RICHARD DAWKINGS: AN ATHEIST'S CALL TO ARMS

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, why are you taking my name in vain in this post? Aren't you addressing Dragonfly, whom you quoted above???

Roger,

Good Lord! When I blow it, I don't mess around, do I?

A thousand pardons.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Roger,

My problem is that I don't believe in magic. I don't believe non-volitional stuff creates volition out of thin air.

That is why I call the mind a holon. Since there are no hard and fast answers: my strongest leaning is toward the following (and, far from being a no-no, it is a yes-yes ): The mind is an organic system within other systems. Its nature is not yet fully known because it addresses a part of reality not available to the other senses. I suspect that just as a kidney dies when the host body dies, the mind dies when the brain dies.

I reject the view that claims as fact that the mind is a process of non-volitional elements. Volition (within a mind) causes things to happen. I see no way to ignore that. Volition is an existent, not merely a process of non-volition.

Michael

Michael, I don't believe in magic either, but I don't see the problem with one form of existence giving rise to a qualitatively different form of existence. We see this all up and down the evolutionary chain, as well as in inanimate nature.

You just as well as say that inanimate stuff creates life out of thin air.

Or perceptual beings create conceptual beings out of thin air.

Or beings able to regulate their physical processes create beings able to regulate their mental process out of thin air.

There is no "elan vital" that animates dead matter. Instead, some matter lives because of the DNA structure and functionality of is component molecules.

There is no spiritual stuff, "consciousness" that makes living beings aware. Instead, some living beings are aware/conscious because of the neuronal structure and functionality of the cells in their nervous systems.

There is no "existent" volition that causes things to happen. Instead, some conscious beings are able, because of spindle cells in their forebrains, to be aware of their conscious brain processes, and to thus be able to monitor and control them, just as they are able to monitor and interact with their environments by means of perceptual awareness.

You speak of volition as an "existent." Existents in general are not causal agents. Existents include entities and their component parts, attributes, actions, and relationships.

Aristotle/Rand (and I) regard entities and their parts as the only causal agents. Aristotle and I (though apparently not the orthodox Objectivists) regard it as illogical and ill-advised to speak of soul or mind as causing our actions, and instead as more appropriate and logical to speak of ~us~, human beings, as causing our actions ~by virtue of our power to do so~. We, and our component parts, cause actions insofar as we and our parts have attributes that are powers for causing hose actions.

Volition is not a sui generis thing unrelated to the rest of nature. It is a subcategory of living being's power to regulate their actions. (As Nathaniel discussed in The Psychology of Self-Esteem.) It is that form of self-regulation made possible by self-awareness, which is based upon the development in early childhood of spindle cells in the forebrain. There is your organ of introspection, analogous to our external sense organs.

Nothing mystical. No recourse to non-existent connections between the spiritual realm and the physical realm through the pineal gland (as Descartes suggested.) Just another form, quintessentially human, of sensitive cells receiving vital patterned information from some relevant aspect of reality. In the case of self-awareness (and volition), that aspect of reality is our conscious brain processes.

Volition is not that which chooses, but ~the power to choose~ of that which chooses. Volition is ~my~ power to choose -- and the thing, the existent, that is doing the choosing is ~me~. Michael, own your causal power! Learn to say the "I". As in: ~I~ have causal efficacy. ~I~ choose my actions.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is no "elan vital" that animates dead matter.

Roger,

I never said there was.

That is not my position.

I get the impression you are discussing things (important things) with someone, but that someone is not me. (It is me in name, but not in content.)

It is discouraging to be constantly misunderstood.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Dragonfly,

If you define volition as purely reactive, there is logic to what you say. If you define volition as a cause in itself (self-generated source of action), your explanation fails. That would claim that a fundamental cause is actually a result.

Obviously I consider volition to be part of the mind, so when I say "cause," I am considering the limitations of this within a fuller context of the mind, which is within an even fuller context of being part of a human being. Sort of like shining a flashlight on one part of a larger whole.

To try to be clearer, volition needs to be part of a human being to be a causal agent. But within a human being, volition self-generates causes not found anywhere else in the universe, not even in the other parts of the human being.

Michael

Michael,

Is volition a thing or a property? Here I have to restate Roger's point about "mind" with regard to "volition." Both mind and volition are properties of things, not things in themselves. Things have causal agency. Properties do not. Mind and volition are the net effects of the actions and interactions of things. If we are to think metaphysically, we must be careful not to misassign our categories. As has been pointed out, this is the path to the category error that led to Cartesian dualism in the first place.

Having said this I am quite sympathetic to your case for volition. A key reason I have come to think we have the property of volition is I do not disregard the value of introspection.

