Re: Porous Selves, Buffered Selves
Posted by:
Sawfish (IP Logged)
Date: 11 August, 2023 01:30PM
Dale, much deleted for clarity...
Noted as required.
Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On the thread for Comparing Smith to Lovecraft and
> Howard, Sawfish commented:
>
... body of my post
>
>
> Dale, we've exchanged. You'll know that I'm
> basically a materialist *by circumstance*. I'm not
> committed to it philosophically, but the vast bulk
> of my life experience--maybe all of it--is best
> explained by material phenomena. I'm looking here
> for a new world to explore. I'm looking for a
> non-deistic undetected non-physical dimension as
> it affects *all* of the observable physical world.
> If there's a continuum without a threshold, it
> implies that every physical object we can observe
> also has some non-physical attributes. This would
> include not only the higher animals, but insects,
> micro-organisms, plants, and inorganic objects
> like rocks.
>
> But if there is indeed a threshold, above which
> the non-physical dimensions provide evidence that
> they exist, where is that threshold, and how did
> it come about?
>
> Big, wide open door here... :^)
>
> --Sawfish
> -----
>
> I'm going to attempt a response of sorts.
>
> Sawfish writes, "Continuing this idea of a
> continuum, do these other species' "minds" also
> have a non-physical attribute--one that can be
> inferred from observation, but cannot be measured
> or detected by any current means? Perhaps they
> have less of it, just as they seems to have less
> capacity for abstract thought."
>
> I think in terms of a hierarchy, more than a
> continuum.
I think this is a good way to go, rather than a continuum, if we also adopt your major demarcation "self-aware".
>
> The visible creation appears to have four levels
> of being (ontological levels). (I'm leaving said
> the possibility of invisible creatures for the
> moment except to say that, if there are nature
> spirits or fairies or angels or mythological-type
> gods, they are all in one big group of created
> beings, with us, rocks, plants, and animals --
> over against God. God, the Creator, is not one
> being among many but just the most powerful one.
> God, if God exists, is the ground of all being,
> but distinct from all being, though we may refer
> to God as a being for convenience.)
Given the four ontological domains, I see implied thresholds at each domain--sort of a gating device based on some level, or lack of, observable sentience. First the non-sentient rocks, then plants, then non-human animate entities, then humans.
Taking a "normal" representative from each domain, we could say that no member of domain n has any of the defining features of the next higher ordinal domain. So no normal rock has the capacity to construct new parts of itself, as a plant can do. No individual plant can travel about to seek sustenance or companionship as an animal routinely does. No animal is self-aware in an abstract sense.
Does this seem agreeable?
>
> The hierarchy:
>
> Rocks and minerals exist. That is something they
> share with us humans and the rest of the visible
> creation.
>
> Plants exist, and also have life. Note that with
> the entrance of life into our account, we are
> already dealing with something of vital importance
> whose existence we must infer. We can talk about
> how plants live, but their life itself we cannot
> observe. For plants to live is to be able to
> grow, perhaps synthesize their food from light and
> water and minerals, and, sure, without these they
> will die. But their life itself eludes us. No
> one has ever seen it in itself.
I'd suppose that the phenomenon of life, as you describe it--its essence--is never seen for any of the three ontologic domains that share "life" as one of its defining attributes, is this correct? Humans (and animals) can see *evidence* of life. This evidence is learned: a dog that encounters a 3-day dead squirrel understands that it is profoundly different from a squirrel that is currently taunting him from a tree limb. It's a combination of observed former behavior of the squirrel and scent. For the dog, that's probably the entirety of it. It is purely physical observation.
>
> Animals exist and also have life and also have
> consciousness, as you have noticed with your cat.
> Like life, consciousness is invisible, not
> measurable. This, by the way, is really very
> important for our understanding of the sciences,
> which must always deal, in one way or another,
> with what can be measured. But we can't measure
> the life of plants or animals.
But we can detect its presence or absence. On what do we base these conclusions> Do we feel that something intangible has fled, or are we more like the dog.
Maybe our first recognition of death is much like the dog's, but then on consideration we consider that something intangible has fled.
> We may be able to
> effect life someday in a lab, but we haven't done
> so yet, and if we do, we will not be able to say
> that life came "from nothing" -- our own activity
> would have to be taken into account.
Let's explore whether the intangible, unmeasurable phenomenon "life" exists without a conscious, sentient observer. Would this sort of life exist in a world with no sentient beings? Would trees exist without humans, e.g.? If so, then the sort of intangible life we're talking about is an artifact of consciousness, and not independent of it. It does not exist without a sentient being postulating its existence.
If living trees could exist without a sentient witness, this seems to reduce life to a complex set of as yet unknown material interactions.
An interesting example would be whether there is an intangible, non-physical attribute to all members of each of the four ontological domains--just as we postulate the mind as being more than is contained within the skull, does my cat's consciousness have a similar non-physical dimension, but in keeping with the bounds of the hierarchy, it has less of this non-physical component? Then would a tree have less, still? Would a rock have less, or perhaps none?
But if a rock has none, let's say, how to account for the spiritual value placed on inanimate, lifeless objects like Ayers Rock, which is a sacred object to native peoples. Does this object indeed have a non-physical aspect that a porous society can detect, or is the sanctity of the object purely a product of the consciousness of the native people?
If the former, it seems like all of the known universe has a non-physical dimension. If the latter, it implies that the idea of the non-physical, as it exists in contemporary mankind, is simply a projection of its own self-awareness.
