I think it works well. There is so much limitation through identifying with the ego. The whole idea of identity of consciousness can encompass all the levels of being, and it does not have to include or exclude clear boundaries of the conscious, subconscious or unconscious.

I can certainly think of my own identity in terms of consciousness.

There is so much limitation through identifying with the ego — Jack Cummins

It seems to me, consciousness assumes an identity, and the ego is a personal measure of how well it is succeeding in maintaining this identity. If we look at history and the many different identities humanity has assumed, it seems the range of human nature is endlessly variable and open ended. The consistent thing is that self organization occurs, but the form of self organization is infinitely variable, it seems.

If we apply Gödel's incompleteness theorem to an axiomatic consciousness, there is always something outside the system that elements within the system require for their justification. So this suggests that consciousness / self organization is infinite. It suggests that the form of self organization will continue to evolve in line with whatever the requirements are to survive. I think we have seen this in extreme moments of history, and how people have adapted, but the bright side is there is no limit to how this might manifest itself in the future.

That is interesting. In saying that the ego is limited I am probably thinking of Eastern perspective on consciousness as well.

As I am influenced in the healing journey with aspects of the subconscious, influenced by Jung and psychoanalysis, I probably have reorganised my own ego a fair amount anyway.

But I do like the your idea of the reorganisation of the ego as infinite.

But I do like the your idea of the reorganisation of the ego as infinite. — Jack Cummins

That is not quite how I see it. Consciousness or self organization is the infinite element. It can assume many different identities, but that any of these identities are true is doubtful, as given different circumstances , or a different time in history, the identity would be different. What remains constant is that self organization occurs, but the identity over a lifetime, and in different times in history changes.



To clarify; If I am consciousness, and consciousness is infinite, what can be my identity?

I think that you are suggesting that identity is just a part of the picture and we have to see ourselves as like mere cells in this process. I am not sure that this is different from the Eastern mystical approach.

I wouldn't say mere cells. My understanding borrows heavily from eastern philosophy, but there is nothing mystical about it. I think it is entirely logical, If I am consciousness, and consciousness is infinite, then what is my identity?

Identity is normally something anthropocentric, and in reality I have one of those. :smile: But it is logically unsustainable, if the OP logic is correct, in my opinion.

I am an evolving process of self organization — Pop

Autopoiesis - systems theory as metaphysics. Makes sense to me.

Autopoiesis - systems theory as metaphysics — Pantagruel

Thanks for that - I wasn't aware, I'll check it out.

I am consciousness — Pop

This can't be right. Consciousness is a property that certain objects have; namely the property of having experiences, or put differently, the property of first-person awareness. Individual subjects aren't properties. To say that "I am consciousness" seems to be similar to saying "I am materiality". While this might be sensibly understood in some metaphorical way, it cannot be literally true. Since individuals cannot literally be the property of being composed of matter

My definition of consciousness is: an evolving process of self organization — Pop

That doesn't seem right either. Since consciousness appears to require first-person awareness (indeed, consciousness seems to be nothing more than first-person awareness). But it would seem that there can be many evolving processes of self-organization which do not have any personal awareness at all.

Consciousness is a property that certain objects have — Alvin Capello

In Panpsychism, consciousness ( self organization ) is a property everything possesses. The universe is in a process of self organization, and so all of its component parts are also in a process of self organization. Self organization creates life, and continues to evolve, eventually becoming self aware,
to some extent, in humanity. It is an evolving process which is endlessly variable and open ended. To what extent anybody is self aware is endlessly variable, and open ended, however every moment of consciousness is a moment of self organization. My claim can be disproven by providing an instance of consciousness which is not in some way self organization.

The statement relates to Descartes I think therefore I am - I am what?
I am saying I am consciousness ( self organization ), in my entirety - the self organization of information, energy, and matter.

My claim can be disproven by providing an instance of consciousness which is not in some way self organization. — Pop

I don't deny that consciousness can be deeply interrelated with self-organization. Indeed, there might not be a single instance of consciousness which is not in some way self-organization, but this does not mean that they are equivalent. In just the same way that you cannot find a single instance of an american citizen who is not a human, but this does not imply that all humans are american citizens. To put it more simply, all instances of consciousness might be instances of self-organization, but this does not imply that all instances of self-organization are instances of consciousness. This is why I said earlier that it would appear that there can be many evolving processes of self-organization which do not have any first-person awareness.

The statement relates to Descartes I think therefore I am - I am what? — Pop

You are confusing 2 uses of the phrase "I am" here. You are taking Descartes to be using it in the predicative sense (i.e. when we say things like "I am green", "I am a man", etc.) But he is actually using it in the existential sense. More specifically, by saying "I am", he is just saying "I exist." Or in full form, "I think, therefore I exist."

