Conceptualizing Cosmic Consciousness
Human consciousness unfolds at scales between centimeters to meters, and seconds to decades. Through the mechanisms of culture and technology, these scales can be expanded, although these expanded conscious experiences are not direct awareness, but are mediated and facilitated by the operations of the intellect. Experiences of awareness of a flower, or the Grand Canyon are not exactly like experiences of awareness of the interaction of subatomic particles, or of stellar formation. Although the more complete the specific information and the more accurate our understanding the more intellectual awareness approaches the threshold of direct awareness.
It is conceivable that consciousness exists in the universe in forms not bound to human or even biological existence. If there were direct awareness of events at the cosmic and the quantum scale (which is the limit towards which intellectual awareness itself proceeds), to what extent would that awareness be representable or translatable into human scales of awareness? Thus myths, religions and mysticisms may be symbolic and metaphoric representations of features of higher-order consciousness, but, for us, these must be pared-down and truncated compared to the actual experiences they represent. An amoeba that is moved from a hostile to a benign ph environment by a human observer might have a mythological sense of a higher being in the same way that we have creation myths. But the amoeba can no more grasp the complete nature of its unfolding reality at the scales of its perceptual and cognitive limits than we can grasp the complete nature of our unfolding reality at the scales of ours.
edit:
For example, the intellectual certainty attending cogito ergo sum may be a projection of the direct awareness of a more expansive consciousness. And while we cannot comprehend the entire meaning of this intuition in the context of biologically constrained thought, it might be complete and sufficient when biological limits are removed or otherwise transcended.
It is conceivable that consciousness exists in the universe in forms not bound to human or even biological existence. If there were direct awareness of events at the cosmic and the quantum scale (which is the limit towards which intellectual awareness itself proceeds), to what extent would that awareness be representable or translatable into human scales of awareness? Thus myths, religions and mysticisms may be symbolic and metaphoric representations of features of higher-order consciousness, but, for us, these must be pared-down and truncated compared to the actual experiences they represent. An amoeba that is moved from a hostile to a benign ph environment by a human observer might have a mythological sense of a higher being in the same way that we have creation myths. But the amoeba can no more grasp the complete nature of its unfolding reality at the scales of its perceptual and cognitive limits than we can grasp the complete nature of our unfolding reality at the scales of ours.
edit:
For example, the intellectual certainty attending cogito ergo sum may be a projection of the direct awareness of a more expansive consciousness. And while we cannot comprehend the entire meaning of this intuition in the context of biologically constrained thought, it might be complete and sufficient when biological limits are removed or otherwise transcended.
Comments (47)
Language could be an important tool to help us to find out cosmical awareness. I think it is only representable in our human scales if we understand it. We are not able to understand it if we do not share the same language. So (probably I am wrong) I think we have to start in the point which can allow us to understand the cosmos better than we usually do. Then, if we ever get more precisely data from the universe we would have more chances to translate it in our scale of awareness.
You put good examples as mythology, cogito, etc... but I think one of the limitations is time.
Universe seems to be timeless. At least it looks like that the consciousness of passing time is not around there.
Quoting Pantagruel
This was the example I was thinking too! :eyes: :clap:
But doesn't reason actually work in the direction of transcending one level towards another, as I attempted to describe? A highly trained musician can actually perceive elements in a performance that untrained listeners cannot. There is an experiment where a cat's brain does not even register a particular tone (that is within it's audible range) until the tone has been paired with an associated significant stimulus (like food). In A Neurocomputational Perspective Paul Churchland suggests that attaining a sufficient insight into the mechanics of the mind might generate an associated direct awareness thereof.
Have you read 'Cosmic Consciousness', by Bucke
I would recommend it, and it looks at lives of those who achieved exceptional consciousness, including Blake, the Buddha, and many famous figures. I know that Wayfarer has read it because he wrote about it, so it is a shame that he has left the forum.
One other book which I have found very good is Colin Wilson's final book, 'Superconsciousness'. He focuses on peak experiences and, in his writings in general, he speaks about creative people who saw the world differently, including some of the Existentialists and artists. He often sees consciousness as a form of waking up from a robotic state, following the thinking of Guirdieff.
