merjet Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 If matter can organize itself in what we would call an 'intelligent' manner, e. g. blood circulation, is it correct to say that 'intelligent actions' can exist without consciousness?Self-organizing is fairly prominent in developmental systems theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dglgmut Posted September 5, 2011 Author Share Posted September 5, 2011 I still don't understand Ba'al's argument.We are physical, conscious things. We are made up of tiny things that are not us. Those tiny things are made of energy.In other words:We exist as physical beings, yet all the physical components of us are not us. But that stuff is just energy.It is very confusing and seems inconsistent.We are what we are made of. What else can we be? We are stuff, matter and energy. We are subject to the same physical laws as wood, water and stone.Ba'al ChatzafSo we are the energy that makes up everything?Are we all one, or separate?My body and brain, even the electrical impulses that create my thoughts, are forms of the same energy that has been around forever...If I am that energy, and that energy is everywhere and everything... Well, it doesn't sound like this is what you believe based on my interpretation of your previous posts...Let me ask you this: Is there such a thing as random? You believe in free will, I'm assuming, but nothing can choose what it is.Also: It is an objectivist theory that consciousness is dependent on awareness of self...You could argue that ones own awareness can be recognized... But what about separate awareness? There is no way to be aware of separate awareness... This is a mind-boggling question: What is awareness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 (edited) If matter can organize itself in what we would call an 'intelligent' manner, e. g. blood circulation, is it correct to say that 'intelligent actions' can exist without consciousness?Self-organizing is fairly prominent in developmental systems theory.Thanks for the very interesting link, Merlin. Edited September 5, 2011 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Self-organizing is fairly prominent in developmental systems theory.Merlin,It should also be noted that "self-organizing" is a top-down idea.If a form only emerges from the bottom up, as in reductionism, then how can it organize itself before it even exists?Or if the self-organizing property emerges, that would mean that it is inherent in the bottom stuff (sub-particles), and you get all kinds of questions about why this form and not that, and how many forms are inherent on a micro level, etc.It's kind of like the chicken and the egg thing. The simple fact is that you cannot have chickens without eggs and vice-versa. Yet humans always try to come up with a scenario where this is possible. But that only works in the mind as an imaginary projection, not in reality.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 It should also be noted that "self-organizing" is a top-down idea.I somewhat doubt that. Link.It's kind of like the chicken and the egg thing. The simple fact is that you cannot have chickens without eggs and vice-versa. Yet humans always try to come up with a scenario where this is possible. But that only works in the mind as an imaginary projection, not in reality.Some British scientists say the chicken came first. Link. Anyway, which chicken and which egg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 (edited) It should also be noted that "self-organizing" is a top-down idea.I somewhat doubt that. Link.It's kind of like the chicken and the egg thing. The simple fact is that you cannot have chickens without eggs and vice-versa. Yet humans always try to come up with a scenario where this is possible. But that only works in the mind as an imaginary projection, not in reality.Some British scientists say the chicken came first. Link. Anyway, which chicken and which egg? A rooster and an egg were lying together on their backs, after having carnal intercourse. The rooster then says to the egg - "Well I guess this answers -that- question"Ba'al Chatzaf Edited September 6, 2011 by BaalChatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 A rooster and an egg were lying together on their backs, after having carnal intercourse. The rooster then says to the egg - "Well I guess this answers -that- question"You dirty old man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I somewhat doubt that. Link.Merlin,I argue something a little different. Those "bottom-up interactions" only happen if the elements interacting are isolated from the interactions with them that occur elsewhere. Is it correct to say that?If it is, I hold that it is a mistake to eliminate the force that isolates them. That is part of the equation. For one example of such a force, I find it extremely difficult to think about something without its background as an integral part of it. Something not only exists, it exists somewhere--and that somewhere has its own characteristics that govern the something to varying degrees and manners.The one "isolating force" that is never present in the works I have read so far is human volition. Here is what I am talking about. In most inventions, a person decides to isolate certain elements and combine them with others based on study and--especially--trial and error. And he does so in a manner that would never occur without human volition. His will, his inner image, is what keeps the trials and errors going.Here's a great example of a form with human will input from the "top," one that would never occur it nature by itself: an electric toaster. Human volition is just as much a part of that toaster as the metal it's made out of.