To put it more simply, all instances of consciousness might be instances of self-organization, but this does not imply that all instances of self-organization are instances of consciousness. — Alvin Capello

I'm afraid they are, unless you can self organize unconsciously.

Indeed, there might not be a single instance of consciousness which is not in some way self-organization, — Alvin Capello

That is right. The role of consciousness is primarily to self organize.

You are confusing 2 uses of the phrase "I am" here. You are taking Descartes to be using it in the predicative sense (i.e. when we say things like "I am green", "I am a man", etc.) But he is actually using it in the existential sense. More specifically, by saying "I am", he is just saying "I exist." Or in full form, "I think, therefore I exist." — Alvin Capello

I am exploring the phrase as completely as possible.

I'm afraid they are, unless you can self organize unconsciously. — Pop

Notice how this relates to your definition of consciousness, viz:

The role of consciousness is primarily to self organize. — Pop

If we take this non-standard definition of consciousness on board, then your earlier statement basically amounts to "I'm afraid they are, unless you can self-organize without self-organizing." Of course, this is tautologically true.

But if we use the every day understanding of consciousness, i.e. as first-person awareness or internal experience, then I can find many examples of unconscious self-organization. The most obvious examples are cells. Cells presumably don't have conscious experience, and yet they undergo self-organization.

I am exploring the phrase as completely as possible. — Pop

This is completely irrelevant for understanding Descartes' claim, since he is only using "I am" in the existential sense. Bringing in other senses of the term can only lead to confusion, as your remarks on Descartes' claim above demonstrate.

But if we use the every day understanding of consciousness, i.e. as first-person awareness or internal experience, then I can find many examples of unconscious self-organization. The most obvious examples are cells. Cells presumably don't have conscious experience, and yet they undergo self-organization. — Alvin Capello

As I've previously stated, in Panpsychism, consciousness ( self organization ) is a property everything possesses. Including cells.

This is completely irrelevant for understanding Descartes' claim, since he is only using "I am" in the existential sense. Bringing in other senses of the term can only lead to confusion, as your remarks on Descartes' claim above demonstrate. — Alvin Capello

I think it is entirely relevant to consider the phrase in its entirety, for the purpose of reducing it.

As I've previously stated, in Panpsychism, consciousness ( self organization ) is a property everything possesses. Including cells. — Pop

Here you've broached a subject on which I am woefully ignorant. I find panpsychism to be deeply interesting, but I can't comment on it, since I haven't read the strongest arguments for it. Sorry :sad:

No problems, my interpretation of it is atypical anyway :smile:
Thanks for the interest.

Autopoiesis - systems theory as metaphysics
— Pantagruel

Thanks for that - I wasn't aware, I'll check it out. — Pop

Check out Fritjof Capra's A Systems View of Life to see the scope of the model's applications in hard science. I'd start with Ervin Laszlo's Introduction to Systems Philosophy if possible. It purports to be a "new paradigm" for viewing reality and, in my opinion, meets the burden of that goal. Enjoy.

Thanks again, I'll let you know how I find it.

From one point of the view, the syllogism is not confirming an identity. The thinker is the one who thinks. Without that, you would not care if you existed or not. The experience is given to you, an event that keeps repeating; The event appears as something happening to you. We happen to ourselves.

Descartes uses the two "I"s in very different ways. "I" am something relentless that keeps showing up each day. "I" also think some things are closer to what is true than others.

That is why he considers his position a direct proof of God. He cannot be the ranch where these disparate events occur.

We happen to ourselves. — Valentinus

:up:

Consciousness is a property — Alvin Capello

Here's the deal. The whole point of Descartes' cogito ergo sum is to prove the existence of a something that's conscious from consciousness. The problem, as far as I can tell, is if we approach the issue from a property point of view then Descartes' argument begs the question for the simple reason that if consciousness is a property then a something that's conscious is baked into this assertion (that consciousness is a property). A property can be either concrete (as an aspect of an individual object) or abstract (as an aspect common to a group of objects). In either case, objects that possess a given property must exist prior to the property itself.

The premise, in my humble opinion, that Descartes relies on to infer a something conscious from conscisouness is: a property ergo something that has that property. This premise can't be derived from the world because Descartes concedes that it could be an illusion - that makes any inferences drawn from the world unreliable. The only option Descartes has is his own personal and private experiences with his own mind but the only relevant experience contained therein is his own consciousness as a property and then to conclude a something that is conscious (an object that has the property of consciousness) is begging the question as that's exactly what needs proving. :chin:

I would say consciousness is a process rather then a property. A process of self organization, in my opinion. Pantagruel has put me onto Fritjof Capra, and his systems paradigm sounds very promising :

" the process perspective, which refers to the cognitive dimension of living systems. Capra explains that the physical structure can be understood as the embodiment of it’s patterns of organization. Moreover, this embodiment doesn’t just happen once, but is a continual process of embodiment, and this process of self-organization and self-generation, which can be found in all living systems, is a cognitive process."

