Talk:Consciousness Studies/Contemporary Explanations

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

PANPSYCHISM

The section on Pan-psychism is dreadful, it doesn't actually explain what pan-psychism is, it's written in a style that's barely lucid, much of it is spent on ( apparently) musing about why you are reading it, it claims that panpsychism represents some kind of mystical magical awareness, as far as I can tell it's original research, it's style of referencing and quotation is confusing, you cannot tell what is being quoted and what the author himself is saying. Because it contains no valuable content we might as well delete it. It's either vandalism or the work of someone who has decided that this text book is the right place to put his own, rambling, incoherent, mainfesto.

Here's a sample.

If you are here, reading about panpsychism, then it may be because you still have no clue as to what consciousness is. Or, you have read philosophers say ' Without consciousness the Mind-Body problem would be much less interesting, with consciousness it seems hopeless' T. Nagel, ' What it's Like to be a Bat'. You may have reached this section rationally, logically. It follows the previous section, you are reading linearly. Basically you are thinking and acting scientifically/ philosophically. Or, you may have read " Panpsychism " and thought ' strange, flaky, interesting '. You are following your feelings, and close behind are your intuitions. This kind of thinking could be called Magical thought. There is more than one way to be aware of the world. Although a panpsychic might say consciousness is everything, it is not every where the same thing. It has an infinite number of aspects, forms and patterns. We arrive at panpsychism intuitively, by following our feelings. Science and philosophy represent one kind of awareness, one aspect of consciousness.Magical thinking is another aspect of consciousness. " ...intuitions are important and that even if expressed vaguely they can serve as useful pointers to those seeking a more complete account of the mind" David Skrbina, ' Panpsychism in the West ' p.3.

THE INTRODUCTION

Sounds awfully like original research, and not very helpful or accurate original research at that.

Thank-you, whoever you are, for your comments on, and censorship of, my attempt to present an alternative approach to understanding consciousness. Please understand, that in order to approach this problem from a different perspective, I had to seperate myself from the status-quo. I am the black sheep. I am like the black man or the Muslim or even the guy down the street from you who does'nt mow his lawn. Why would I think that anything I have to say would fit into your psychological filing system, conform to your way of doing things. What I have attempted to do is to find a middle ground. A space where a dialogue could begin. Perhaps you have created that space, I don't know, we will see what happens. You say, whoever you are, that the style is barely lucid. Well, that's the point. If we are all thinking like you, using scientific/ philosophic rationality, we get to say we don't have a clue as to what consciousness is. If I can alter your expectations and patterns of thought, I have a chance of providing you with the varying experiential aspects of consciousness. If you experience that, you go a long ways toward understanding consciousness. It is only after releasing the firm grip that the theoretical construct of science has on your mind can I then begin to explain how others have come to understand consciousness in quite a different way. The concept 'magic' is meant to release within the reader, their intuitions and feelings about what consciousness is. This is not original research, it reflects ideas that are present in Eastern religious tradition, in current questions about the interpretation of quantum physics and current attempts to reconcile the two. You know, it's like trying to reconcile Israel with Palestine, reconcile immigrants with citizens. Israel and Palestine have made no progress, can we?Shamantics 20:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

If you feel you need to save the world from what you see as predatory pseudo-intellectuals, go ahead, burn the book (I mean entry). But if you want to engage in a dialogue about how you feel the idea of 'Consciousness as Everything' should be formatted and styled, then I'm open to suggestions. (see below for how Robin H and I proceeded) But like the Phoenix, it will return. Shamantics 20:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I am including 4 new, and hopefully suitably acceptable references, to this topic. It is my intention to re-write that which was so uncerimoniously deleted, with or without a dialogue with whoever it was that censored it.Shamantics 18:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask Robin H, " How I can get access to my original text?"Shamantics 18:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I temporarily cut the section on magic, this was added by user (? - please get an ID). It was cut for three reasons:

1. If the magical conception of consciousness is inexplicable AND it involves a belief that realist explanations are fruitless it should be in the new section on Idealism, religion etc.

2. If the magical conception considers that realist explanations of consciousness are not fruitless then, if explicable, it is clearly part of the "Identity theory of mind", if inexplicable is part of mysterianism. A separate entry is not required but entries could be made in the section on scientific theories (with references to published work) or as a brief aside under mysterianism, if applicable.

