The Reposting Human Consciousness Post

This article provides some insight on how and why the explanation of human consciousness might be the reason for a paradigm shift of science away …

Human Consciousness and the end of Materialism

—- He has some really good extrapolated points.

I think the shorter version of what he is saying, so far as ‘the whole of correlations do not a mind make’, I think concerns my hard problem of consciousness as distinguished from Chalmers hard problem; Chalmers hard problem I think it’s just a very difficult problem, and not hard in the sense of the word that we understand hard beyond the meaning that is “very difficult”. My Hard Problem of consciousness actually indicates a significance of the problem of consciousnes that must be come to terms with before any other problem of consciousnessness has any skin in the game. Without addressing my Hard Problem, the rest become merely an idealized word game.

I keep saying it here in there in various posts of mine, but here it is again:

The hard problem of consciousness is that there is no way to absolutely be convinced that someone else’s brain has anything to do with one’s own consciousness, or consciousness whether or not it is mine or someone else’s. That is, I am only able to be convinced because I’m already convinced.

In other words, it is merely that I believe that I have a brain in which my consciousness resides and that when I look at another human being with a brain, what they find out goes on there, actually has to do with my consciousness.

It may, but then does it really have to do with a brain ? and then as well, does it have to do with my brain (do I have a brain)?

These are the hard questions because Typically They are answered with answers that have wiggle room, for a word, that are soft answers. 

We love soft questions and soft answers because it never requires us to really think, it never requires us to really reflect upon what is actually occurring. On The contrary, it only requires of us to a stay one dimensional, that is to say, non-reflective. we get to have opinions, we get to argue all sorts of great ideas. It’s all really interesting.

There is plenty that people could say to convince me through various proofs that working on someone else’s brain, or doing anything to someone else’s brain has to do with my brain and by extension my consciousness, but the only way that I could understand the equation is to already believe that it is the case.

In other words, I have to already understand that there is a correlation between my consciousness and someone else’s brain that has to do with consciousness.

This hard problem that I am elaborating upon is no different than this authors post of the correlation between electrical activity in one’s brain, say, and consciousness itself.

I would also beg to differ in his use of the idea of “materialism”. For Sure I know what he’s talking about when he refers to materialism, but this materialism he refers to, and then also references it to a true Philosophy, (even as I tend to agree with his definition of philosophy) it’s just one type of materialism, and in fact, it is an “Old materialism”. That is, the “new materialism” is of a different sort.

However, in so much as the correlation pointed out by my hard problem of consciousness is no different than the correlation he makes note of between brain activity and consciousness itself, I would then have to point to that problem in which he is inherently involved with is in fact an “old” materialistic problem.

But I like his argument so far is one adheres to the old version of materialism. 


Repost: Mark Solms’ theory of consciousness

I recently finished Mark Solms’ new book, The Hidden Spring: A Journey to the Source of Consciousness. There were a few surprises in the book, and it…

Mark Solms’ theory of consciousness

—- I am posting this mostly because anything that has to do with proposals about consciousness I am interested in and I feel like other people are probably interested in them.

also because this is like a bookmark for ideas that I want to come back to. I don’t know if I ever will, but at least I have this bookmark. And this guy and his book in this post has a link to the website where it has a bunch of other interesting articles on the various aspects of consciousness and neuroscience.

One in particular that I’ll mention: subjectivity and objectivity is not the same as subjectivity and object oriented ontology.

At least so far as my work is concerned with orientation upon objects, and that I only use Graham Harmons object oriented ontology as a sort of backstop from which I can begin to talk about Orientation, The idea of the subject and the object, I argue, I am beginning to argue, is based in phenomenology.

In short, everything empirical is all good for the modern religion, Be at phenomenology, which is self is an argument about empiricism, I support for it, or empirical science.

so when I read about neurology and about consciousness having to do with the brain and everything, it is difficult for me to read these as authority. Because I see that they are relying heavily upon phenomenology as the basis of such neurology empirical science.

In my work I’m beginning to develop this in the context of truth as opposed to reality. And this is to say that, first we have to understand the opposition as a unity, as an assumed unity, before we begin to really be able to contemplate the truth of the matter.

Anyways… Enjoy!!! 


The Difficult Problem of Consciousness.

David Chalmers and Sean Carroll

David Chalmers and Sean Carroll
— Read on

WIKI has this about the Hard Problem.

I have a difficulty being tactful and respectful in how I address arguments, and what usually happens is that I don’t get heard because people get offended, I guess. Lol.