To claim that introspection is pure fantasy and indistinguishable from hallucination, and therefore is "a totally unsatisfactory basis for knowledge," is to make the same error as Descartes in arguing all sensory information should be doubted because we cannot distinguish the real from the illusory. The introspective landscape has more challenges than that of the extrospective landscape-- e.g.: we cannot create objectivity through objective measuring systems and mathematics, but there are methods for increasing objectivity employed in extrospective explorations that can be applied to introspective explorations. You can observe, isolate, identify, and categorize phenomena. You can generate hypothetical models about the underlying structure and dynamics that gives rise to observed events. You can make predictions about what will happen if you change particular variables, make the changes, and observe the changes in dynamics (both introspective and behavioural). You can discuss your findings with others, thus opening your hypotheses and theories to peer review. You can attempt to create a common language and compare notes with others who see value in studying the same field. You can look to integrate your findings with findings from distinct but related (extrospective) fields--e.g.: neurology, brain physiology, behavioural psychology,etc.

Yes, there is room for doubt when exploring our inner worlds, just as there is in exploring our outer world, but doubt is the reason we strive for objectivity and reality testing. It is not a reason to give up.

When exploring the introspective landscape we do find reason to believe in volition. The mind/brain is a processor of information but it processes information of a different kind and in a different way to a computer. At its base it does not just process electrical impulses. It processes information that cannot be separated from its qualitative nature. Awareness is awareness of the properties of reality that are generated by a given human consciousness interacting with its environment. The qualitative elements of this awareness are what is processed by the mind/brain. Computers don't have this. Computers process electrical impulses according to a program.

My own explorations have led me to generate a theoretical structure of the psyche that can account for the introspectively observed property of volition. At the centre of this structure, at the core of consciousness, is a causally two sided processor: on the one side is awareness which experiences information about both the environment and the organism, and automatically reacts to it, guided by the principle/purpose of integration, in the context of previously integrated information from the environment and the organism; on the other is the will which initiates actions towards specific goals, guided by the principle/purpose of integration, in the context of integrated information from the environment and the organism.

One twist to all this is that the will's initiation of action can act to override the organisms automatic reaction to the contents of awareness. In this way the necessitated reaction, or the necessitated action, of determinism is overridden. Deterministic causation has no way to model this process, so a new concept of causation is required to model it and understand it.

I should note that I do not assume this core of consciousness to be some unextended entity with disembodied actions. My own hypothesis places the processes of awareness in the interactions between the very physical reticular formation and the rest of the brain. And the properties of the will are the result of the reticular activating system interacting with the rest of the brain (especially via the structures in the prefrontal lobes and its ability to influence the content of the posterior portions of the cerebral cortex).

Can inanimate stuff come together to form animate stuff? Can stuff without awareness or will come together to form stuff with awareness and will? In reality, of course it has. In theory, that's another matter. The theory all depends on the principle of causality that guides the construction of one's models. Deterministic causation cannot model an account of these transformations. Another concept of causation is required to model such transformations.

Are my ideas right or wrong? I don't know. A desire for objectivity is one of the reasons I try to present them. I'm not looking to be right so much as looking to get it right. I'm looking to compare notes on introspective and extrospective explorations. I'm looking for critical review from fellow observers and explorers, whether or not these fellow explorers find a particular landscape worth exploring. This is just one more question for me to ponder as I strive for objectivity.

Paul

PS- Michael, I just read your response to Roger on another thread. I will take more time to try to appreciate what you mean by holon.

Edited August 12, 2008 by Paul Mawdsley

[william.scherk]

I get the impression you [Roger] are discussing things (important things) with someone, but that someone is not me. (It is me in name, but not in content.)

It is discouraging to be constantly misunderstood.

Roger is adding value to this thread for me. There may be a small -- or large -- gap between your scope and his scope, but the exchanges are still useful. I still have a hard time understanding issues I raised up-thread in relation to holons.

In Roger's preceding post he sketches out the world as he sees it, in terms of mind. Is there some part of his presentation you disagree with, Michael? If so, why don't you take the opportunity to lay out what you believe or hold to be true?

Here is an example of a phrase that can be misunderstood: "[The mind's] nature is not yet fully known because it addresses a part of reality not available to the other senses.

What I don't get is what unavailable-to-senses part of reality is addressed by the mind? I have the impression that this is something ineffable (as described). Can you put a bit more flesh on these bones so we know more clearly what you mean, please? That way there might be less misunderstanding.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Michael,

Would what I have called "the core of consciousness" be a holon? It is something that is isolated and identified by its relationship to other things, especially its relationship the the properties of consciousness (the whole). Its existence and nature is inferred from the role it plays in the system of which it is a part.

Paul

[Roger Bissell]

There is no "elan vital" that animates dead matter.

Roger,

I never said there was.

That is not my position.

I get the impression you are discussing things (important things) with someone, but that someone is not me. (It is me in name, but not in content.)

It is discouraging to be constantly misunderstood.

Michael

It is discouraging for me to say one thing, and then to have you say that I said something else. Read my post again.

I made the sweeping argument that, all up and down the evolutionary chain, there are examples of entities with certain powers and kinds of action that emerge or evolve from other entities NOT having those powers and actions -- and that there are no mysterious ingredients to be found anywhere in nature to cause these powers and actions.

