things the way we do, is rather important.
As for the “Geocentrism,” came on, that came from you. Think back. You dared me to justify myself, so I did.
Well, the way I understand it, Abraham is the father of what is probably the three most influential religions, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, humankind ever produced. A defining trait of the followers of all three, was, is, their astounding self-centeredness and self-obsessiveness.
I’m simply using “Abrahamic Mindset” as the most appropriate label for something I’ve noticed and felt increasingly uncomfortable with for a long long time, and it’s taken another long time to get a handle on it, namely that self-centeredness, and self-obsession that permeates their thinking and writing.
Interestingly, Dennett’s “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” provides many examples of ego-centric story telling, that I can contrast with my more Earth Centrist perspective.
Thanks to your nudging, I’m challenged with doing a review of Dennett’s “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” - thankfully, it won’t be anything like my combing through Hoffman’s “Case Against Reality” - this will be much shorter, limited to a number of highlights.
You see I have no grip with Daniel Dennett, his scholarship and foundation in a materialist appreciation for reality and evolution and mankind is impeccable. Still, he is a storyteller and I think he offers me some wonderful opportunities to better define, this Abrahamic Mindset I speak of and how it has hobbled our understanding and appreciation for this planet. (Don’t know if I’ll pull it off, but the challenge is there and I’ve filed an interlibrary loan request for the book.)
But that’s beside the point.
This is about human consciousness and how we process what’s in front of us.
This is about how we think about the world and why we think about it the way we do.
It’s not like I see it as an explanation, it’s more like an important Benchmark, that helps with getting our bearings.
I don’t know how to respond to any of that. I don’t disagree with you, but it seems you disagree with me and compare my thinking with some kind of biblical mindset.
I pride myself in my efforts to be able to separate subjective thought from objective reality. This is why I always keep in mind Anil Seth’s reminder that human thought is a “controlled hallucination” and all human observation should be considered in that light.
All brains are different and perceive reality in their own unique way.
When our controlled hallucinations are experienced in “similar” ways we can agree and generalize that we perceive reality somewhat the same.
And yes, if you only consider human consciousness in relation to abiogenesis of life on earth, we can certainly agree on that, but that is not all there is in the universe. And if anything it proves that an Abrahamic mindset is completely misplaced.
We have proof that no external motivated agency is required for the evolution of conscious awareness of the environment. The only process that is required is “spontaneous order emerging out of chaos” via logical guiding principles that can be described with mathematics, not supernatural interference.
A stark example of experiencing a different reality is evident in the insect world, where insects perceive reality in color frequencies that are outside the range of human experience. Yet we cannot say they do not experience reality, they do but in their own unique way that has proven to be utilitarian to their unique lifestyle.
The human experience of reality is relative to the POV of the observer.
When we sit at opposite sides of a picnick table in a park I may see you with a background of trees but you may see me with a background of a lake.
When I describe my reality to you are you going to deny my description that includes trees and tell me I am wrong because any description of my background to you includes a lake?
Of course not. We can easily agree that both descriptons are true from our POV.
Where have I done that?
Abrahamic Thinking goes way the heck beyond the Bible, it’s the adopted mindset of most of the world’s population including its great thinkers. Even those who reject the religions can’t escape having been raising within that milieu, just need to look at the history of philosophy to see that dramatized.
Don’t get too carried away with that one, all human brains and thinking processes, also have many very real commonalities that shouldn’t be dismissed too flippantly .
Where I have claimed otherwise?
All it takes is organisms interacting with their exterior world to start that ball in motion.
Then, with time, the two working (or was it dancing) together to form creatures that can perceive and think. Next thing we know one thing leads to another.
Where have I claimed that doesn’t hold true?
Yeah and too often that’s an invitation to toss out the baby with the bathwater as
the great popularity of Donald Hoffman’s “provocative idea” of conscious agents underscores. When we start imagining our consciousness creates our reality - rather than simply producing our impression of reality, that’s where I start screaming foul.
{Though it’s true, within our mindscape and when we’re dealing with other minds, than the hallucination analogy holds water, even if I think Anil Seth should have worked harder to come up with an analogy that doesn’t have some much luggage attached to it.}
Ironically, you haven’t actually responded to my words.
You’re always off telling me other stories, that, like we keep pointing out to each other, we are mostly in agreement.