So. For a while I’ve heard of this “Hard Problem” Of Consciousness that Chalmers came up with, and I’ve always wondered about it. Specifically, I don’t think it’s very hard. I heard the term “the hard problem of consciousness” and I thought it was not what Chalmers is saying, I thought he was saying something else until I actually read about what he was talking about. And then it bothered me why he would be calling it the hard problem when it is just really a very difficult problem.

What I mean can be found when you read the wiki definition and then when you read his little interview I guess on the post I just reposted. He doesn’t mean that it’s a hard problem, he means that it’s a difficult problem.

When I heard the term “the hard problem” I thought it meant something that was actually hard, as in dense with substance. His hard problem is just a very difficult problem; it is not dense with substance, it is dense with we don’t know what it is right now but eventually we probably well.

And I don’t have a PhD and I haven’t written a bunch of books that everyone knows my name and so I’m kind of fighting uphill here.

The hard problem of consciousness is how it is that someone can operate on a brain and then I intuitively know that that must be the same situation with my brain. The hard problem of consciousness is that which has inpenetrable substance; like a cement wall. It is hard. The hard problem is why I think that something that is happening to someone else biologically, physiologically coordinates with what’s happening with me and consciousness.

There is a subtle difference here and I think the difference is is that Chalmers is assuming that consciousness works in the brain; he is a conventional philosopher. Rather he’s a philosopher that’s taking certain assumptions and casting them out onto all existence, with the only proof that it’s apparent. Of course, he is a scientist Of philosophy or something of that sort. His very difficult problem is really like a puzzle, like sudoku or something, really difficult problem to solve – but it will be solved eventually.

And I am not saying that there’s anything wrong with science, but what he’s posing as a philosophical question is really just a scientific question which poses an amount of difficulty. And this is to say that his hard question of consciousness is just a really difficult question to answer but indeed one day science will come up with how it is so.

But the actual hard problem is why I would think that that explanation that may happen in 10 years or 50 years or 500 years has anything to do with my conscious awareness of the situation as I am talking here into this phone about it. This is not a recourse to subjective experience; in the contrary, Chalmers’ pondering is based in subjectivity. Rather, my hard Problem confronts the nature of reality and thought (subjectivity) as opposed to letting it be given to the common assumption. It is a logistical question. Hard as in solid; not hard as in just inconvenient to a particular thought-world.

If we are to get anywhere, I’d say, at least we need to be less assertive about the commonality of ideas, and more precise and careful about what terms we use to talk about them.

The Field Of Consciousness.

“To say that “consciousness knows us” is to point to a actual ‘thing’ that is outside of knowledge. It appears to me that you are saying that knowledge knows about “things“ out there in the universe that exist separate from us (the knower/thinker) and knowledge is some sort of conduit through which this thing that is me (us-thinker) knows of that other thing that is this other thing.

And so it appears that you’re saying “consciousness “ is indeed a thing like these other things that knowledge knows, but it is a thing that is outside of knowledge’s ability to know as we, say, might know a chair or a rock.

I don’t think that there is anything that substantiates consciousness. To say “brain” or “body” derives the same contradiction.

The enigma in your formulation indicates what I call a particular “orientation upon objects”.

It is an enigma because of the original assumption, or beginning assumption that knowledge is a process as opposed to a physical thing, to use a term. That there is something in me that is receiving knowledge or storing knowledge and then there’s something out there that gives up knowledge about it self, or something of that sort.”

And so when we say “consciousness “it is an enigma to try to find ‘what it is’ because of the assumption involved when I say “is”. The assumption here, as I say, is that things exist in this necessary manner that is assumed. This assumption brings about the enigma like we are talking about. So you say “Consciousness knows us”, because your assumption is there has to be some “thing “that is originating the knowing of some sort, so to speak.

I doubt this. I upset this orientation. This originary-essentialism.

I do not think there is anything knowable that is doing any knowing. Knowing is that through which consciousness “becomes available”. Essence is a part of the whole. It is a field.”

–Cedric Nathaniel. PH.

Will Self’s trip into the Bardo

Will Self’s trip into the Bardo

Will Self’s trip into the Bardo
— Read on

Excellent little venture into the alternity of alternation.

Further commentary:

Will Self is a pretty insightful guy. Got some great social commentary and questions.

What is mostly interesting to me is the psychotropic stuff he talks about.

One of the points he makes is that while the experiences can be quite provoking and intense, often bringing us to the point of insanity (from hindsight), it really means nothing.