I did NOT say you believe in "elan vital." I just COMPARED your view, as part of a list, to "elan vital," which was just one of numerous examples about invalid stuff that has been cooked up to explain natural phenomena.

Your particular error, which is identical in its general nature to "elan vital," is the positing of consciousness or mind or volition as something different from the brain, and which causes our choices and actions.

There is no "elan vital" that ~makes~ us live, and there is no "volition" that ~makes~ our choices. We live. We choose. We live by virtue of the power of our DNA molecules to generate certain structures that are capable of self-generated, self-sustaining action. We choose by virtue of the power of our neuronal structures to select optimal outcomes from projected alternative actions.

Entities (and their component parts) act. When you try to say volition is an "existent" that causes our choices, you are speaking woozy nonsense, ~unless~ you mean volition is an entity or a component of an entity (holon).

In any case, why say volition is an "existent"? It fuzzes up the discussion and is at least one level too abstract to be of any help in clarifying the nature of volition's role in our making of choices. Again: ~WE~ make our choices, by virtue of ~OUR~ power to be aware of alternatives and select the one that we most want to obtain. Volition is ~OUR~ power to do this. We choose. Volition is that by virtue of which we choose. It is not a thing/existent that chooses for us. We are the thing/existent (entity) that chooses, and volition is the thing/existent (attribute/power) by virtue of which WE choose.

I know you abhor repetition. But I don't see you quoting any of ~MY~ points, just ways in which you think I misrepresent ~YOUR~ points. That is not the way to have a dialogue! It instead shunts off the focus onto how poor Michael is being misunderstood and misrepresented, and away from the seemingly threatening (certainly non-commented-on) views I am presenting.

I am certainly ~critiquing~ your views, Michael. To the extent I understand them, I regard some of them as illogical. But to a greater extent, they are just too fuzzy to help move the discussion forward.

REB

P.S. (added later) -- the following is a perfect example of the latter. Gak. Please, don't post that sort of stuff.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Paul,

You asked: "Is volition a thing or a property?" I think that is a false dichotomy. Volition is a form of existence, but it is not stand-alone.

Is life a thing or a property? Is awareness a thing or a property?

You see the problem? These are states of being inseparable from themselves. They are forms of existence. Just as an atom exists qua atom, so does a living creature exist qua living creature and not merely as a lump of atoms. By the time a living creature is reduced to atoms, countless structures have been destroyed along with the living thing.

(btw - I just saw your last post. I really like the term "core of consciousness." Yes, I believe this is a holon.)

William,

I don't like explaining by analogy, but when there is no other way to point to a direction, I do so. Maybe a good analogy will put more flesh on these bones.

Suppose you were a talking nose and I was a talking nose, but I had a very primitive eye—and it was practically blind, but not totally. (Maybe you had one, too, but thought it was a nuisance, so you didn't pay it any mind.) So long as we keep talking about smells, we are talking the same language.

Then one day I tell you I have heard many people talking about something different. They claim it is real, they report similar experiences across many different cultures, but for the life of me, I can't make out anything clear from it. Then you ask me if it stinks or has a pleasant aroma. If it is perfume, maybe. I say, no, it has nothing to do with smell.

You scoff. Reality is smell. Only fools and mystics believe otherwise.

Then I say, well, sometimes I get a blast of something people call a flash. It is very similar to what they have reported. (Remember I have an underdeveloped eye, so some light gets in.) I try to find words, but my language is smell-based. Then you start looking at me cockeyed and wondering if I am crazy or not. Everybody knows if it doesn't smell, it doesn't exist.

See the problem with this flesh on these bones? All our communication is based on a type of experience (aroma) and organs that do not process that part of reality (light).

If I am a weak character, I will negate what I experienced (even to myself) and cede to the scoffing. I did enough of that for 10 lifetimes and I refuse to do it anymore. (I became a drug addict for negating the evidence of my awareness and adopting principles of what should be in its place.)

I don't have words right now to fully express this other sensory possibility (and please remember, I am not claiming fact, merely a plausibility). What I can do is point to things like top-down and bottom-up and say I observe that things that exist have both, and neither is caused by the other, i.e., top is not caused by bottom and bottom is not caused by top.

Then I see people claiming—as fact—that top is either caused by bottom or it is a property of bottom or it is a process of bottom, etc. And I disagree. Top and bottom are angles of observing the things that exist, not replacements or causes for the existence of the things. Things have both top and bottom to equal degrees of importance, not one or the other. (And they have left and right and so on, but that is getting too weird for this conversation.)

I can also point to some emotional experiences I have had like expansive feelings of oneness, etc., but the total experience was more than feeling. How do you explain light to a nose? It's not just an emotion, although it can cause emotion. But the nose cannot relate to light.