[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:81, topic:8988”]
Heck for that matter why doesn’t an important fundamental lesson such as: “We can not understand an organism without understanding its environment.” get so much as a raised eyebrow from the philosopher set.
Doesn’t it?
That seems fundamental to me. That is where Anil Seth’s “controlled hallucination” comes in.
Descartes “brain in a vat” can be induced to believe anything, unless it receives data from the senses that allow it to make a best guess of what is out there.
The brain itself can only process data. It has no sensory awareness except itself and without sensory input can only produce hallucinatory reality from memory. A dream.
Then you come up with the brain in a vat mind experiment, so now we gotta ignore the meninges, periosteum, scalp, all the neural connections running throughout the body.
We’re told because the brain contains no nociceptors, we must conclude it can’t be aware of its insides. I rather stay a bit agnostic on the topic, because I know scientists are constantly surprising themselves and finding things they never imagined, in places they were never able to look before modern scientific advances.
I’d love to see some examples of philosophers incorporating that reality into their musings. Heck I’d be happy to hear more scientists incorporating it into their various evolutionary narratives, but too often I notice that it isn’t - creating too many hollow explanations.
Isn’t that the entire concept of evolution via natural selection?
This process of necessity includes environmental conditions where the organism thrives or fails to thrive.
[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:90, topic:8988”]
Then you come up with the brain in a vat mind experiment, so now we gotta ignore the meninges, periosteum, scalp, all the neural connections running throughout the body.
But now you are already outside the brain and identifying sensory data processors that send data to the brain. The brain itself has no physical sensors. It can only imagine reality in abstract terms.
Think of it, the brain is aware of its own existence, but has no clue as to what it looks like.
We’re told because the brain contains no nociceptors, we must conclude it can’t be aware of its insides. I rather stay a bit agnostic on the topic, because I know scientists are constantly surprising themselves and finding things they never imagined, in places they were never able to look before modern scientific advances.
I think this has been pretty well researched. There are no mysterious influences. The conscious brain has all the necessary ingredients for an emergent consciousness.
The hard question is “how does it do it?”. That may involve quantum processes as Roger Penrose proposes. And that is a very difficult place to get to.
Yes it is, so why does it barely get any serious attention? That anemic sentence not withstanding.
I still maintain that’s a bit premature and over simplistic. More study is needed.
So what of it?
Where’s the profundity in that? Can you explain?
I’ve watched for decades as scientific findings have provided one astounding breakthrough after another, that rearrange our understanding.
You seem to think they’ve figured out all of the interior of the brain - I don’t. I suspect there are a few more surprises in store, nothing radical, just more nuance previously overlooked. There’s no need for you to invoke “mysterious influences” - you don’t actually believe scientists have arrived at all the answers do you?
Hey, WTF. It just occurs to me, where do I talk about mysterious influences, I bristle at some of your simplistic classifications, borders, barriers, isolation - things that don’t do justice to the interwoven, interdependent complexity of the human body.
I’ve never invoked mysterious powers, or influences - that may well be what you perceive, but still, it’s nothing I’ve ever suggested.
As for Penrose, there are plenty of experts that have plenty of credible doubts about his conjectures - he’s not the sainted all knowing expert some paint him as. He wasn’t even any sort of doctor or brain specialist, he was a mathematician, mathematical physicist, philosopher of science. Not that I’m disputing he’s done much for brain study, just don’t over inflate him.
As for the Hard Problem we have a very definite philosophical difference here.
Digging down to understand the most minuscule component of something, is fine and dandy and helpful in many ways - but, it’s the functioning living human that is the Hard Problem. How that person has integrated themselves into their world, how they perceive themselves and process information and make decisions, now that’s where the hard problem lies.
Chance favors a prepared mind - and after nearly a year of dealing with “The Case Against Reality,” which, for me, was a collection of maddeningly dreamy philosophizing*; disconnected from physical reality; and dismissive of the known facts and Evolution, which are central to my understanding of reality. *(on theother hand)
Learning is about providing us with tools and concepts we can work with as building blocks towards further developing our overall conceptions. But Hoffman’s FBT theorem and ITP inspired “conscious agents,” was like a bad practical joke, offering little but frustration, luftgeschäft, irrelevance - no place to go with it once it’s done.
