[MD] On Time?

[Scott Roberts]

Ian, Case,

Case said: Are there discrete levels of consciousness?

Scott said: I doubt it. Levels of rules, yes, though how 'discrete' they are 
is open
to question. Nor is it clear which levels are ontologically prior to others.

[IG] Levels yes. Discrete no, not really, only by convention. (You
managed to debate iron filings, amoebas and humans, and I'm sure you
meant different things by consciousness, intellect, awareness, etc.)

Scott:
Yes and no. I see consciousness, intellect, and value as three words (and 
there are others) that -- to put it into Fregean terms -- have the same 
denotation (call it the Tao, perhaps), but different connotations.

Case said: If consciousness exists in its own special realm why does it need 
to
bother with ours?

Scott said: Consciousness creates all realms, so I don't know what you mean 
by a
special one.

[IG] As case asked earlier I'd have to ask where you get any evidence
of that from Scott (not proof either way, just evidence, signs,
whatever) Since I already believe in physics in everyday life (I don't
drown when I drink a cup of tea for example) I suspend disbelief that
physics will actually explain the whole of nature. Why wouldn't I ? In
fact, I'd go further and cite increasing evidence that something like
quality, interactions, differences, information, communications even,
seem to underly all physics, inlcuding much "mind functioning" or
anything claiming any level of consciuousness or intellect - evidence
not proof - so I suspend disbelief - I don't go grapsing for a
supernatural explanation - an explanation beyond nature - Why ?

Scott:
For why you shouldn't suspend disbelief that physics will actually explain 
the whole of nature, I've given two reasons: the Munchhausen fallacy, and 
the one that the debate with Case has been on about, that examination of 
form (which is what physics is limited to) can never encompass awareness of 
form. Which is, basically, Chalmers' "hard problem".

If you've got value and if you've got information processing, then, as I've 
argued many times, you've got consciousness and intellect. So the only way, 
as I see it, of accusing me of grasping for a supernatural explanation is if 
you consider value to be supernatural -- or if you consider non-locality to 
be supernatural.

On the bigger question of evidence, etc.: What I am claiming (that 
consciousness creates all realms) is a metaphysical presupposition, one that 
I adopt because:
- the alternative (that is, your metaphysical presupposition) creates (as I 
see it) unsolvable and unnecessary problems (see above).
- it is supported by some mystical revelation (see, for instance, Franklin 
Merrell-Wolff's "Philosophy of Consciousness-Without-an-Object" reprinted in 
"Experience and Philosophy", especially the chapter "A Mystical Unfoldment")
- it is consistent with known empirical data, plus it provides an answer to 
the quantum measurement problem
- it (as metaphysics) avoids the pragmatic critiques of metaphysics

Scott said:
Now a question for you. From your viewpoint, why is there awareness? Why
couldn't whatever it is that happens be happening without awareness?

[IG] This you will recognise, given our other thread, as Chalmers hard
problem - the subjective aspect of consciousness. Clearly some forms
of consciousness, are unaware with no apparent first person "view".

Scott:
I wouldn't say it was clear -- since we don't know what non-human 
consciousness is like -- but ok.

Ian continued:
Why awareness ? is simple, because it evolved as being something
better than being conscious without it (I don't buy Chalmers' Zombie
remember).

Scott:
Not simple: that's the hard problem, after all. So here you are just begging 
the question that it evolved.

Ian continued:
 Clearly many forms of consciousness can be independant of
brains too. But what we're doing now is spreading out consciousness
across many levels, and we'll need to define some sub-sets to make
much sense. Clearly one kind of consciousness (just one) is the first
person awareness experience.

Scott:
Agree (except it is not "clear" -- see above), but isn't this consistent 
with my answer to Case? Or rather, isn't it just a different focus? What 
makes human consciousness different from, say, atomic consciousness, is that 
they operate under different rules, where one of the human rules is "first 
person awareness". What is not obvious is that human consciousness evolved 
out of atomic consciousness (through biological and social or however). If 
space and time are products of consciousness, then they can't be assumed to 
be givens in explaining origins of various manifestations of consciousness.

- Scott