John Vervaeke
This is the second in a series of dialogues between myself and Gregg Henriques about the problem of consciousness, as part of The Cognitive Science Show. Here we lay out the beginnings of how to formulate the problem. The problem of consciousness is actually made up of three problems:
1) The function problem: what does consciousness do?
2) The nature/generation problem: how something like consciousness fit into the scientific worldview?
3) The integration problem: what is the relationship between the answers to questions (1) and (2)?
Gregg and I are going to spend a lot of time in formulating these problems clearly through historical, phenomenological, and functional analysis before responding to them.
Gregg’s slides can be found here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iKq-JEN2KGuTF9MZdkvaWeZm4Sh1wmcV/view?usp=sharing
Source
Astrology had mapped "the heavens". Did the "new" Copernican revolution affect astrology, which was a sort of mathematics?
Greg, I wonder if if you have looked at Philosopher Roberto Poli’s work on Levels of reality, there is some common ground and I think you might find it interesting and possibly helpful.
GH: "our ideas for what is and ought to be exists in a socio-historical context" 31:40
i've recently been exploring an afro-centric understanding of meaning, culture, consciousness (dora richards/marimba ani). another perspective out there is how Plato by separating emotion and reason (which seemed to begin the idea of male superiority), enabled descartes to separate mind and body (mind and matter). this, in turn, also solidified the ideas of white male superiority.
i would love to hear John and Gregg's thoughts on this in relation to consciousness. it seems in the afrocentric models that dualism doesn't exist (hasn't ever existed).
also, i am wondering if the "neoplatonic magical tradition", like Bruno, are the same folks who have been called alchemists?
Professors,
If I clip this up nice and throw in McKenna talking about Descartes' Angel, would you be willing to consider concepts from channeled material as seriously as you do what old humans wrote?
I think you are building a kind of strawman argument against Descartes. With regards to the first argument from The Meditations. It is irrelevant whether the features of consciousness and matter he identified are exhaustive of essence, the point of his argument is that they are so radically and irreconcilably different as to be naturally different categories of things. And hence must be so, not only in name but also in substance… (The point is that although they may not be essential properties, they are critical differences). Who said they have to be essential properties or that such things even exist for that matter?
Of course, if the argument is misconstrued, it won’t be deductively valid, or even a deductive argument for that matter… You are turning a deductive argument into an inductive one because of the red herring assumption that the list of properties of consciousness must be exhaustive of all essential characteristics. That is unnecessary and irrelevant.
I understand the greater point you are making regarding empirical “observation” being context sensitive (theory laden), which is true… Still, we have to define a set of parameters or a context from which we can make conclusions or deductive arguments. (Which only a mind seems to be able to do).
In the grand scheme of things, there really is no such thing as a deductive argument. That’s what Descartes realized and that’s why he postulated the “cogito” as a starting point towards certainty— starting assumption, that appeared to be on unshakable ground… Because ultimately there is no metaphysical certainty at all and you have to start to define bounds relative to your aims or focal point. Thus, from the parameters of logic, his argument is deductive and valid if properly interpreted… Though it may not be sound.
This is starting to get exciting !!
4:55 Actual beginning. How problem of consciousness became so salient to us. Enlightenment gap.
12:53 1st Argument of Descartes: Intentionality. Meaningfulness.
17:58 Validity of 1st argument. Cognition vs Consciousness.
23:53 Descartes explains mind in terms of scientific revolution + two worlds christian mythology.
31:37 Justification systems theory.
35:57 What was lost in scientific revolution. Mind and objects Con-Forming together.
43:36 Mathemathics and legibility. Copernicus, Halileo and subjective/objective body/mind grammar.
51:45 Recap. Mind and matter according to Aristotle.
59:23 Primary objective properties, secondary subjective properties (qualia).
1:03:00 Neoplatonism and it's place between Aristostle and Descartes.
1:11:24 What 'worldknot of consciousness' means?
Thank you for your work. John, you seem to be getting even better than ever at concisely stating the philosophical history of the meaning crisis. Please write a book, I would buy it immediately. Im also interested in how this could be taught to children or to people who have absolutely no knowledge of philosophy.
I have probably watched around 70 or 100 hours of your videos John, but this is my first comment. I am not a natural social media being but I am moved to comment today. Not only is this a deft and playful exploration of the topics at hand (as always). But I also find it a wonderful example of the act of friendship. I am touched by moments like John saying “ this is fun to be doing this together with you.” And in the first video a moment when Gregg calls you ‘friend’. I don’t often see people doing this work of friendship out in the public arena. I see you not only arguing for community, friendship and dialogue but also enacting those things. I’m not sure what risk of vulnerability you may be taking in sharing yourself, as well as your work but I find it all so valuable. To be honest I don’t know how I can adequately express my gratitude to you John via a youtube comment, but please know my holding of gratitude is deep.