3. This is a textbook on consciousness and the entry on magical conception of consciousness makes no reference to its background or work by other authors.

If the user who contributed the section edits the page they will find the text that they entered is still there, commented out, ready for transfer or amendment.

RobinH 08:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply: What you have done in your criticism was to try to place what I wrote into the framework of a tradition you believe in but which I do not. That probably accounts for your difficulty in trying to place what I wrote in a 'section'.The Wikibook idea is to " think free". Yet, you attempt to constrain this discussion to an 'acceptable' text format. I don't get it. And this part you will probably not get: Since we are all one, there is no need to reference other works or other authors.You want to put authors and references, go ahead, I choose not to. Do we actually get to promote free and different ways of thinking in the Wikibook or is that just a myth? Transcend your intellect, consider the possibility of listening to your intuition and your feelings. Then we can engage in a co-operative, free and open discussion. Please put my section on magic back.

I did not remove your article but made it invisible while we have this discussion. I am happy for your section on magic to be in the book but it needs to go in the right place. Placing it in the introduction, for instance, would be entirely inappropriate. In your text you proposed that:

"Instead of taking energy as simple let's make consciousness simple and consider the possibility of deriving energy from consciousness."

This is a form of "idealism" (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/ ) and is also closely related to Buddhist "consciousness-only" philosophy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness-only ). The key issue here is whether, like in Buddhism, you feel that the magical conception is central and material things are illusions or whether you feel, as Descartes pointed out, that even though everything is consciousness science can still be defined as the relationships within experience. If you feel that the magical conception has the characteristics of Buddhist "consciousness-only" then your article should go in "Idealism, religion and panpsychism", if science emerges from the consciousness then the article should really go in "scientific theories".

My own feeling is that the article should go in "Idealism, religion and panpsychism". You wrote:

"How do we know that energy and consequently matter itself are not aware in some simple way. There is some sense in saying electrons are aware of protons and negative electrical charges are aware of and in some simple way, know when a negative or positive charge is nearby."

This is clearly panpsychism (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism ). Panpsychism is detached from the mainstream scientific/philosophical approach, as you note above when you say:

"What you have done in your criticism was to try to place what I wrote into the framework of a tradition you believe in but which I do not."

The perfect position for your article is in:

Consciousness studies: Other explanations#Panpsychism | Panpsychism

Position of panpsychism changed - see discussion below.RobinH 11:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

preferably as a subheading of ==A magical conception==. A further advantage of being placed in that position is that it would allow expansion into a coverage of shamanism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism ) and the occult perspective (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occult )

What do you think?

On the other point, as a textbook we are seeking to inform readers, this means putting articles in the context of other people's ideas on the subject and providing links to allow further study. The wider you can cast your net the better. RobinH 16:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

2nd reply: I recognise that what you are saying makes sense. Yes, there are connections to Buddhist cosmology, Idealism (for ex. Leibniz's monads) and panpsychism. Certainly I believe there is some truth in these views. I will follow your suggestion and look at the links you provided. My concerns: 1) Buddhism is considered a religion and seperate from science. 2) You say panpsychism is detached from science/philosophy. 3) I have spent some time looking at the objections to Idealism and have determined that the views I express are not susceptable to those criticisms. You can see my problem. I am not looking to exclude other perspectives but seek to be inclusive. I think it is possible to embrace both science and religion, in fact I believe we have an obligation to do so. The 'tradition' I wish to create is unifying, not the exluding tradition you seem to be expressing. How can I include you in that larger perspective. I have tried to persuade Bernard Baars, Thomas Ramsoy in a course I took with them, and the people that edit the consciousness discussion at the Univ. of Houston and have failed to penetrate their armour, I have been excluded. I thought, given the Wiki phil. of "think free" I would be able to act towards creating a different discussion. Please consider the possibility of making the magical approach, one based in feelings and intuition and grounded in science and philosophy more inclusive and not an isolated "section". Labeling the approach I take as Idealism, religion or panpsychism relegates it to the ontological status of those general categories. For example, O.K., so it's Idealism. Well, that position has already been refuted or it has nothing interesting left to say. Or, it's just religion, I don't believe in God or the afeterlife, so anything this has to say is irrelevant to what I believe. A magical conception of C is new, different and far more complete than any similar theories. Don't label it, cultivate it. Please put my section on magic back.