I am out of time. I will try to put my finger on this over time. The things I have read of Wilber get really close. Nathaniel Branden's idea of underlying reality gets really close. I want to say I have sensed "attraction creating forms" or something like that, but I don't want to fall off into Law of Attraction land where New Age hype rules supreme and opinion holds more weight than fact.

Does that help a bit in seeing where I am coming from? I can't paint a clear picture of something when I only have a vague glimpse of it. And I refuse to claim I am crazy for glimpsing and acknowledging that something different came through into my awareness.

In addition to all this, I experience myself. I refuse to say this experience—my core—is an illusion or chemical byproduct, just as I would refuse to call a light wave some sort of byproduct of aroma to a nose.

Aroma is a form of existence. Light is a form of existence. Life is a form of existence. Awareness is a form of existence. They may interconnect and be inseparable from other things, but at the same time they are distinctive forms of existence in their own right. (Another case where it is not either-or, but instead both.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I know you abhor repetition. But I don't see you quoting any of ~MY~ points, just ways in which you think I misrepresent ~YOUR~ points. That is not the way to have a dialogue! It instead shunts off the focus onto how poor Michael is being misunderstood and misrepresented, and away from the seemingly threatening (certainly non-commented-on) views I am presenting.

I am certainly ~critiquing~ your views, Michael. To the extent I understand them, I regard them as illogical. But to a great extent, they are just too fuzzy to be helpful or to deserve comment. Sorry, but I really think you're in over your head here.

Roger,

I don't want to say, "I told you so," but how can I discuss anything with that?

I have sensed this condescending attitude from afar, which is why I merely point out your errors in understanding some of my words and intentions and wait for it to go away before addressing your points, if that moment should ever come. (I agree with several of your points, but disagree with others. I value your presentation so far as exposition, not discussion.)

I personally do not want to discuss anything with someone who is scoffing me at the outset and repeatedly getting my words and ideas wrong to bolster the scoff. It's not poor Michael. It's Michael making a value judgment about when and where to expend his efforts.

I value me far too much to act differently.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

P.S. (added later) -- the following is a perfect example of the latter. Gak. Please, don't post that sort of stuff.

Roger,

See what I mean?

What discussion do you really want to have with a dummy like me?

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Paul,

[...]

(btw - I just saw your last post. I really like the term "core of consciousness." Yes, I believe this is a holon.)

William,

[...]

In addition to all this, I experience myself. I refuse to say this experience—my core—is an illusion or chemical byproduct, just as I would refuse to call a light wave some sort of byproduct of aroma to a nose.

Michael

Michael and Paul and William -- if any of you regard your "core of consciousness" as identical to your ~self~, I would suggest that it is ~not~ a holon, i.e., ~not~ a part or component of the whole living organism.

Instead, self-conscious self ~is~ the human entity, the human organism, the top level of the human organismic hierarchy, the human being as a self-aware, whole entity. Your self is not part of you. It ~is~ you.

And I agree, it is not an illusion. You are reflexively, introspectively and enteroceptively, aware of yourself, just as you are perceptually aware of the world.

Your ~awareness~ of your self, your self ~as you are aware of it~, however, ~is~ a byproduct of your consciousness and your self as an organism. Awareness is always a byproduct of existence -- of some aspect of reality that exists and some existing organism that is aware of it.

In this case, ~you~ are the aspect of reality that exists ~and~ and existing organism that is aware of it -- which is why I used the term "reflexively...aware." You are self-aware. Not of a holon, though, but of the entity which you are.

REB

[Roger Bissell]

I know you abhor repetition. But I don't see you quoting any of ~MY~ points, just ways in which you think I misrepresent ~YOUR~ points. That is not the way to have a dialogue! It instead shunts off the focus onto how poor Michael is being misunderstood and misrepresented, and away from the seemingly threatening (certainly non-commented-on) views I am presenting.

I am certainly ~critiquing~ your views, Michael. To the extent I understand them, I regard them as illogical. But to a great extent, they are just too fuzzy to be helpful or to deserve comment. Sorry, but I really think you're in over your head here.

Roger,

I don't want to say, "I told you so," but how can I discuss anything with that?

I have sensed this condescending attitude from afar, which is why I merely point out your errors in understanding some of my words and intentions and wait for it to go away before addressing your points, if that moment should ever come. (I agree with several of your points, but disagree with others. I value your presentation so far as exposition, not discussion.)

I personally do not want to discuss anything with someone who is scoffing me at the outset and repeatedly getting my words and ideas wrong to bolster the scoff. It's not poor Michael. It's Michael making a value judgment about when and where to expend his efforts.

I value me far too much to act differently.

Michael

Suit yourself. But I deleted the underscore material above BEFORE you posted this. I REALIZED it was condescending and uncivil and deleted it. But thank you for the opportunity to point out that I DID regret posting that comment.