@ 14:54 Gregg says: "can i say something real fast about that because this is important
meaning is in many ways "automatic ' you see a red cup and it you intuit the affordances of this cup it's just the the machinery and we can talk i know some more of that but highlight how robust meaning comes to you simply through your perceptual awareness.
John: yeah we're going to come back to this a lot right one of one of my major proposals is going to be that a a deep way of trying to get at this meaning that will connect it to consciousness is through the idea of relevance realization and that's what greg is alluding to right now."
accuratelyunderstood as the "autonomic" functioning of our nervous system, whereby word recognition as contents of mind, becomes as autonomic as breathing? And what is being teased out in this wonderful conversation is the "perceptual wisdom" involved in the "relevance realization" that mere word recognition is not reality recognition?
strengthGregg pointed out from his clinical observations. So, can we step beyond Descartes "I think therefore I am," model of consciousness by combining intellectual knowledge of the structure & function of our nervous system, with an embodied awareness of the "unseen" nature of being human? Can science & spirituality get together and take the next step in a global mindfulness revolution, or should that be "evolution?" Please consider:
The polyvagal theory: New insights into adaptive reactions of the autonomic nervous system.
Abstract:
The polyvagal theory describes an autonomic nervous system that is influenced by the central nervous system, sensitive to afferent influences, characterized by an adaptive reactivity dependent on the phylogeny of the neural circuits, and interactive with source nuclei in the brainstem regulating the striated muscles of the face and head. The theory is dependent on accumulated knowledge describing the phylogenetic transitions in the vertebrate autonomic nervous system. Its specific focus is on the phylogenetic shift between reptiles and mammals that resulted in specific changes to the vagal pathways regulating the heart. As the source nuclei of the primary vagal efferent pathways regulating the heart shifted from the dorsal motor nucleus of the vagus in reptiles to the nucleus ambiguus in mammals, a face–heart connection evolved with emergent properties of a social engagement system that would enable social interactions to regulate visceral state.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108032/
Do we see the reality of the "face-heart" connection & mutual regulation of visceral state, in the here & now of this conversation? And given the state of the union in America right now, is there any doubt that we humans are far more "reactive," than reasonable?
Look forward to this! Consider discourse including a cognitive psychologist who studies consciousness, visual perception and evolutionary psychology using mathematical models and psychophysical experiments. DONALD HOFFMAN. https://youtu.be/eUv333Decms
Donald is the author of several books, the latest one being The case against reality.
In this interview we talk about Donald’s scientific theory of consciousness, which he refers to as ‘conscious realism.’
He discusses why we don’t see reality as it is, what experiments demonstrate this and the role of spiritual practices in how we perceive reality.
What about evolution by intelligent guidance?
Thanks Gregg and John .
Why do you introduce yourself with titles in every single video? Almost all of your viewers know who you are, and those who don't can easily find out.
THE NATURE GENERATION PROBLEM? HOW IS "MIND" GENERATED WITHIN THE BODY?
The functional problem could be conceived through the lens of our commonsense feeling of being a mind? Specifically, in the way adults take their "recognition" of words for granted through that life-long way of learning, "habituation?" "Yeah, yeah I know the word consciousness." But the word consciousness is not the experience of consciousness anymore than the word "mind" is the experience of mind?
Therefore, is our taken for granted, adult sense of being our mind, as expressed in John's "top-down" worldview of the "mind-body" problem of consciousness, a delusional or waking dream-like, sense of reality? The mind-matter problem of feeling that thought words are as real as the material reality of the body? Please consider Rene Descartes thoughts on sleep & waking, in the light of more recent neuroscientific revelations on the sentient body's three states of consciousness, as a life-sustaining need for vigilance?
DESCARTES:
Meditation I. Of the things which may be brought within the sphere of the doubtful.
"I am in the habit of sleeping, and in my dreams representing to myself the same things or sometimes even less probable things, than do those who are insane in their waking moments. How often has it happened to me that in the night I dreamt that I found myself in this particular place, that I was dressed and seated near the fire, whilst in reality I was lying undressed in bed! At this moment it does indeed seem to me that it is with eyes awake that I am looking at this paper; that this head which I move is not asleep, that it is deliberately and of set purpose that I extend my hand and perceive it; what happens in sleep does not appear so clear nor so distinct as does all this. But in thinking over this I remind myself that on many occasions I have in sleep been deceived by similar illusions, and in dwelling carefully on this reflection I see so manifestly that there are no certain indications by which we may clearly distinguish wakefulness from sleep that I am lost in astonishment. And my astonishment is such that it is almost capable of persuading me that I now dream.
