which is completely rejected by current evolutionary theory as being a form of 'orthogenesis'. — Wayfarer

I would argue against this point.

Although the word 'orthogenesis' is taboo, here are some things to consider......

The science of epigenetics has taken a turn somewhat toward the ideas of Lamarck.

Per Wikipedia.... "but the notion that evolution represents progress is still widely shared"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis

And here is a very new finding that I just read last night....
"The idea that mass extinctions allow many new types of species to evolve is a central concept in evolution, but a new study using artificial intelligence to examine the fossil record finds this is rarely true, and there must be another explanation."
https://scitechdaily.com/artificial-intelligence-discovers-surprising-patterns-in-earths-biological-mass-extinctions

My own theory is that we may eventually discover that this is due to 'double bind', being that it has to happen in order for the 'whole' to continue its progress 'towards'. ...... My favorite Gregory Bateson lecture excerpt explaining evolutionary double bind ...... https://vimeo.com/15492840

I personally think that because of nominalism, humanity has for some time now been moving itself toward a double bind.

Perhaps consciousness thinking about theories of consciousness is narcissism taken to its ultimate degree.

Perhaps consciousness thinking about theories of consciousness is narcissism taken to its ultimate degree. — Pam Seeback

Excellent point!

What is the 'sweet spot' of evolution, where an organism becomes aware of 'self', and recognizes that its reflection is not that of another, but doesn't go to the nominalist extreme of ontological individualism, and narcissism so engulfing that it stares at itself on its cell phone all day, constantly contemplating how its image reflects back onto the world? We are certainly at a point where dialogue is breaking down, as more and more people are only waiting to speak rather than sharing time in an interaction to actually listen.

I think it would be a big mistake to regard reflection upon our consciousness as being narcissistic. That is because consciousness is the core and depths of our being. Surely, narcissistic is looking at ourselves and our image at a surface level, independently of whether or not there is consciousness underlying our individual minds.

I think it would be a big mistake to regard reflection upon our consciousness as being narcissistic. — Jack Cummins

Just thinking out loud here, but if we consider this question in light of what physicist Fred Alan Wolf said about 'willful intention' in that video I posted previously, I have to wonder if 'intention' might be the determining factor about whether or not reflecting upon consciousness, individually or collectively, could be considered a form of narcissism.

"Research participants found that they could apply statements of the Collective Narcissism Scale to various groups: national, ethnic, religious, ideological, political, students of the same university, fans of the same football team, professional groups and organizations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_narcissism

Yes, I see your point and agree that 'wilful intentionality' may be important for determining what is considered to be narcissistic

which is completely rejected by current evolutionary theory as being a form of 'orthogenesis'.
— Wayfarer

I would argue against this point. — Mapping the Medium

And I would agree! I think the rejection of the idea of purpose is one of the profound mistakes of current evolutionary theory. I only made the point because it's the kind of criticism a lot of current evolutionary theory would have of Peirce's 'agapasm' - not because I myself agree with them.

And I would agree! — Wayfarer

:up: :blush:

Yes, I see your point and agree — Jack Cummins

:up: :blush:

Consciousness is not only inside an individual brain, and this relationship explains the transition of life when the body dies

Can you explain how do you imagine consciousness outside of a brain?
While we are conscious the brain receives information from the eyes, ears, touch, etc. If you imagine surviving without these it will feel pretty scary, unless you think this mind has access to some information. You may claim anything, like some sort of vision without actually having eyes but still seeing images the the eyes capture them?!
In life the fittest survives. I don’t see why would some lifeforms like us would have more chances if the consciousness survived beyond the body. Or you may think it the same way, like the fittest conscious minds survives. Anyway, I don’t see how a conscious mind could survive the physical destruction of the brain.
During general anesthesia we know people don’t remember anything. So claim they do. So the conclusion is the mind can work without a brain? Or that the anesthesia didn’t stop consciousness completely. The last one seems plausible because it doesn’t assume anything other that what we already know. The first is just a claim nobody can prove.
My opinion is that not only the conscious cannot survive without a brain but in fact we only live an instance in a series of conscious individual experiences that the brain generates. But the last one always feels it has lived ever since it has born.

Can you explain how do you imagine consciousness outside of a brain? — Rotorblade

One description of exo-individual consciousness might be that of distributed cognition.

The article talks about this being a framework for studying cognition, rather than a type of cognition, but i'd take it the step further myself.

One description of exo-individual consciousness might be that of distributed cognition.