At this stage in the book it will be necessary to rearrange headings, sections etc. Perhaps I am fault here for placing ideas that are not current in the mainstream journals off to one side. What you are proposing is definitely panpsychism and the suggestion that consciousness is fundamental and science can be built upon this is frequently proposed in panpsychist theories (See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/). Perhaps we should put all the explanations of consciousness in one section. However, as a textbook this would require contributors to flesh out the links between their version of a theory and other similar theories in that section. Would you be willing to fill in the details of panpsychism? The details would be split over 3 sections, for instance, in the "Historical Review" there should be some mention of Thales, Spinoza, Schopenhauer etc. In the "Problem of Consciousness" there is a stub available for idealism (what the world would appear like to an idealist, the problems with this). Finally the various current theories of panpsychism could be covered in the Contemporary Explanations. To summarise, what I am suggesting is that panpsychism is moved to contemporary theories, that historical information about panpsychists is placed in the Historical Review section, that the basic reasons why people have thought that panpsychism and idealism account for empirical consciousness is put in the Idealism section of Problems of Consciousness and finally a panpsychism section is added to contemporary theories. RobinH 10:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

reply: I am pleasently surprised by your constructive attitude. Thank-you. If you reallign the headings, I will endeavor to fill in the details as you suggest.

The ideas of each famous sage who supported panpsychism can be added under the sage's name in the historical review. The relationship of panpsychism to personal experience and the brain can be entered at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Consciousness_studies:_The_conflict2#Panpsychism and the suitability of the theory as an account of consciousness at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Consciousness_studies:_Contemporary_explanations#Idealism_and_panpsychism If you go to each of the sections a stub has been added, this can be discarded and the whole section replaced if you wish. RobinH 10:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Concerns; First, the de Anima reference is 425b 17 and the Whitehead ref. source is "Process and Reality". Is this the best way to communicate? I recently posted an entry on Homer and then withdrew it. If you are interested, I have some questions about posting entries. I think the issue is the same as that raised by the 'Intelligent Design' debate. There are a group of people, the academic establishment, who seem to have the reponsibility of preserving what humans have been able learn thru science and philosophy. That's fine, I understand that. But new ideas or ideas that are not acceptable to them are excluded just as I have been excluded. The case in point here is the difficulty for persons like myself to express themselves in such a way as to be included in the discussion. I just want to participate. But I can't because of things like the rules for adding entries to Wikibooks, previous publication in academic journals etc. If I want to talk different here or in a university class I am excluded ( and believe me, it has happened more than once), if I want to be included I must act and work in a way contrary to what I believe. A brief search on panpsychism will soon reveal that most websites are by individuals outside the mainstream of accepted academic criteria. The bit I wrote on Homer contains references to published academic writings but their interpretation and it's connection to panpsychism was mine. Where are we to get the "panpsychic perspective' if everyone that writes about it is excluded? I am not the only person with this concern. Ken van Cleve, who maintains a website on panpsychism, noted the same problem to me in an e-mail exchange. I know from reading an editorial in the Journal of Consciousness Studies that scientists risk their careers by bringing up what have been called ' flaky theories'. Frankly, I don't see why this is not some illegal form of discrimination. Just like a black man wants to sit at the lunch counter, I want to participate. It will be interesting to see how the "Intelligent Design" case before the Pennsyslvania courts plays out.

I think this textbook is a good place to bring out the case for panpsychism but, being a textbook, it has to be done by a mixture of quotations from work by recognised authors (such as the Pythagoreans, Thales, Spinoza and Leibniz) and adding your own interpretation of this work. Even Chalmers in "The Conscious Mind" considers the case for consciousness in a thermostat. If you had access to a textbook that gave a full, historical account of panpsychism you would be in a much stronger position. Perhaps you can draw together the work of panpsychic philosophers and scientists to provide the missing textbook, the springboard for others who take this approach? RobinH 16:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again, sage advice, thank-you!