Now let us assume that we are asleep and that all these particulars, e.g. that we open our eyes, shake our head, extend our hands, and so on, are but false delusions; and let us reflect that possibly neither our hands nor our whole body are such as they appear to us to be. At the same time we must at least confess that the things which are represented to us
in sleep are like painted representations which can only have been formed as the counterparts of something real and true, and that in this way those general things at least, i.e. eyes, a head, hands, and a whole body, are not imaginary things, but things really existent. For, as a matter of fact, painters, even when they study with the greatest skill to represent sirens and satyrs by forms the most strange and extraordinary, cannot give them natures which are entirely new, but merely make a certain medley of the members of different animals; or if their imagination is extravagant enough to invent something so novel that nothing similar has ever before been seen, and that then their work represents a thing purely fictitious and absolutely false, it is certain all the same that the colours of which this is composed are necessarily real. And for the same reason, although these general things, to wit, [a body], eyes, a head, hands, and such like, may be imaginary, we are bound at the same time to confess that there are at least some other objects yet more simple and more universal, which are real and true; and of these just in the same way as with certain real colours, all these images of things which dwell in our thoughts, whether true and real or false and fantastic, are formed."
An excerpt from MEDITATIONS ON THE FIRST PHILOSOPHY IN WHICH THE EXISTENCE OF GOD AND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN MIND AND BODY ARE DEMONSTRATED. by René Descartes, 1641
https://yale.learningu.org/download/041e9642-df02-4eed-a895-70e472df2ca4/H2665_Descartes'%20Meditations.pdf
Yet, what is consciousness in the first year of our life & is REM state dreaming the prototype of waking consciousness? Please consider Jaap Panksepps' thoughts on the "hard" problem of our "adult" psychology of mind:
PANKSEPP:
"HOW CAN WE STUDY INTERNAL PROCESSES, WE CANNOT SEE:
Sleep, Arousal, and Mythmaking in the Brain:
Shakespeare proposed one possible function of sleep when he suggested that it “knits up the raveled sleeve of care.” Each day our lives cycle through the master routines of sleeping, dreaming, and waking. Although we do not know for sure what the various sleep stages do for us, aside from alleviating tiredness, we do know about the brain mechanisms that generate these states.
All of the executive structures are quite deep in the brain, some in the lower brain stem. To the best of our knowledge, however, the most influential mechanisms for slow wave sleep (SWS) are higher in the brain than the active waking mechanisms, while the executive mechanisms for REM sleep are the lowest of the three. Thus, we are forced to contemplate the strange possibility that the basic dream generators are more ancient in brain evolution that are the generators of our waking consciousness.
The brain goes through various “state shifts” during both waking and sleep. Surprisingly, it has been more difficult for scientists to agree on the types of discrete states of waking consciousness than on those that occur during sleep. EEG clearly discriminates three global vigilance states of the nervous system–waking, SWS, and dreaming or REM sleep.
Some people have also thought that dreaming is the crucible of madness. Many have suggested that schizophrenia reflects the release of dreaming processes into the waking state. Schizophrenics do not exhibit any more REM than normal folks, except during the evening before a “schizophrenic break,” when REM is in fact elevated.
There seem to be two distinct worlds within our minds, like matter and antimatter, worlds that are often 180 degrees out of phase with each other. The electrical activity in the brain stem during dreaming is the mirror image of waking–the ability of certain brain areas to modulate the activity of others during waking changes from excitation to inhibition during REM. In other words, areas of the brain that facilitate behaviors in waking now inhibit those same behaviors.
Many believe that if we understand this topsy-turvy reversal of the ruling potentials in the brain, we will better understand the nature of everyday mental realities, as well as the nature of minds that are overcome by madness. Perhaps what is now the REM state was the original form of waking consciousness in early brain evolution, when “emotionality” was more important than reason in the competition for resources.
What a strange thing, this dreaming process, that has now been the focus of more scientific inquiry than any other intrinsic mechanism of the brain. In terms of the EEG, it looks like a waking state, but in terms of behavior it looks like flaccid paralysis. When neuronal action potentials are analyzed during the three states of vigilance (sleeping, dreaming, and waking), we generally get a picture of waking activity as accompanied by a great deal of spontaneous neural activity, with only some cells being silent, waiting for the right environmental stimulus to come along.
Before certain critical experiments were done, it was assumed that the waking state was sustained by the bombardment of the brain by incoming stimuli from the senses and that sleep ensued only when stimulation from the environment was sufficiently diminished.
During REM sleep, most of the brain exhibits slightly more neuronal activity than during waking, with storms of intense activity sweeping through certain areas of the brain. However, many neurons that are most active during waking cease firing completely during REM.
"
Excerpts from: “Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions.” by Jaak Panksepp.
Hello, thanks for the enlightening discussion. I was wondering what place or wisdom you guys place on the acceptance of not-knowing? As in, is there a certain point in inquiry where it is conducive or even crucial to "relevance realization" or "untangling the knot" to regard experience, including thoughts and feelings, as simply phenomena that can't be ultimately "known", but only experienced and continually revised according to the scientific method?
Love the Magic notes!
Giardano Bruno: my candidate for individual with most self-confidence in history. (Trying do converting the Pope)