The dissociative identity disorder may be an example where multiple regions of the brain generate separate identities while sharing or exchanging information. The difference from a set of different brains in different bodies is the speed of communication between the individual conscious minds is much slower and can be less accurate. The feeling of an extension of your body when using some tool for example can enhance your experience. Communicating with others doesn’t feel so direct because it slow but sometimes I think it can be felt almost like sharing the other person’s sensing organs when they can communicate fast. Anyway consciousness requires something physical to produce it in my opinion. Brains are very complex machines so I can’t imagine it occur in some much simpler system.

So... there are a couple of pages (well, there's more than a couple, but these two are in the forefront of my mind this morning) in 'Isonomia and the Origins of Philosophy' by Karatani Kojin. If you have read the book, I point you to pages 40-41. These pages point to some of the differences between nominalism and synechism. ..... Synechism is a natural philosophy, that although will respect other perspectives and abide by the laws of the social environment the synechist physically finds oneself in, a synechist does not subscribe to any culturally constructed nomoi (of any kind; religious, atheistic scientism, political, cultural fads, generational gender expectations, etc.). ...... I am a synechist. .... There is no freer freedom than being free from nominalism.

I got through half of the IEP article on Peirce's logic. I didn't get anything out of it. Any resources?

Yes, some of those articles seem almost as if they are trying to confuse people with complexity. I think the most important thing to remember is that Peirce really tried to explain these things simply, but he sometimes had to invent words to express what he meant. This can scare some people away if they are the type to be intimidated or judgmental of something new, or else they may take the nominalistic reductive approach and dissect the terms to such an extreme that it becomes overwhelming (I would liken that to the story of the goose that laid the golden egg).

Anyway, this link expresses some of these things in his own words..... Logic and Habit

And subscribing to Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society is very helpful for understanding Peirce. Excellent articles!

Here's a better link for 'Transactions'

Thanks

You're very welcome. :blush:

Joining the conversation late so bear with me. A few questions.

1. Can you define consciousness as you understand it in your first post. Do you mean the individual consciousness or the collective?

2. Do you see the mind as something immaterial? If so, how is this different than any mind / body dualism argument? For a physicalist, there is no evidence that the mind is anything other than matter.

Cheers!

1. Can you define consciousness as you understand it in your first post. Do you mean the individual consciousness or the collective? — avalon

Hmm... I suppose the only way to directly answer that is to say "neither?". If you are coming at this topic as a nominalist, you will probably only get frustrated with me.

2. Do you see the mind as something immaterial? If so, how is this different than any mind / body dualism argument? For a physicalist, there is no evidence that the mind is anything other than matter. — avalon

I suppose the answer to this question would involve a discussion about what you think is 'material'. Here is a link that might be of interest to you. In a Mind-Bending New Paper, Physicists Give Schrodinger's Cat a Cheshire Grin

Hello Avalon :smile:

You are basically asking me to start over with this thread. I'm afraid I cannot devote the time to doing that for every person who joins the conversation late. I'm sorry. Please consider reading through the thread. Thanks for understanding. :blush:

If you're right, where does consciousness reside?

Asking where it 'resides' is a nominalist perspective (see my previous views on nominalism).

My perspective is more akin to this perspective and this perspective.

"Information" is a quality or "accident" (in the old usage) and needs matter in order to emerge. A lot of stuff spoken of in quantum mechanics could be private interpretation. They have two principles for example: (1) a particle can be two places at once, and (2) a particle can pop out of nowhere (through teleporting into a work hole or whatever). Now, if you are studying a new particle, how can you possibly determine if it came from the wormhole or if it is really a neighbouring particle in superposition? THAT is a matter of perspective, so be cautious when people try to prove their points by the philosophical implications of quantum physics

be cautious when people try to prove their points by the philosophical implications of quantum physics — Gregory

I'm not trying to prove anything other than precisely that... perspective. Everything I have talked about in this thread expresses that.

Okay, f I should refute your evidence with a single definition might that not be valid?

You use the word: "Consciousness" as if it actually exists, not just metaphorically but physically as real matter in the real universe. (whatever the hell that is.)

Ok, I emphatically agree with you that Consciousness does indeed exist.

Where does it exist? In the conscious mind.

So my definition of Consciousness is - "Arrangements of human brain cells located physiologically within the conscious mind which is known to exist within the prefrontal lobes just above the eyes."

If that statement is accurate then your statement cannot be accurate.

