User blogs

‘Conventional time t’ versus ‘Rhythmic Time T’ (Two Faces of One Mystery) [by Peter Beamish]: Abstract: Here is described a second form of time. Here, it is also suggested that ‘ALL (real) TIME IS NOW TIME,’ otherwise past and future temporal concepts of the two types are scalar labels called ‘Conventional timetags’ and ‘Rhythmic Timetags.’ Additionally one’s mind is described by a new, seemingly important, dynamic concept called an ‘Essos’ (pronounced Eee-sos) and containing both one’s ‘Conventional Now’ and one’s ‘Rhythm Based Now.’ It is suggested that we use an upper case ‘TIME’ for the sum of these two mental concepts. Described also is the seemingly very important ‘Mental Vector Process’ or ‘MVP’ which appears as the Most Valuable Player, for all living organisms, in The Game of Life. The book preparation, entitled Dancing With Nature, from which this paper is a highly edited form, suggests the merging of the science of physics with the sciences of biophysics and biochemistry. http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/91

Eminent Entities: Short Accounts of Some Major Thinkers in Consciousness Studies (by Peter Hankins): Abstract: I run a blog entitled “Conscious Entities” at http://consciousentities.com which is devoted to short discussions of some of the major thinkers and theories about consciousness. This is another small collection of my writings on consciousness which the editor of JCER very kindly selected to appear here. It contains my short accounts of six major thinkers in consciousness studies including Daniel Dennet, John Searle, David Chalmers, Colin McGinn, Roger Penrose & Gerald Edelman. In reading the books of these writers, I found I had views which were very clear, but also completely contradictory; so these pieces are written in the form of dialogues between a character I call Bitbucket (represented by the abacus) who is a hard-line materialist computational reductionist, and Blandula (the cherub) who leans towards dualism and mysterianism. (The last few words of each article, by the way, are actually quotes from the subject himself.) http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/92

Consciousness, Mind and Matter in Indian Philosophy (by Syamala Hari): Abstract: I am very impressed by the striking similarity of concepts in the Guest Editorial by G. M. Nixon in JCER V1(6) to those of ancient Indian Philosophy on thought, time, and Consciousness. I drew only a few examples from the article to depict the similarity but I am impressed by the elegancy of expression and profoundness of concepts in the whole article. http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/87

Consciousness, Lack of Imagination & Samapatti (by Alan J. Oliver): Abstract: Let me say from the outset that in all of the material written on the issue of consciousness I have found little, if anything at all, about the presence of imagination and what part it might play in a discourse about consciousness. In view of the ubiquitous nature of imagination, at least for most people, this is hardly surprising. For people like me, lacking that faculty, it is quite a different story. Over a lifetime trying to understand why most people find the way I think a bit odd, autistic even, I have had to find my own answers, only to find that what the absence of an imagination can provide as an answer for me just deepens the puzzle. http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/88

Interactions among Minds/Brains: Individual Consciousness and Inter-subjectivity in Dual-Aspect Framework (by Ram L. Pandey Vimal)

Abstract: Previously in (Vimal, 2010a), we argued that: (i) it is necessary to link experience and function aspect of consciousness with the related structure or neural correlate(s) of consciousness (NCC); and (ii) non-conscious experiences are equivalent to relevant proto-experiences at various levels because both are precursors of conscious subjective experiences aspect of consciousness. Here, in terms of dual-aspect dual-mode PE-SE (proto-experience/subjective experience) framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010d), we argue as follows: (I) Non-experiential consciousness is a part of functional aspect of consciousness and consciousness is more fundamental than experience because experiences and functions are two aspects of consciousness. (II) Therefore, one could argue for the continuum of consciousness, experience, and function. (III) The origin of individual consciousness could be a ‘universal background of awareness’ that is equivalent to virtual reservoir (where potential SEs are stored in superposed form, and a specific SE is selected via matching process) in the PE-SE framework. The interaction between zombies is relational but it would not lead to an individual consciousness in each zombie. The origin of intersubjective consciousness is the interaction between individual consciousnesses, i.e., interaction between ‘I’, ‘you’, and ‘she/he/it’, i.e., interactions between minds/brains and their environments. (IV) A specific SE is selected during matching process and conscious experience constructs the perception or SE of external objects. (V) The dual-aspect dual-mode PE-SE framework is consistent with classical double-aspectism in the sense of inseparability of mental and physical aspect, whereas it is consistent with double-perspectivism in the sense that the mental aspect is known via first person perspective and the physical aspect is known via third person perspective. (VI) Our conventional reality is subject inclusive or mind dependent reality (MDR), whereas the subject exclusive or mind independent reality (MIR) remains always unknown even in so called samadhi state of mind that claims to have direct perception (or consciousness as such), which may or may not be close to MIR. (VII) The hard problems are Types 1-3 explanatory gaps: Type-1 explanatory gap is how can SEs emerge from non-experiential matter (emergentism) or identical with respective neural states (identity hypothesis of Type-B materialism)? Type-2 is how can SEs pre-exist? And Type-3 is how can physicists claim that MDR is MIR? The hard problem of panexperientialism is how can experiences create the matter of mind independent reality? (VIII) The predictive behavior (developmental rhythmic call and response behavior) and then existential crisis contribute towards the emergence of consciousness. On the basis of evolution, (a) individual consciousness in rudimentary form might have occurred about 540 mya during Cambrian explosion, (b) symbolic, language-using, Homo sapiens (tribal-centric consciousness ) emerged at around 150 kya, and (iii) self-centric or object-centric consciousness might have emerged at around 10 kya. (IX) (a) The existential crisis, biological crisis, and predictive behavior can be interpreted as the motivation/cause of the formation of appropriate neural-networks, and (b) self (SE of subject) occurred in brain when self-related neural-network were formed and necessary ingredients of consciousness were satisfied. (c) The co-evolution and co-development (neural Darwinism) of mind and brain and the dual-aspect-dual-mode PE-SE framework are necessary in a complementary manner for physicalism and panexperientialism. Inter-subjectivity can modulate the attributes of already created/occurred individual-self in self-related neural-network. http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/89