I think this really gets at the difficulty of defining consciousness, as a process dose not really possess fixed or concrete properties. Particularly not an evolving process. And if an evolving process is what is relied on for inferring I am, then what I am is also something evolving, it seems. That thinking enables the inference I am is without doubt, in my opinion, but this only works for a moment of consciousness, as in the long run thinking and thus what I am constantly change.

If we apply Capra's interpratation to I think therefore I am, we get I am the embodiment of my thought processes. :grin:

Could it be simplified even further to I am? As it seems irrelevant to state you are conscious of this existence.

Could it be simplified even further to I am — Thinking

I think you would need to provide some proof / reason of what causes "I am".

Thanks for the referral. Lots of excellent insights that support how I've come to understand things. That the basic unit of cognition is a reaction to a disturbance in a state is a gem. And the Santiago theory of cognition : " Living systems are cognitive systems, and living as a process is a process of cognition. This statement is valid for all organisms, with or without a nervous system ", is wonderful validation for a panpsychist / monist like myself.

I found it odd however that he himself is a dualist. I was not impressed by his understanding of consciousness. I think his understanding of consciousness relies on Tomasso's theory which leads him astray. He states that life is a process of self organization, and he also states that consciousness is self organization, but then states that consciousness arises upon self awareness, which is logically flawed in my opinion.

The way I see it, the process of self organization is innately self aware. It possesses a process-centric self awareness: the organization of information relative to the self is all that it is concerned with, nothing can be more self aware, if you can accept that a process can have a mission or agenda, its agenda is entirely the self. It is the fundamental element that enables everything and the singular process that everything is involved in. It is both fundamental, and ultimate, so in my understanding it is a god process.
At any given time the state of something is symbolic of the current state of its underlying process of self organization, whether it be a rock, or life, and in regard to human consciousness, well this is symbolic of our current state of self organization. It is not a fixed or maxed out state - who knows what it will develop into in years to come?

Thanks again for the referral, whilst i have issues with Capra's understanding of consciousness, most of the other stuff I found absolutely top notch. So thank you.

The way I see it, the process of self organization is innately self aware. It possesses a process-centric self awareness: — Pop

I agree

Here you've broached a subject on which I am woefully ignorant. I find panpsychism to be deeply interesting, but I can't comment on it, since I haven't read the strongest arguments for it. — Alvin Capello

There just so happens to be a panpsychism thread pretty active right now. But what I would consider the best argument is that it is a simpler view. The "standard" view of consciousness goes like this:

1- I am conscious
2- That guy/gal over there is pretty similar to me so they are also probably conscious
3- That animal is somewhat similar to me so maybe it's conscious, but not necessarily in the same way
4- (and this is the problem) There is this arbitrary, hard to define point at which things just completely stop being consicous.

Panpsychism is simply not using that 4th unwarranted assumption. If we are willing to give that other people are consicous, that animals are conscious, etc etc, there is no need to assume a "stopping point". The standard view has so far failed to deal with this problem that is self-imposed and unnecessary of "what makes things conscious", so people are starting to just give up on the assumption that things stop being conscious.

I was just cruising around the web attempting to find something of interest. Something besides the godforsaken news. I ran across this website and this particular thread and I was caught. "I am an evolving process of self organization." I like it. I've been on a long journey of attempting to pin down sentience and this thread really has a similar ring to it. In studying sentience, I had to spend a lot of time pondering the difference between humans and the rest of life on Earth. If you look closely, life itself is an evolving process of self-organization. We're just better at it than other life on Earth. Humanity's sentience has changed the game. It is no longer just a genetic improvement in self-organization. It is a conscious improvement on self-organization. Unless, of course, there is sand in the works, something that sets the conscious improvement awry.

As I ponder, I sometimes wonder about our wonder. I would go a step further on panpsychism. It is almost as if the universe desires to be sensed in all its wonder. Or, maybe it is a looser tie than that between an awareness and that of which it is aware. If you look at the progression of species on Earth, generally an improvement in species coincides with a fuller awareness of everything around it. Humans took it a step further than just awareness. Humanity is aware and it questions what is around it. That has caused all of our troubles - when we can't find satisfactory answers.

My apologies for not studying this board further before opening my mouth but, damn, intelligent conversation on the web? Will wonders never cease?

My apologies for not studying this board further before opening my mouth but, damn, intelligent conversation on the web? Will wonders never cease? — Whickwithy

I'm glad you approve. Welcome to the forum. :smile:

Thanks, Pop.

When I first read this thread, I was interpreting it as "I think, therefore, I am reduced". The sad thing is a lot of people out there would concur with that interpretation.