Your other comment about my "condescending attitude" that you have "sensed...from afar" -- presumably over some period of time -- is just balderdash. You are always welcome to call me on my bullshit, just as I (sometimes online, sometimes offline) have called you on yours. If you have a beef, don't gunnysack it, and don't "wait for it to go away." And pounce when it temporarily (as above underscored) goes too far over the line.

I'm sorry I wrote what I did. I deleted it. For me, that's the end of the story.

As for my other comments, I really do think that you have a severe clarity issue, and your recent posts have not helped promote understanding. And that is not condescension. I call them as I see them. And if anyone wants to critique me for muddying the waters, they are certainly free to do so. I welcome the chance to make my ideas clearer, and so should you, instead of acting all wounded about it.

REB

[Roger Bissell]

P.S. (added later) -- the following is a perfect example of the latter. Gak. Please, don't post that sort of stuff.

Roger,

See what I mean?

What discussion do you really want to have with a dummy like me?

Michael

Michael, I don't think you're a dummy.

I think you are rash in posting material about which you do not have sufficient clarity to warrant posting.

There are areas where I really don't know a hell of a lot, so I button my lip and listen to what the others (who presumably do know more than I) are saying. I may have some vague, perhaps even strongly felt, opinions, but I spare myself the embarrassment of blurting them out, when I know that others are not going to have more than a fuzzy clue of what I'm trying to say.

After all, I have an aversion to being condescended to by those who know more than I do. :poke:

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

Without my conscious awareness, there is no "me." I agree with you that I need the rest, too. But "me" is not a byproduct of the rest that is the incomplete me. I hold that "me" is a specific form of existing.

I have never held that the conscious awareness part of "me" exists as a form detached from the rest. I hold that it is the fundamental state, though.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I can't paint a clear picture of something when I only have a vague glimpse of it. And I refuse to claim I am crazy for glimpsing and acknowledging that something different came through into my awareness.

As for my other comments, I really do think that you have a severe clarity issue, and your recent posts have not helped promote understanding. And that is not condescension.

Roger,

I said, "I am not clear about something."

You said, "Your real problem, the real biggy, is that you are not clear about something."

Don't you find that kind of communication just a little off point?

Then you continue,

There are areas where I really don't know a hell of a lot, so I button my lip and listen to what the others (who presumably do know more than I) are saying. I may have some vague, perhaps even strongly felt, opinions, but I spare myself the embarrassment of blurting them out, when I know that others are not going to have more than a fuzzy clue of what I'm trying to say.

After all, I have an aversion to being condescended to by those who know more than I do. :poke:

This could easily be translated as, "You should think with my mind, not yours, because I know more than you."

I admit, the message is softer now. But if the roles were reversed, how would you feel about condescension?

The following is my opinion, but I think when you don't understand something someone wrote, it is far more productive to ask what he means, then wait for the response, before claiming he is all wrong about it all in almost every respect, being a borderline mystic and all, including the innate evasion, emotionalism, subjectvism, second-handedness, flat out whim-based primacy of consciousness and lack of learning that goes with such nonsense. Gak!

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Michael and Paul and William -- if any of you regard your "core of consciousness" as identical to your ~self~, I would suggest that it is ~not~ a holon, i.e., ~not~ a part or component of the whole living organism.

Roger,

I don't. I am using it in the same sense as NB does when he talks about the "unifying centre of consciousness." As I said, it is part of a structure. Just as the reticular formation and the reticular activating system are part of the structure of the brain, the centre of consciousness is part of the structure of the psyche. In fact, the basic division of the psyche is between the "I" and the "me," between the ego and the self. Again, this is in agreement with NB's writing. NB identified the same holon.

Paul

[tjohnson]

Korzybski writes that 'consciousness' by itself is an incomplete term and says we should say 'consciousness of abstracting'. Like mind, consciousness is not a thing but a process and 'consciousness of abstracting' describes this process very well. We are conscious that we are immersed in a sea of energies but we abstract characteristics, attributes, objects, etc. from this stimuli and abstract further into languages of similar structure, called 'knowledge'.

[Roger Bissell]

I can't paint a clear picture of something when I only have a vague glimpse of it. And I refuse to claim I am crazy for glimpsing and acknowledging that something different came through into my awareness.

As for my other comments, I really do think that you have a severe clarity issue, and your recent posts have not helped promote understanding. And that is not condescension.

Roger,

I said, "I am not clear about something."

You said, "Your real problem, the real biggy, is that you are not clear about something."

Don't you find that kind of communication just a little off point?

Then you continue,

There are areas where I really don't know a hell of a lot, so I button my lip and listen to what the others (who presumably do know more than I) are saying. I may have some vague, perhaps even strongly felt, opinions, but I spare myself the embarrassment of blurting them out, when I know that others are not going to have more than a fuzzy clue of what I'm trying to say.

After all, I have an aversion to being condescended to by those who know more than I do. :poke:

This could easily be translated as, "You should think with my mind, not yours, because I know more than you."

I admit, the message is softer now. But if the roles were reversed, how would you feel about condescension?