Possible; I just feel we don't/can't do leaps; graduated progress is the usual deal.
I'm quite interested in this subject.
However, and unfortunately, I am a little confused with the use of "consciousness" and "awareness". It would be good if you started by offering a definition of both, and how they differ or resemble.
I really wonder why people don't do that, esp. when complex concepts or ones the meaning of which is known to differ --sometimes a lot-- from one individual to another[/b] are involved. Examples/applications of the key terms are also often needed, depending on the complexity of the subject, to make these concepts better --if not at all- understood in the context they are used.
How else can a topic be expected to be understood in the way the person who posts it intends to and means it? And how can a sensible and productive discussion take place when each interlocutor understands the key terms/concepts in a different way?
Isn't all this too logical?
Quoting Pantagruel
In what way and form does consciousness exist in the Universe?
I really can't see that. Not in the way I understand consciousness.
Quoting Pantagruel
In what way and form does awareness exists about events at that level?
I really can't see that. Not in the way I understand awareness.
I can't see a lot of other things for the same reason.
Lack of definitions make me also ask in what way do consciousness and awareness differ for you? Esp. when consciousness is generally considered as a state of being aware of something ...
In the field of evolutionary biology progress by leaps is known as "saltation" - there are some interesting phenomena documented with respect to population genetics, but it is pretty technical/statistical so it requires some interpretation.
I think, in the context of my post, the whole thing is about conceptualizing consciousness; I would say that is the point. Whatever we are experiencing as consciousness in our biologically constrained form, I think it is a mistake to think that we can authoritatively define it. We can authoritatively experience it, but the significance of cogito ergo sum may not be the same for me as for you.
So, for me, the common-sense or ordinary language usages of both consciousness and awareness are sufficient, for those reasons. Splitting hairs about what is or isn't conscious, if there are unconscious processes, etc., isn't the focus of my descriptions. I assume that everything which is constitutive of consciousness is consciousness, even if some people call it unconscious, or id, or superego.
Thanks for the reading recommendations, appreciated as always my friend!
Can you clarify and expand on that a bit for me?
So, maybe then you are questing the nature, mechanism, etc. of consciousness. Because you are already using the term and concept of "consciousness" as something known, given. Because to talk on any subject you mast start by defining. And this definition is what I am talking about.
For example, to talk about "fear" you must first define it, identify it so that both you and other people who are reading/hearing you know what you are talking about. Then, and only then, you can start talking and seeking about the nature of fear, how and where does it occur, etc. See what I mean?
Then, I believe that one must not assume a priori, as something known and given that the nature of consciousness --whatever that is-- is physical. For one thing, because simply this has not been proven.
So, you must then ask, is consiousness something physical, non-physical or both? Does this makes sense? (I hope yes! :smile:)
Quoting Pantagruel
I don't hink so. You can alsways start with a commonly accepted definition of consciousness, which is a state of being aware and perceiving something. You can bring in another, also common, one as a very basic definition. This is a base --and necessary-- point on which to build the exploration f consciousness. You must build on some foundation. You can't build on the air or on confusion --which, as I mentrioned, was what a felt reading this topic. This is my opinion. And I believe it makes sense.
Then, since perception is a basic element of consiousness, it must be always taken into consideration in its "exploration". This, and other things that will be found to be connected to consciosness will help having more control on the process. Don't you agree?
As mentioned, you really can't teach someone to appreciate the beauty of something. If the idea of a cosmic consciousness doesn't simultaneously satisfy your intellectual and aesthetic intuitions then it doesn't. However it is certain that increased understanding can lead to an increase in the appreciation of beauty. As musicians, whose love of music leads them to devote energy to improving their theoretical and technical expertise, which in turn expands their awareness of the beauty of music.
If I felt as you do, I might follow the discussion and try to appreciate whether the energy being expended in characterizing the idea has merit. Rabbi's dispute fine points of the Torah, whether or not there is specifically a Hebrew God or any God. Does that mean all their mental efforts are worthless? Solving puzzles is a trivial pastime, but people who solve a lot of puzzles can become very good at...solving things.
edit: perhaps it is a question of which ideas can engender the most beautiful constructs? I have always felt eloquence to be one of the most valuable dimensions of philosophical argument. Witness Huxley, Dewey, and of course, Bergson.