He points out of Huxley and Watts and Leary is that when these guys came upon this stuff they immediately thought it was indicating some more significant reality, something more substantial. But also, that you have to pull out your intense and meditation bowls and set the scene and all and have transcendental experience — Like me, his point was that shouldn’t such drug experiences involve the world? I mean the world not set into any particular stage for the scene?

Self seems to have issue with the experience itself in a number a ways, but then basically tells us that it means nothing and that the experience itself is basically nothing in the whole scheme of universal existence.

How seasonably fashionable ! Whoa! Will; you mean you are saying that existence is based upon nothing. that we alone and alienated in the universe, having no availability to truth of it all?

Love you Will, but it sounds like you were a nihilistic punk rocker from the 70s and 80s. Oh wait; he says that of himself.

My point is that, no, it does not mean it all amounts to nothing and has no essential linking to anything outside of the bare experience of nonsense. My point is that IT IS ALL significant and links inseparably to everything that occurs in the universe. But not as an overdetermined “spirituality” or “universal consciousness”. Those are over-determined inspirational ideals manifested through the great God Reason, the church of which it sounds Will is a congregant, a particular denomination that poses itself as “not” that other incorrect stuff.

But of course, everyone has got to make a living. Even if they are unable to pull itself out of its own dogmatic sleep: It would seem the people he critiques as to the psychedelic experience where correct, even for Self’s appraisal. I wonder if he ever looked at it this way?

The question that is posed by the very appearance of Self is how might one behave in exactly a determined manner? It is not spiritual. And it is not ‘nothing’.

Disenchantment and the Long Game.


“…before we get to the idea of a disenchantment [that has always accompanied humanity in its existence, ] …we first have to address the insistence of enchantment.

Enchantment, in this context, is the view that what is teleologically sound indeed reflects an actuality of human special motion. This is not to say that humans have has no history. Enchantment is the operation of meaning that conveys humanity within a context of a necessary progress, a motion where humanity is not only capable of upholding an actual memory of a truth, of some sort, to thus be able to move forward; which is to say, roughly, toward “the good”; ‘the good’ is a conflation of meaning in which the ideas of humanity, civilization, technology and general well-being are joined together to be ideologically very difficult to separate.  This type of meaning, though, this type of progress, does not indicate a potential for belief; this situation does not rely upon nor insinuate its potential within belief, or a capacity or ability to believe whether or not it may be the case; on the contrary, belief itself is based in the idea of such progress.

This is so much to say that a human being is not able to ‘force’ itself to have an existence which does not find itself within a context of historical progress. How could one even get out of bed, tell her parents and siblings that she loves them, go for a hike in the summer air without a historical sense of progress: There can be no such conceptions without the knowledge that she was born, has grown in physicality and knowledge, has relations with various people or wish to recreate or exercise or relax without a correspondent history of some sort installed before hand.

We cannot make an argument in this case. The argument is negated in the fact that no argument of this sort can be made. The issue is how far this situation can be extended and still be viable for Being…

The logical conclusion of the history of philosophy finds itself, in the end, as contradiction; there is no discussion that decides this, the discussion itself reveals the case.

Certain repercussions arise from this ‘end’, but we will not go into the various formations here

Instead, I invite the reader to make this jump with me.

“Any concept is a concept ‘within’. The mechanism which allows for this confinement is operating successfully when the confinement is not noticed; we take a certain tac and begin in a certain corner to say that the mechanism for the concept functions to avoid recognition of its operating. This adjustment is so seamless that even while toward the closing in on the corner such that the concept of the limit of the concept arises to view, the mechanism will uphold its function to allow the concept to reveal its position, its truth, through the concept that will then thereby allow it to remain unknown; the activity of the concept itself moves in such a way to ‘change the past’ while establishing the change as an object that ‘has not changed’; this is to say, the concept remains viable no matter what it shows. This is the way of conventional method…

“This is the contradiction that has occurred in the ideal of ‘limit’, as the post-modern/existential revelation, that has brought about the culprit as the “Copernican” or “Kantian” central thinker,  and the ‘culprit-solution’ of the speculative ideal of ‘outside’. What has occurred is the mechanism of the concept, revealed, has functioned properly and its slight of hand has allowed philosophers to continue in the concept without ever really confronting the mechanism.

We likewise cannot be too quick to talk about biology and neurology, for these help to avoid the issue, and indeed add support to the avoidance of the mechanism by having the concept find its basis in a mechanism that is evidently getting beyond the concept; this is the nature of consciousness: No argument can be made to deny this situation. this is what happens whenever the concept reveals its basis to itself: Another aspect arises to indicate to the conceptualization that its concept is more than a concept, i.e. that the concept has found its basis, it object.