The following is my opinion, but I think when you don't understand something someone wrote, it is far more productive to ask what he means, then wait for the response, before claiming he is all wrong about it all in almost every respect, being a borderline mystic and all, including the innate evasion, emotionalism, subjectvism, second-handedness, flat out whim-based primacy of consciousness and lack of learning that goes with such nonsense. Gak!

Michael

Jesus Christ, Michael, talk about over-the-top, emotionalism. Why not just pour a big bucket of shit on yourself, and blame ~that~ on me, too.

I just said that aren't stupid, you just aren't clear enough or knowledgeable enough to be posting as much as you are on this subject, and you go nuclear and claim I'm calling you Immanuel Kant or something. Take it easy. You're going to blow a gasket!

We've been ~asking~ what you mean and waiting for a clarifying response, and getting mostly murk instead. We've been trying to dialogue with you. So don't paint us as knee-jerk, shoot from the hip, bullies, OK? Patience and charity are virtues, but they're not infinitely elastic.

REB

[Roger Bissell]

Michael and Paul and William -- if any of you regard your "core of consciousness" as identical to your ~self~, I would suggest that it is ~not~ a holon, i.e., ~not~ a part or component of the whole living organism.

Roger,

I don't. I am using it in the same sense as NB does when he talks about the "unifying centre of consciousness." As I said, it is part of a structure. Just as the reticular formation and the reticular activating system are part of the structure of the brain, the centre of consciousness is part of the structure of the psyche. In fact, the basic division of the psyche is between the "I" and the "me," between the ego and the self. Again, this is in agreement with NB's writing. NB identified the same holon.

Paul

Paul, I don't recognize a distinction between the "I" and the "me" except that I is/am the subject of awareness and me is the object of awareness. I hit him -- I am the doer. He hit me -- me/I am the receiver. Same for awareness. I ~am~ me, from the "subjective" (subject of cognition) perspective. Me is I, from the "objective" (object of cognition) perspective.

Similarly, I don't see a distinction between the ego and the self. They are the same thing, the same person, just from two different perspectives. So they can't be two different ~parts~ (holons) of the person, just two different perspectives on the same person. They are the top of the organismic hierarchy, also, so again they cannot be parts/components (holons). They ~are~ the whole person.

What you are conceiving of as the "core" of consciousness can also actually be conceived and visualized as the "apex" of the hierarchical structure of the entity that is a human person.

If you're into, or familiar with, topology, and how very different appearing structures are actually topologically equivalent, because they can be topologically transformed into each other, then try this thought experiment.

Imagine a pyramid-type of hierarchical structure with a large cylinder at the base with increasingly small cylinders up to the top -- and imagine a series of graduated size rings (like concentric circles). The top of the first structure is like an apex, and the middle of the second struture is like a core.

Now, to see the equivalence, either (1) imagine the top of the pyramid structure collapsing down (with the other levels) into the bottom level -- voila! a concentric ring structure, with the former apex now the innermost circle or "core", or (2) imagine somehow elevating the core of the concentric ring structure, dragging along all of the rest of the rings except the outermost, so that the core is now on top -- voila! a hierarchical structure, with the former core now the topmost portion or "apex."

So, IMO, it is clear that we are really talking about the same thing. The apex/ego and the core/self are really just two different perspectives on the same thing, the ruling part of the human organismic structure.

REB

[Roger Bissell]

I can't paint a clear picture of something when I only have a vague glimpse of it. And I refuse to claim I am crazy for glimpsing and acknowledging that something different came through into my awareness.

As for my other comments, I really do think that you have a severe clarity issue, and your recent posts have not helped promote understanding. And that is not condescension.

Roger,

I said, "I am not clear about something."

You said, "Your real problem, the real biggy, is that you are not clear about something."

Don't you find that kind of communication just a little off point?

I certainly do. It is ~very~ off-point (and a lot worse) to quote yourself as saying something you never said, then to quote me as saying something I never said, and--to top that off--to portray it as though I said it in reply to you.

Here's the REAL exchange between us:

Michael: "What discussion do you really want to have with a dummy like me?"

Roger: Michael, I don't think you're a dummy. I think you are rash in posting material about which you do not have sufficient clarity to warrant posting."

There is a very real difference between not wanting to discuss a particular topic with someone who is generally stupid, dim-witted, obtuse--your basic "dummy"--and not wanting to discuss it with someone who has not done enough clear thinking on a subject to contribute more than vague, poetic sounding descriptions of his impressions of a topic.

It's not a crime or a matter of shame to not have a clearly thought out understanding of an area of discussion. That's when it's appropriate to ask questions and, more importantly, listen and think about what others, who are thinking clearly, have to say. What rankles and exasperates others is to jump in and throw clouds of fog over the discussion.

I'm not holding or advocating a double standard here, as if I were "better" than you, Michael. There are areas of expertise you have that I would not dream of jumping into and vigorously discussing. I can guarantee that you would be ~very~ rankled and exasperated if I did!