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Here's a great example of a form with human will input from the "top," one that would never occur it nature by itself: an electric toaster. Human volition is just as much a part of that toaster as the metal it's made out of.I don't disagree and don't believe developmental systems theory does either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 (edited) The one "isolating force" that is never present in the works I have read so far is human volition. Here is what I am talking about. In most inventions, a person decides to isolate certain elements and combine them with others based on study and--especially--trial and error. And he does so in a manner that would never occur without human volition. His will, his inner image, is what keeps the trials and errors going.Here's a great example of a form with human will input from the "top," one that would never occur it nature by itself: an electric toaster. Human volition is just as much a part of that toaster as the metal it's made out of.Absolutely true for the toaster example. The toaster is the end product of what started as an idea in a conscious volitional mind having a specific intention. The issue I'm racking my brain over is how - what we, in common language usage, call "matter" - can organize itself "intelligently" with no evidence of a conscious and volitional mind guiding the process. For example, can one say that the 'genetic replication program' of organisms via procreation is an "intelligent" solution by "nature"? A while ago, I watched a TV documentary about the highly complex (we humans could call them "intelligent") operations certain species have developed (like e. g. the bees' waggle dance), and the moderator (a scientist) said that "nature" had had millions of years to 'figure out' efficient solutions. (Interesting how often even scientists slip into using names that suggest an entity acting in a teleological fashion). But while there exists no entity "nature" figuring out anything, but still efficient procedures like the bees' waggle dance suggest some kind of "intelligence", can one draw the inference that "intelligent solutions" in nature can exist without a consciuos, volitional mind guiding the process?If yes, i. e. if "intelligent solutions" don't require a conscious volitional mind, can one infer that intelligence as such does not require a conscious volitional mind either? Edited September 7, 2011 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Xray,I have a speculation, but that's all it is (except for the fact that I really like this idea).I believe that there are parts of reality that we do not perceive because we have not developed (yet) the sense organs to perceive them.Here is a very crude example.We know that atoms exist in the chair we sit on. Yet we cannot verify they exist by direct observation. We can only infer their existence.Another. Blind creatures cannot perceive light, yet light exists.Sometimes we get direct glimpses of odd things, like the behavior of certain swarms. We see it happen. We don't see why that makes any sense in cause-effect thinking. So it's reasonable to think that something else is there in those swarms yet to be discovered.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 I don't disagree and don't believe developmental systems theory does either.Merlin,I admit that's a bad example.I would need to put more time into it than I have right now to dig into the meat of this thing.So here's the simple view of what I think. All forms have both top-down and bottom-up properties controlling them. Some are slanted more to one than the other, but all forms come with both. Metaphorically speaking, you can't have a top without a bottom. (I suppose we could argue whether an open-ended top or bottom is really a top or bottom at all, but I say there is a restriction in them by the very fact of being identifiable that qualifies them as such.)Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 All forms have both top-down and bottom-up properties controlling them. Some are slanted more to one than the other, but all forms come with both. Metaphorically speaking, you can't have a top without a bottom. (I suppose we could argue whether an open-ended top or bottom is really a top or bottom at all, but I say there is a restriction in them by the very fact of being identifiable that qualifies them as such.)Top-down and bottom-up strike me as independent from developmental systems theory. Based on the little I've read about developmental systems theory, it is about the inter-dependency of a thing -- e.g. an organism -- and its environment. It differs from alternative theories that it alleges assign too much independence to the thing -- e.g. selfish gene theory -- or the environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dglgmut Posted September 8, 2011 Author Share Posted September 8, 2011 (edited) The one "isolating force" that is never present in the works I have read so far is human volition. Here is what I am talking about. In most inventions, a person decides to isolate certain elements and combine them with others based on study and--especially--trial and error. And he does so in a manner that would never occur without human volition. His will, his inner image, is what keeps the trials and errors going.Here's a great example of a form with human will input from the "top," one that would never occur it nature by itself: an electric toaster.Human volition is just as much a part of that toaster as the metal it's made out of.Absolutely true for the toaster example. The toaster is the end product of what started as an idea in a conscious volitional mind having a specific intention. The issue I'm racking my brain over is how - what we, in common language usage, call "matter" - can organize itself "intelligently" with no evidence of a conscious and volitional mind guiding the process. For example, can one say that the 'genetic replication program' of organisms via procreation is an "intelligent" solution by "nature"?A while ago, I watched a TV documentary about the highly complex (we humans could call them "intelligent") operations certain species have developed (like e. g. the bees' waggle dance), and the moderator (a scientist) said that "nature" had had millions of years to 'figure out' efficient solutions. (Interesting how often even scientists slip into using names that suggest an entity acting in a teleological fashion).But while there exists no entity "nature" figuring out anything, but still efficient procedures like the bees' waggle dance suggest some kind