It is an hypothesis, not a fallacy. It's only a fallacy if it is positively determined to be categorically false.
I think this is your main question? I think that this has been an historical dividing line. However the trans-physical can encompass the physical, but not vice-versa. If you are a hard-materialist-cognitivist, my trans-physical conception of nature can incorporate any physicalist interpretation without conflict.
Henry Fielding, Tom Jones
Precisely what my thread was not created to debate.
I am absolutely embracing the view that there are different degrees of consciousness though, yes.
I've never heard the term "trans-physical". So I looked it up in two dictionaries. The both say "of or relating to the body". But then, the common term "physical" is also defined as "related to the body". So, your sentence above means "what relates to the body can encompass what relates to the body, but not vice versa". If I'm wrong please correct me.
Quoting Pantagruel
I'm anything else than a "hard-materialist" or even just a "materialist".
Since 95% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy, which are characterized mostly by the properties that they do not share with ordinary matter and energy, the traditional bedrock concept of materialism has become pretty tenuous, I think. What does it mean to be substantial? Concreteness and tangibility have more substance in the context of logical reasoning than the description of reality.
Compare it with the search for extra-terrestrial life then. No evidence for life of any kind has ever been discovered anywhere in the universe beyond the confines of earth. Yet many people and organizations devote lots of resources searching for it in what is considered credible scientific research. And even more people than conduct the actual research believe that it exists, many with great passion.
This could itself be construed as a search for a cosmic intelligence. Which is indeed the theme presented at the conclusion of the Stargate Universe series, where the analysis of exceptionally detailed cosmological data reveals a message embedded in the deepest fabrics of reality. In a sense, isn't that what drives all inquiry, the search for a deeper meaning?
OK, but this is just a literal-etymological analysis. This is not an answers to What does "trans-physical" mean? I, on the other hand, brought up the definition from two dictionaries. If you don't know yourself what it actually means, you shouldn't talk about it and waste people's time.
By the way, with all respect to your prestigious online internet sources, the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, which is 2 volumes and 7000 pages and is in my library, defines trans- as a freely productive prefix, which is how it was used. It does not contain the word transphysical. I am quite content that context of the usage accurately reflects the sense I am conveying.
How could I know that you would come up with nothing, smart man?
As the prefix trans- implies, it will be at once a
transmutation and a transgression of the known, but it will also stand alongside and be interwoven
into that very matrix.
http://cast.b-ap.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2014/09/Novak.pdf
So your metacognitive strategy of looking up a word you don't know is valid, but you need to maintain an awareness of the true reliability of your reference source.
No doubt. Nonetheless, there's an abundance of scientific circumstantial evidence in support of conjecturing 'the non-uniqueness of terrestrial biological life in the universe' (e.g. ubiquity of carbon (and other precusors of organic chemistry & self-replicating molecules), water, rocky exoplanets in "goldilock's zones", deep time, billions of sun-like solar systems in this galaxy alone, etc). There isn't any such comparable scientific circumstantial evidence of "cosmic consciousness" at most, that's just tilting at windmills. Like a mind that's never been outside a sensory deprivation tank, what would the cosmos even be 'conscious of'? The notion makes no sense as I've pointed out previously.
Poetry (à la "the force" in Star Wars)? Okay, you're welcome to it. :nerd:
Metaphysics Plotinus' "One"? The Stoics' "logos spermatikos"? Hegel's "Geist"? Jung's "collective unconscious"? To my mind, these analogues, like the idea of "cosmic conscioisness" itself, are nothing but Camus' nostalgias (i.e. philosophical suicides). :yawn:
Unless you place any validity at all on subjective experience. Which is essentially what any humanistic science from history to sociology to anthropology to, dare I say, philosophy, does.
Even if the mechanisms that produced biological life, including consciousness, are, at some level, the same as those that operate in the evolution of the physical universe, it does not follow that those mechanisms are physical...Perhaps some transphysical and transmental concept is required to capture both mechanisms.... (Tom Sorell, Descartes Reinvented)
All speech is "just" literal-etymological in nature (i.e. arising through historical-contextual usage). You think that "definitions" in dictionaries represent the sine qua non of meaning? Well, maybe at a very rudimentary stage of learning that is true.