Consider now the 1970’s movie “Logan’s Run”.(I have not read the book, but am only going off the movie’s telling.)….

…(Spoiler) In the end, that which brings down the facade of the City’s operation is the contradiction involved with the City’s Operating System recognizing the necessity for an object that corresponds with the term: “Sanctuary”. Logan is sent by the operating system to find out about this ‘sanctuary’ that lay outside the City; Logan will be permitted by the OS to go outside the ‘seals’ (hermetical seal?), outside of the the definition of what the City is. No one in the city (is supposed to have) has ever heard of the word let alone what it might mean, so inclusive the City in its operation is.

The operating system thus sends Logan 5 out to find this sanctuary because, to the OS, the word exists and has meaning and so must therefore have a corresponding object. It is interesting that when a human interacts with the City OS, the procedure is to “identify”….

“Logan returns from the outside and the OS ask him if he found sanctuary. Logan is in a kind of human-computer interface, but he refuses (for some reason) to answer the computer who sent him and so the computer ‘hacks’ Logan to find the answer. The answer that is reluctantly given by Logan is that there is no sanctuary (the outside is just outside of the City, bare nature, but there is no ‘peaceful’ place of freedom). This “does not program”, it does not compute. The computer melts down, the computer is destroyed, and everyone in the City is let out of the City, the first humans to see what is beyond or outside of the City in over 2000 years…

The City was constructed to save humanity from an ecological crisis; ‘civilization’ was informed as a response to the hostility of the natural world. But over time, what was outside was removed from sensible knowledge, from the ability of knowledge to make sense of, from the truth of the outside. The ‘outside’ was a catalyst for the consolidation of knowledge and civility; after a very long period of time, the outside became inconcievable in-itself and the actual reality of the outside was a function of maintaining containment of the City, such that knowledge of the actual outside was a contradiction in terms, a notice for the collapse of sense-knowledge.

“We are not told in the movie why the OS feels that it must send someone to locate Sanctuary. Neither do we really know why Logan does not want to tell the computer that there is no sanctuary, nor why the actual answer causes the computer to fry itself. (Maybe the book has more answers)…

Nevertheless, we can see an analogy to my point in this essay.

…What is ‘outside’ is not the reality of what is actually outside. What is outside is only understood within the context of that which has posited ‘outside’; the actuality of what is outside, in the ability for the scheme of meaningful reality, is unable to admit that its version of outside has no ability to recognize what it posits as ‘outside‘….

“…This is the case with conventional philosophy. It recognizes the ability of its conceptual scheme only and any position that is not already contained by the conventional route simply “does not program” and is outright, automatically and in due course, systematically denied. Yet, because such an outside is indeed truthfully encountered, the position revealed by its presence within the convention, as an ‘un-communicated truth’, functions (ironically) to upset and ultimately fry the “OS” or the ‘scaffolding’ (Wittgenstein) of reality. And as this melt-down occurs, the only manner by which that reality is able to continue to uphold its manner, the manner buy which (supposedly) ‘life is upheld’, is to affirm its truth in denial…

“Take for example ‘climate change’….

“The questions [that continue,] allow it to continue to get worse. But even while we make antagonists out of those who do not believe that climate change, or global warming, is real, those who would want to implement changes to hold off or avoid the ‘bad’ repercussions of climate change are totally incapable of bringing those ‘good’ protocols about…”

From book 3 of The Philosophical Hack, due 2018.

c.2018 Lance A. Kair

Metrics and the production of uncertainty

If there is ‘nothing’ that supports us, what happens?  People take advantage.

It would seem that the aim of a neoliberal approach is to produce uncertainty which then stimulates competitive entrepreneurial activity. The more uncertain people are, the more they are likely to be pushed and prodded into value production. The presence of competition is aimed at making us feel uncertain about what will happen, how […]

What Lies Beneath?

There is the geographical notion of ‘deep time’ that is often known in reference to its Christian dispensational model of about 6500 years when the earth was made.

The idea of deep time offered that the Earth was much older and has been developing slowly by regular patterns.

Perhaps there is a certain correspondence between ‘Darkness’ and ‘deep(er) time’? 


Source: Articles: What Lies Beneath?

Consciousness has less control than believed, according to new theory

This was already formulated in a book I read in 2004 for college: 
According to Morsella’s framework, the “free will” that people typically attribute to their conscious mind — the idea that our consciousness, as a “decider,” guides us to a course of action — does not exist. Instead, consciousness only relays information to control “voluntary” action, or goal-oriented movement involving the skeletal muscle system. Source: Consciousness has […]