of "intelligence", can one draw the inference that "intelligent solutions" in nature can exist without a consciuos, volitional mind guiding the process?If yes, i. e. if "intelligent solutions" don't require a conscious volitional mind, can one infer that intelligence as such does not require a conscious volitional mind either?But what is consciousness without memory and senses?Whether you say it's a conscious force or not, you still have the daunting task of defining consciousness.Also:When a car is in motion, it's not actually doing anything. The car is being moved by a force that is completely separate from the car itself. The energy from the combusting gasoline is what's doing the moving. The wheels aren't turning, they are being turned.That energy, however, does not control the car, it just moves it.Our language supports bad, habitual ways of thinking. Things don't do, they are done to.I think we strive to attain a higher level of self-control. The fact is, we cannot control our future selves. Edited September 9, 2011 by Dglgmut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Dglgmut,Your posture is typical reductionism and reminds me of Daniel Dennett.Think of this, though. You are making affirmations of absolute truth that, using your own standards, you have no way of knowing.To keep with my metaphor, you are trying to have a top without a bottom, or a form without content.Both causal action and reactive action exist. I never understood the vehemence of people who want to deny the existence of one or the other. Especially the reactive action only folks. Seems like a lot of reacting over nothing to me--but maybe they can't help themselves...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Our language supports bad, habitual ways of thinking. Things don't do, they are done to.I think we strive to attain a higher level of self-control. The fact is, we cannot control our future selves.Are you familiar with Korzybski and development of general semantics?Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Dglgmut,Your posture is typical reductionism and reminds me of Daniel Dennett.Think of this, though. You are making affirmations of absolute truth that, using your own standards, you have no way of knowing.To keep with my metaphor, you are trying to have a top without a bottom, or a form without content.Both causal action and reactive action exist. I never understood the vehemence of people who want to deny the existence of one or the other. Especially the reactive action only folks. Seems like a lot of reacting over nothing to me--but maybe they can't help themselves... Michaelreductionists have the best track record in figuring out how things work. Two cheers for reductionism.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Bob,They only manage to do that by ignoring the other stuff, even as they have to use it to do anything at all.Hurray for the big picture and those who see it!Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 But what is consciousness without memory and senses?I was not implying that consciousness exists without the above. My question is whether so-called "intelligent solutions" exist without evidence of any consciousness and volition apparent to us. Whether you say it's a conscious force or not, you still have the daunting task of defining consciousness.Correct. Would you agree with the definition "awareness of the self and environment"?http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conscious When a car is in motion, it's not actually doing anything. The car is being moved by a force that is completely separate from the car itself. The energy from the combusting gasoline is what's doing the moving. The wheels aren't turning, they are being turned.That energy, however, does not control the car, it just moves it.And who controls where the car is going? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Bob,They only manage to do that by ignoring the other stuff, even as they have to use it to do anything at all.Hurray for the big picture and those who see it!MichaelThe computer on which you typed your positing is the result of reductionist science. Without reductionism it would not exist.Aristotle saw the big picture and got most of the stuff about the physical world dead wrong as a result.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 I spoke prematurely in post #105. Top-down and bottom-up had not been mentioned as far as I had read in the book Mind In Life. It came up later in the book, however, and I started a new thread here about emergentism, reductionism, and related things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Bob,They only manage to do that by ignoring the other stuff, even as they have to use it to do anything at all.Hurray for the big picture and those who see it!MichaelThe computer on which you typed your positing is the result of reductionist science. Without reductionism it would not exist.Aristotle saw the big picture and got most of the stuff about the physical world dead wrong as a result.Ba'al ChatzafWhat was the big picture that Aristotle saw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dglgmut Posted September 12, 2011 Author Share Posted September 12, 2011 (edited) But what is consciousness without memory and senses?I was not implying that consciousness exists without the above. My question is whether so-called "intelligent solutions" exist without evidence of any consciousness and volition apparent to us. Whether you say it's a conscious force or not, you still have the daunting task of defining consciousness.Correct. Would you agree with the definition "awareness of the self and environment"?http://www.thefreedi...y.com/consciousWhen a car is in motion, it's not actually doing anything. The car is being moved by a force that is completely separate from the car itself. The energy from the combusting gasoline is what's doing the moving. The wheels aren't turning, they are being turned.That energy, however, does not control the car, it just moves it.And who controls where the car is going?Intelligence must assume consciousness, right? Intelligence is a level of effectiveness. If there is no