Then you continue,

There are areas where I really don't know a hell of a lot, so I button my lip and listen to what the others (who presumably do know more than I) are saying. I may have some vague, perhaps even strongly felt, opinions, but I spare myself the embarrassment of blurting them out, when I know that others are not going to have more than a fuzzy clue of what I'm trying to say.

After all, I have an aversion to being condescended to by those who know more than I do. :poke:

This could easily be translated as, "You should think with my mind, not yours, because I know more than you."

No, it means: sometimes you should shut up and listen, as I do, instead of spouting off about everything under the sun (which is your Constitutional right as well as your privilege as host of OL -- but which is not always advisable!) Nothing condescending about that. Just a word to the wise.

REB

[william.scherk]

Michael and Paul and William -- if any of you regard your "core of consciousness" as identical to your ~self~, I would suggest that it is ~not~ a holon, i.e., ~not~ a part or component of the whole living organism.

If I understand this correctly, I agree. The term 'core of consciousness' doesn't mean a great deal to me, and my mind is dragged off into Damasio-land -- since he considers 'core consciousness' to be the central monitory apparatus of the organism.

Thinking holonically, or giving myself a high-holonic, I don't get much comprehension of what this means to human consciousness, or mind. I don't accept that the most important thing about mind and consciousness and mental events is that this is all holonic. It doesn't give me a grip on the research that interests me, and the philosophy of consciousness that interests me (Damasio again).

The best image I can get of the importance of the holon concept is as a pattern, and as a pattern a rule of thumb that tells us something meaningful about the nature of reality. At a high point of abstraction, merely comparing kidneys and bodies, cells and kidneys and so on is a great thing -- teaching us to look for relationships and imbrications of form and function and development. Search further into evolutionary developmental work, and we may intuit how a kidney 'holon' in the heritage of shared genes somehow made the first kidney-like function appear in the development of organisms over evolutionary time . . . great stuff: look for the patterns of how things have fitted inside each other through the eons.

As a pattern, then, if we apply a dose of this self-same high-colonic concept to the 'mind' (or, if Michael would grant the point, to the mind/brain): what do we see, what pattern ought we find if the holonic concept can show us a meaningful, enduring pattern?

Well, the mind/brain definitely is a whole of parts. There is no part of the body that has no connection to the mind/brain, they are mutually implicated; they are one organism.

Then the organism itself is implicated in the terms of its life: eat, be eaten, live, exult, plan, speak, intuit, wager and die. Thus the varied sets of inquiry each find and interpret patterns of development and integrate each other's findings.

Where holonic thought takes me off the rails is when I consider that there is another suggested valence (at least in the Wilber version): the holon of a mind/brain is a pattern that is bound for something, bound to develop ever 'higher' functions. Here the holon is reified into a thing in and of itself, viewed not merely as a pattern observed, but as an ineffable nudger of ever-present reality along proper grooves. So here suddenly holonic thought implies a force, not merely a pattern.

Further, in Wilber the holon skirts with being a separate 'morphic field' itself guiding the development. Not an abstracted 'morphic field' pattern as a heuristic, implied or derived from the action of gene/organism/environment, no, but a field that is invisible but active, guiding the forms and structure of the things under its influence. An elan vital, so to speak.

That is the part of holon, the field-theory extrusions, where my mind/brain cannot compute. From what evidence can we posit this invisible but active field, as if it were true and verifiable and as accessible to the nose as any strong odor would be to a mammal like us?

Where is the holon as agent found before its development and its emergence as an interdependent actor?

I think Michael would do well to read The Ancestor's Tale, The Feeling of What Happens, and The Stuff of Thought . . . to see that perhaps his intuitive gropings for universal thematic unity are to be found with the assistance of some of the great synthetic thinkers of today.

I submit Wilber is not a player in the synthesis undertaken by the likes of Dawkins, Damasio and Pinker -- and that whatever his claims to integrate science and spirituality, he has not made an impression on the very people who need to be his allies for his project to succeed.

Similarly, Michael, the joy of these kinds of inquiry comes from the integration, whence the puzzles and apparent disjunctures fold together in a matrix of comprehension -- the vault of reason. The work of Wilber crosses several hard lines that you hold as a bulwark against unreason. The vault of spirit.

Please consider your interlocutors here as fellow spelunkers of knowledge. If they warn you away from what they see as a side-trap, it is not in the spirit of diminishing you, but as comrades who look out for the safety and integrity of a colleague.

[Edited for spelling, grammar]

Edited August 12, 2008 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I can't paint a clear picture of something when I only have a vague glimpse of it. And I refuse to claim I am crazy for glimpsing and acknowledging that something different came through into my awareness.

As for my other comments, I really do think that you have a severe clarity issue, and your recent posts have not helped promote understanding. And that is not condescension.

Roger,

I said, "I am not clear about something."

You said, "Your real problem, the real biggy, is that you are not clear about something."