An interesting related idea. Consciousness can be amputaded and occasionally has been amputed with an operation called: "A prefrontal lobotomy. The entire prefrontal lobes are removed and the scar sewed up.The patient is deprived of a conscious mind and has no Consciousness which is the only part of the mind that can talk. The patient can no longer talk but he is normal in all other ways and can still communicate using shouts or grunts or pointing or laughing or crying or learning to use Indian sign language.

An excellent video! And as nominalism evolved and 'convention' became more and more 'particular' and 'individualized', it became more and more divisive, leading to the challenges of our time, and to the damage we have inflicted upon our biosphere.
Video...
Law and Justice

I've been reading 'Isonomia and the Origins of Philosophy' by Kojin Karatani (also excellent), and it seems so unfortunate for humanity that the origins of nominalism and the birthing of human-constructed dualism are not better understood by everyone. Here is a link to his book..... https://www.dukeupress.edu/isonomia-and-the-origins-of-philosophy

I think that to really understand synechism means to understand the difference between this human-constructed dualism and the propensity for living organisms to take on habits in nature (the difference between what is human-constructed convention and what is natural emergence and habit). ... I also think that our ignorance on this matter is what may be leading the human species into a double bind (Gregory Bateson excerpt link below). Our species is certainly far from being as intelligent as it thinks it is.
https://vimeo.com/15492840

Where is consciousness in all of this? It is in the connectedness of observation that is clear in this understanding (for those who can see and are not lost to mere convention).

I wrote to my pen pal, Dr. Richard Lanigan, for his insight on this. As always, he is brilliant. Here is an excerpt from his response to me. ...

"There is a convergence point in Peirce, the isonomia concept, and Bateson’s butterfly example (Alice in Wonderland is about logic in language)—all are a point about logic (about which I am currently writing). Double bind, or paradox [either/or choice] is always after Triple Bind, or ambiguity [both/and choice]. The problem is Culture, where “convention” [habit] is the “forgotten rationality” [G. mēmēra].
Culture makes this time consuming process more efficient as Double Bind [“x /either-or/not-x], obviously you forget that y or anything else is possible as a new context. Choosing a new context is creativity or learning. Children are not constrained by cultural habit, so their answer to an either/or choice is simply “Both!”. People discover that another Culture [language] allows them to see at least one other context (rediscovery of “both”). Here is where psychologists talk about the mirror [“through the looking glass”]. Double Binds are always one’s perception, so the corrective is self vs. other, or the communication distinction of Addresser (speaker) and Addressee (listener). In a mirror, "self vs. other" adds "same vs. different". This is all Peirce, quadratics [self/other//same/different] becomes triads [Western Rule: self/other/same = double bind; aphorism = Others are the Same”], only because the new context [Eastern Rule: self/other/different; aphorism “Others are Different"] is not allowed by cultural convention (aphorism). I am assuming that for Kojin, the Eastern rule is Ionia democracy [Plato, monarchy], and the Western rule is Athenian democracy [Aristotle, democracy](!).
Of course, the USA is the grand "mirror" experiment where Republlc = "monarchic [representative] democracy as democratic monarchy [the people]”. This is why the "founding fathers" resorted to Latin “E pluribus unum” in good English is “One from Many, from Many, One” [basic chiasm concept = A:B :: b:a]. A Latin aphorism (two concepts = double bind) is reduced from the English “reality" of four concepts in the analogy. Aphorisms always derive from reduced Analogies; the Sophists called them a chiasm (mirror cross-over of values)."

Since I received no responses on my last couple of posts, I can only suppose that they are not understood. This doesn't really surprise me, because the nominalism thought virus runs so extremely deep.

If you have taken the time to fully read these posts, and you do understand them, you should now understand why I am neither Left nor Right, Republican nor Democrat, Conservative nor Liberal. .... As a synechist, I do not subscribe to that house of mirrors cage. This 'understanding' also reveals similar insight into religions, atheistic scientism, generational gender expectations, and so much more. My eyes are fully open to what is real. Nominalism is not real.

Well wishes on your willingness to be open to learning, exploring others' perspectives, and sharing in kind dialogue. Take care.

I have just listed this book as the first approved textbook for the Synechism Center for Learning and Dialogue.

Isonomia and the Origins of Philosophy

The problem is you sporadically post on a year old thread. Why not start a brand new one and get into discussion with those interested by some fresh ideas? You're kinda being "smarter than thou" in how you berate nominalists as if they were your children