As if on cue, YouTube prompted me with a suggestion that I might like this newly released talk: “The Source of Consciousness - with Dr. Mark Solms” posted March 4th and they weren’t kidding. Dr. Solms provides a way back to the solid ground of physical reality and serious science.
Among the speaker’s achievements, beyond being skilled as both psychoanalyst, plus neuropsychologist! Dr. Solms is the Director of neuropsychology in the Neuroscience Institute of the University of Cape Town, an honorary lecturer in neurosurgery at the Royal London Hospital School of Medicine, and a pioneer in the scientific field of neuropsychoanalysis, being credited as first to use that term, along with being the recipient of many honors and awards. He’s also credited with discovering and described the forebrain mechanisms of dreaming. …
(Not only a real brain doctor, but also a Freud scholar and translator of the works of Freud.)
We speak of self-aware consciousness, yet the brain is only aware of what data it receives from the separate bodily physical sensors. The brain cannot even tell you where your spleen is located.
Try to visualize your spleen. No luck ? That is because the brain can only control the data it receives from the spleen but does not “need” to know where exactly it is located.
That is why we use the term “homeostasis”, the brain’s subconscious control mechanism that chemically controls all organic functions without having a clue as to where they are located. (Seth)
So because you aren’t aware of where your spleen is located, that means your body and brain is unaware of its location?
It’s rather confusing.
What’s the point you are trying to make?
My point? For starters perhaps that experts don’t know enough about “homeostasis” to allow laypeople to make sweeping asserts of what it is or isn’t.
Beyond that it’s your easy way with creating categories and boundaries, where the reality doesn’t justify it. Consciousness wall homeostasis. It makes me cringe. Why this obsession with constantly speculating beyond what we know. I know it’s fun and will always happen - but first we need to fully learn and digest what we already know, and I contend that isn’t being done.
I don’t understand what your point is with "because I can’t consciously conjure up the location of my spleen (unless it’s giving me problems), my brain “doesn’t know where it’s located.”
I mean, who are you to speak for the brain? From memory seems to me scientists have correlated brain topography with area’s dedication to specific bodily components - though upon closer examination it turned out way more complex and interwoven than expected - go figure.
The brain is wired throughout our body, don’t tell me the brain doesn’t know where the spleen is and if it gets knocked out of place, that the brain isn’t also well aware of that.
Even if it’s on a level I myself can’t expect to comprehend.
Beyond that, think of this from the evolutionary perspective, live spent the past 600 million years refining life’s potential of building a creature with ever greater cognitive abilities, the environment is the limit, but this time here on Earth, all the breaks went in the correct direction. Consciousness requires an immense amount of infrastructure, and consumes outrageous amounts of energy - by necessity as much gets internalized in order to enable, this amazing self-aware, remembering, learning faculty to exist. How could it be any other way.
I don’t understand the human need to categorize and isolate,
Because for me, I appreciate how interwoven the system is.
I mean, 600 million years of interconnectedness on every imaginable level.
Consciousness makes itself felt within the homeostatic system, every bit as much as the homeostatic system totally impinges upon how our consciousness is allowed to unfold during any particular moment/activity.
No it’s not. The brain doesn’t need to know where the spleen is located, just as the spleen doesn’t need to know where the brain is located.
Both only need to know that it is functioning properly . Homeostasis is to keep the body’s biochemistry and function in balance, not to know where the organs are located.
Homeostasis is an autonomous brain function, independent of conscious control. Your homeostatic processes continue even when the brain is under anesthesia and your mind is absent!
Consider that all living organisms have homeostatic processes even if they lack brains or neural networks altogether.
It took me also a few reruns to grasp that concept. This is why I recommend to watch the Anil Seth clip several times to discover the subtleties buried in the fast pace of his delivery.
Making sense is entertainment? It seems to me you are falling into “conspiracy trap” mentality (does that have a name?), where everyone is false and out to get you.
Think about the need for a control mechanism to “know” where the controlled organ is located as long as the control mechanism works?
Ask, why a natural system should spend valuable energy on a superfluous ability, when the system is sufficient in and of itself. Natural selection works just fine in selecting “necessary abilities”.
If the homeostatic portion of the brain needed to “consciously” know where the controlled organs are located it would. It doesn’t so it doesn’t need to, as long as it can maintain control of their functions.
Does a thermostat need to know where the cold is coming from to respond to temperature drop?