Don't you find that kind of communication just a little off point?

I certainly do. It is ~very~ off-point (and a lot worse) to quote yourself as saying something you never said, then to quote me as saying something I never said, and--to top that off--to portray it as though I said it in reply to you.

Roger,

This is a perfect example of what I mean by trouble with elementary communication and understanding. I was (obviously to me) making a paraphrase to simplify an idea and I provided the original quotes first to make that clear. Since that form was too subtle, here it is corrected (with the addition in bold).

I can't paint a clear picture of something when I only have a vague glimpse of it. And I refuse to claim I am crazy for glimpsing and acknowledging that something different came through into my awareness.

As for my other comments, I really do think that you have a severe clarity issue, and your recent posts have not helped promote understanding. And that is not condescension.

Roger,

To paraphrase, this essentially translates as:

I said, "I am not clear about something."

You said, "Your real problem, the real biggy, is that you are not clear about something."

Don't you find that kind of communication just a little off point?

You might notice that in striving for clarification, I often try to rephrase a statement in order to focus on an essential meaning being communicated. When I do that, I rarely put it as a quote unless I put the real quote right before it.

Look through my writing and you will often see phrases like "this translates as" or "this means," and even then, I am aware of two sides in a discussion, not one, so I often further qualify it by saying "could translate" or "I understand this to mean."

In the part where you said I misquoted, I used that particular form of presentation (quote marks) for rhetorical emphasis and, to repeat, I prefaced it with the original quotes in quote boxes. I was not intending it to be understood as an exact quote, but as a paraphrase that simplified the message of the preceding quotes.

I hope my intention is now clear.

You then continued with "Here's the REAL exchange between us..."

I don't find the one you mentioned related to the other.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The following is my opinion, but I think when you don't understand something someone wrote, it is far more productive to ask what he means, then wait for the response, before claiming he is all wrong about it all in almost every respect, being a borderline mystic and all, including the innate evasion, emotionalism, subjectvism, second-handedness, flat out whim-based primacy of consciousness and lack of learning that goes with such nonsense. Gak!

Jesus Christ, Michael, talk about over-the-top, emotionalism. Why not just pour a big bucket of shit on yourself, and blame ~that~ on me, too.

I just said that aren't stupid, you just aren't clear enough or knowledgeable enough to be posting as much as you are on this subject, and you go nuclear and claim I'm calling you Immanuel Kant or something. Take it easy. You're going to blow a gasket!

Roger,

Pipe down. That was a quip. That's what the smiley was about.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Where holonic thought takes me off the rails is when I consider that there is another suggested valence (at least in the Wilber version): the holon of a mind/brain is a pattern that is bound for something, bound to develop ever 'higher' functions. Here the holon is reified into a thing in and of itself, viewed not merely as a pattern observed, but as an ineffable nudger of ever-present reality along proper grooves. So here suddenly holonic thought implies a force, not merely a pattern.

Further, in Wilber the holon skirts with being a separate 'morphic field' itself guiding the development. Not an abstracted 'morphic field' pattern as a heuristic, implied or derived from the action of gene/organism/environment, no, but a field that is invisible but active, guiding the forms and structure of the things under its influence. An elan vital, so to speak.

That is the part of holon, the field-theory extrusions, where my mind/brain cannot compute. From what evidence can we posit this invisible but active field, as if it were true and verifiable and as accessible to the nose as any strong odor would be to a mammal like us?

William,

This gets to some essentials.

I find the whole concept of emergence to "imply a force, not merely a pattern." The only difference between that kind of thinking and Wilber's is that the emergence people consider the force to come from the bottom up and Wilber considers it to come from the top down. But both consider such a force to be a "a field that is invisible but active, guiding the forms and structure of the things under its influence."

(The only sour note is your statement that this is an "elan vital," which is different. I understand that concept to be a fancy form of spook.)

One thing cannot be denied. Evolution of life shows a historical pattern of movement from the simple toward the complex. This is confirmed by observation and examination of fossils. The issue is why, not that this pattern exists. Even big bang theorists claim the singularity was a huge SIMPLE ONENESS, then suddenly it became complex and kept expanding after that and presumably getting more complex as it goes along (like with the development of life).

When you ask how to access such a force by the nose, you are making my very point that, if something like this is a part of reality, it needs its own sense organ to perceive it. It will be just as inaccessible to the nose as light is. The mind/brain (to use your phrase) is the closest thing we have.

As all this is essentially speculation (some better than other), I see no reason why one cannot posit that such a force exists operating both from the bottom and from the top. I don't understand thinking that looks at something, sees top and bottom, (i.e., form and parts), then claims that one governs the other or that one controls some force the other does not have. If both exist and are observable, why not include both in these speculations?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No, it means: sometimes you should shut up and listen...

Roger,

Perigo once told me to shut the fuck up.

I didn't.

I don't think I will here, either.

(But I do listen.)

Michael