Then we can move on to sacred animals. Unlike the rock, they have some level of consciousness--like a human, but less so--and do they independently contain this non-physical sacred attribute, like the rock, and if so, are they aware of it? And if not, then this, too, is a product of mankind's awareness, and has no independent existence.
...and now the shaman. A fully human entity who a) believes himself to be possess of non-physical attributes, and his peers agree. It would be an interesting thought: could a shaman exist in a social vacuum? I'd say yes. He'd be sustained by his own belief. He is his own creation.
I'm not saying that this is necessarily true, but it appears to me that the logic leads in that direction.
> And now
> today we read a lot about the idea of us creating
> "artificial intelligence" and many think we will
> be able to create consciousness. I don't believe
> this. We may be able to create an imitation of
> consciousness that is so clever and complex that
> it fools us. But it will not be consciousness.
> The robots of ten thousand years from now that
> seem conscious will still be more like typewriters
> than they are like us or your cat.
At this moment I tend to agree.
But if the opposite is true, and AI is indeed determined to be "conscious" as humanity currently understands the term, it implies that human consciousness is a clever and complex set of learned responses to a given situation.
>
> Pause for a moment. Rocks and minerals are
> abundant, comprising, I suppose, 99.something% of
> the earth's mass. Plants are abundant on the
> earth's surface and in the seas, etc. Animals
> are less abundant than plants but may be found
> widely distributed....
>
> Rocks and minerals may be split, but they do not
> reproduce; at least I would not refer to crystal
> formation as reproduction.
Agreed.
> Plants reproduce and
> alter their environment for their benefit by
> breaking it down, introducing disorder -- for
> example, roots bursting through concrete. Animals
> reproduce and alter their environment, making
> greater order than there was before, as when
> beavers build dams, birds build nests, and so on.
> Animals can effect greater order than there was
> before because they are conscious.
I wonder if the action of plants to break down inanimate objects like rock is actually their form of imposing an order that's beneficial to their continued existence, in the same way that a gopher digs a burrow, or an eagle builds a nest.
It is an attempt to change the status quo to benefit itself, whether tree, bison, or human. Rocks maybe are imposing an order on its constituent free elements--although I don't even believe this myself... ;^)
> They have
> intelligence; we wouldn't say plants have
> intelligence, although I understand that, as we
> have learned more about forests, some scientists
> are beginning to suspect there is some kind of
> instinct at work among trees. I suspect it will
> be found that they may have an appearance of
> consciousness but the ontological gap between
> trees and bees will remain.
Agreed.
You can see why the idea of a continuum at first appealed to me, because it was without precise demarcations.
But I do prefer the hierarchy with thresholds. Maybe there's a continuum within each ontological domain?
>
> Human beings possess the attributes of the
> preceding levels but also exhibit self-awareness.
Could this be the key? Self-awareness?
> I see no reason to think that even the smartest
> animals do. Because human beings possess
> self-awareness, they can work not only on their
> environment, like plants and animals, but on their
> inner dimension. When Joe quarrels with his wife
> and goes to the bar to take the edge off his pain,
> or when Sally decides to cultivate her memory and
> start learning poems -- and innumerable other
> things are done by us to our own inner world -- we
> show that we are radically different from animals
> including whales and primates. Even fairly stupid
> people can make promises. Think of that. To
> promise anything, you have to experience yourself
> as a purposive creature, you have to have a sense
> of time (I now promise that I will, in the future
> at some point, do this or that), and you have to
> be able to express this in words, even if just for
> yourself; at least I can't get my head around the
> idea that I would promise myself to lose 10 pounds
> without verbalizing this in some way. I might
> feel a desire to be ten pounds less heavy but a
> promise never happens till words are involved.
>
> And humans are less common than animals, which are
> less common than plants, which are less common
> than rocks. And at the human level, with our
> possession of self-awareness, a very great deal of
> what we are is invisible. I imagine that much
> that an animal is, is visible, including, as we
> observe, its desire for warmth, shelter, perhaps
> for dominance in a group, and so on. We all
> probably doubt that there is a lot going on there
> that is never manifested visibly, though it seems
> dogs dream.
There is less going on, but I'd say it's a matter of degree, and not an absence of self-awareness.
Let's go with the dog dreaming. I've had a lot of dogs and cats. In my experience, they seem to be dreaming in a way that we'd recognize. In every dream I've had--and oddly I have not had a dreamless night in probably 30 years--most are pretty distinct--the one uniform requirement is that *I* must be the POV. I therefore have to exist as a separate observer of the events in the dream. And watching my dogs/cats, it's evident to me that they are playing out dream events in which they are an actor. At that point it seems that they must be aware of themselves as separate and responsive entities. If this happens in dreams, I'd suppose it also happens when they're awake.
Too, they recognize other animals as being distinct from dogs and cats. They recognize humans as apart from their kind. I think species recognition runs deep in all animals, or it would make reliable reproduction nearly impossible. They recognize dogs and cats that they already know. Maybe in sense, they are aware of themselves as distinct entities. This would require a lot more exploration, though.
So in my mind they have a fair amount of the discerning capabilities that we have, with only limited ways to express it externally. So they are unlikely to compare notes on various topics.
> But we could never say that about
> human beings -- that there is little going on that
> is not visible. Most of what is going on with us
> is invisible.
>
> So I think you are on the right track in some
> things you say, Sawfish, but (from my point of
> view) maybe not catching something crucial when
> you say that the difference of non-human minds vs.
> human minds is complexity. I might see our
> "complexity" as perhaps a byproduct of
> self-awareness. But that might not be a good way
> of putting it.
Could it be the other way around: self-awareness is a product of mental complexity?
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~