goal, there is no intelligence...It's either intelligent and conscious, or random and unconscious.But like I said, if consciousness can exist without senses and memory, we certainly have no idea what that would be. We know that consciousness is not JUST senses and memory, because we have what seems to be free-will and emotions...As to "who" controls the car... Who controls anything? What is control?Seriously, what is control?To Adam: Thanks for that, I think I'd enjoy reading about that. Edited September 12, 2011 by Dglgmut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 To Adam: Thanks for that, I think I'd enjoy reading about that.http://www.generalsemantics.org/ <<<< Website of the Institute of General Semanticshttp://www.generalsemantics.org/the-general-semantics-learning-center/overview-of-general-semantics/basic-understandings/ <<<<this is under the GS Learning Center drop down menu - under Overview of GS - Basic Understandings: Time-BindingOnly humans have demonstrated the capability to build on the knowledge of prior generations. Alfred Korzybski referred to this capability as time-binding.Language serves as the principle tool that facilitates time-binding.Time-binding forms the basis for an ethical standard by which to evaluate human behavior; does the behavior advance time-binding and human progress based on what is known at the time, or does it deny time-binding?Acknowledging our time-binding inheritance dispels us of the “self-made” notion; as we understand how much we owe to others, we begin to understand our own limitations. Scientific ApproachHumankind’s ability to time-bind is most evident when we apply a scientific approach, method or attitude in our evaluations and judgments.A scientific approach involves the process of continually testing your assumptions and beliefs, gathering as many facts and as much data as possible, revising your assumptions and beliefs as appropriate, and holding your conclusions and judgments tentatively.Hidden, or unstated assumptions and “unknown unknown’s” guide our behavior to some degree; therefore we do well to acknowledge their influence and attempt to increase our awareness of them.We live in a process-oriented universe in which everything changes all the time. The changes may be readily apparent to us, or microscopic, or even sub-microscopic (inferred).Many times we are not concerned with the lack of apparent change. However, we invite trouble when we sometimes fail to account for change in people or things and act as if no change occurred. Abstracting and Evaluating (“Behavior Awareness”)Our awareness of “what goes on” outside of our skin, is not “what is going on”; our awareness of our experience is not the silent, first-order, neurological experience.As human organisms, we have limits as to what we can experience through our senses. Given these limitations, we can never experience ‘all’ of what’s ‘out there’ to experience.Given our ever-changing environment (which includes ourselves, and our awareness of ourselves), we never experience the ‘same’ person, event, situation, ‘thing’, experience, etc., more than once.To the degree that our reactions and responses to all forms of stimuli are automatic, or conditioned, we copy animals, like Pavlov’s dog. To the degree that our reactions and responses are more controlled, delayed, or conditional to the given situation, we exhibit our uniquely-human capabilities.We each experience “what’s out there” uniquely, according to our individual sensory capabilities, our past experiences and conditioning. We do well to maintain an attitude of “to-me-ness” in our evaluations of our own behavior, as well as in our evaluations of others’ behavior. Verbal AwarenessThe language that we use can be considered as uniquely-human behavior which allows human to pass knowledge from generation to generation, as well as within generations.However, our language has evolved with structural flaws in that much of the language we use does not properly reflect the structure of the world we experience ‘out there’.Among the flaws or mistakes we perhaps unknowingly commit in our language use:confusing the word itself with what the word stands for;acting as if the meaning of the words we use is contained solely in the word, without considering the significance of the individuals speaking and hearing the word;confusing facts with our inferences, assumptions, beliefs, etc.;not accounting for the many “shades of gray”, simplistically looking at things as if they were black or white, right or wrong, good or bad, etc.;using language to ‘separate’ that which in the actual world cannot be separated, such as “space” from “time”, “mind” from “body”, etc.Korzybski proposed the use of several language habits he called “extensional devices” to help us become more aware of these language flaws in our everyday talking and listening, and thereby behave more responsibly:Indexing — Muslim(1) is not Muslim(2) is not Muslim(3); respect differencesDating — Bob Jones(2004) is not Bob Jones(1994)Quotes — a caution that the term may be used in a peculiar or ‘not normal’ wayEtc. — a reminder than more could always be said, our knowledge is incomplete Sensory Awareness (nonverbal)We actually ‘experience’ our daily living on the silent, non-verbal levels; in other words, on a physiological-neurological level different from our verbal awareness.Our ability to experience the world outside our skins is relative, unique to our own individual organism’s capabilities.Our language habits can affect our organism’s behavior; we can allow what we see, hear, say, etc., to affect our blood pressure, pulse, rate of breathing, etc.As we become more aware of our own non-verbal behaviors, we can practice techniques to achieve greater degrees of relaxation, less stress, greater sense of our environment, etc.Enjoy, he was a pretty smart dude. There are excellent conceptual principles to understand and apply.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 What are we? If we are little girls, we are sugar and space and everything nice. If we are little boys we are snakes and snails and puppy dog's tails.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now