The comment of mine to which you responded is one year old. What took you so long? :smile:
But since you brought it up, it's always my pleasure to talk about it. :smile:
Quoting Pantagruel
We don't know if consciousness has been produced as part of the biological life. If it wre, then the nature of consciouness would be physical. And this has never been established. (It has been only hypothesized by scientists who have not produced and hard evidence about that, as they usually do for other things. And there wouldn't be an immense number of talks about it, since the time the concept of consiousness was conceived (Locke, 1690) and isolated as a human element. Nor would there be any "hard problem of consciousness" (Chalmers, 1995).
Quoting Pantagruel
What else could there be? I don't know of anythings physical producing something non-physical. The opposite can happen. Thinking (non-physical) and emotions (non-physical) can increase adrenaline levels, produce stress in the body, etc.
Quoting Pantagruel
These are attempts to compromise non-compromisable things, find middle-solutions, etc. And they are of course totally theoretical, existing in a frame, context of their own. I have met a lot of "exotic" terms and concepts like these. The all rise from an inability to explain things, esp. after long periods and efforts. It reminds me of what scientists do for a century or so in trying to explain and establish that memory is created and located in the brain. They keep always changing locations and mechanisms, coming out with similar "exotic" ideas. Yet, still not a trace of hard evidence about them. I personally cannot take all that seriously.
Quoting Pantagruel
No, I don't. I certainly don't consider them perfect. But I think that they provide a basis or general frame of reference on which one can rely for further examination of the subjects they describe. They are based on research about the subjects in question. In contrary to the often biased, opinionized personal "definitions" --here's where the quotation marks actually belong-- based on misconceptions and/or ignorance.
Correct. It's the central question of the book I'm currently reading, Mind and Cosmos. Nagel is evaluating the differences between 'reductive' approaches (which entail panpsychism) and emergent approaches, which leave something of an explanatory gap regarding the meaning of emergence.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Per the above, it is possible that there non-physical aspects to the physical, proto-conscious features, in a reductive interpretation. Of course you are begging the question when it comes to consciousness, which is the entire point.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I don't know if you noticed, but all of the most advanced physics is entirely "theoretical". The question as to what is/isn't "hard evidence" is itself psycho-social.
I like Nagel. I have read only a paper of him, "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" and I found it quite original and interesting, as a view regarding the nature of consciousness. As I just read in Wiki, "Mind and cosmos" came almost 40 years later! It will be interesting to see how his thought and view evolved in such a long span of time. And maybe he gives another meaning of "emergence", as you mention, because I don't believe that consciousness has been "emerged" (from anything).
Quoting Pantagruel
I don't like much this kind of acrobatic and speculative hypotheses, based mainly on playing around, fiddling with concepts, some of which sometimes are not well supported themselves, and without some solid ground or frame of reference to support them. See, Nagel in "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" provided a realistic, well-grounded and workable frame of reference on which he supported his arguments.
Quoting Pantagruel
If I noticed? I can't avoid highlighting this fact! :smile:
It occupies a whole area and era in Physics. It is called "Quantum Mechanics". :smile:
Of course, it's also a fascinating subject.
Quoting Pantagruel
You think?
Hard evidence are facts that are definitely true and do not need to be questioned. They can be defined and determined univocally and measured numerically. "Hard" stands for "solid", "firm", "unbreakable", "inflexible", ...
What you call "psycho-social" is another kind of evidence: "testimonial or subjective evidence".
So, think again! :smile:
Interesting interpretation ...
I know this is a year old, so maybe you wouldn't say exactly what you said, maybe you would. You think Plotinus' conception of the One to be comparable to Jungian collective unconscious?
I think that Plotinus' One shares certain similarities (anticipations) to Kant's "things-in-themselves", which is interesting, though undecidable.
Collective unconscious... well, that's more modern and in a sense, less defensible.
Typing out loud... :cool:
Sure. Even more so it's comparable to Spinoza's substance (or Democritus-Epicurus' void)
Ah. Sure, there's content in that, has to be translated, but it can be interesting.