I am Interested in the overview of the current debates about the nature of the mind, which book(s) do you recommend?
Thanks for the question Danijel. Hmmm. There are a number of academic-flavored surveys available that cover different theories of consciousness…is that what you are looking for? There is William Seagar’s latest edition of Theories of Consciousness, for example. Then you have various proponents of their own approaches who will elaborate — in the course of describing their own work — on contrasting approaches. The work of Chalmers, Searle, Dehaene, Damasio, etc. all do this to varying degrees. There are also some good summaries online, such as this one: Consciousness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). If you haven’t already read it, I also recommend McGilchrist’s The Master and His Emissary for a compelling interdisciplinary narrative. Another book that I found helpful was Ken Wilber’s Integral Psychology. To complete a multidimensional picture, IMO van der Kolk’s The Body Keeps the Score adds an essential element to the mix. And, lastly, I would offer you my own Memory : Self to round out the recommendations. Many of these books — the last three in particular — focus on different aspects of mind, but will nevertheless help construct a well-rounded picture of the debates that percolate through our modern discourse.
In layman's terms, what is philosopher Gianni Vattimo's idea of "weak thought"?
LOL. Reducing complex philosophical concepts to “layman’s terms” is perhaps itself a byproduct of weak thought - as we can only frame such discourse in the concepts we have learned via the culture through which we swim. Be that as it may….
First I would say that this idea isn’t particular new - Proust makes clear reference to the same observations about transience and recollection in his writing. Of course I wouldn’t dream of implying that Vattimo is reappropriating here. I’m just saying it’s not particularly original.
Secondly I would say that Vattimo’s argument narrowly holds true for a very thin slice of concrete sequential reasoning, and not for the many other cognitive input streams humans have available to us (see Sector Theory 1.0 – Todd's Take on Epistemology). This is what I would call classic exclusionary bias. When Vattimo asserts that “we do not have pre-categorical or trans-categorical access to Being,” he is simply mistaken.
Lastly, where Vattimo seems to claim that the metaphysical tradition has no ”coherent unity,” IMHO he is evidencing his own incomplete understanding of that tradition - and his oversimplifying (or reducing) of its nuances - rather than any demonstrated continuity in his own logic.
Do we have multiple self-states rather than a unified, consistent Self?
Thanks for the A2A Cara. Great question and there a few different ways to answer it.
1. Our awareness of self is only in this instant. The instant that just past is now a previous “self-state.” So any unitive consistency in our personal identity is one that we have constructed in this moment, as part of an ongoing (and constantly revised) narrative. But I would say the “selves” being chained together in this way are…well…infinite.
2. There are about as many different ways to describe separate elements that contribute to an amalgamated self as there are traditions of psychology, philosophy and spirituality. Experiential, autobiographical, soul, executive, witness, spirit, personas, ego, id, archetypes, and so on. About the only thing that these different perspectives or descriptions agree upon is the necessity of integration, coordination, harmony or the like among these distinct contributive elements in order to be “whole” (or at least psychologically stable). That integrated or individuated self then becomes the ideal, high-functioning self, that is indeed “unified and consistent” in its process of integration/individuation, seeking to self-actualize within its ongoing narrative. In this schema there are then both “multiple self-states” and unity. Of course, there may still be a contrast between the real and ideal levels of function…but that is more of a semantic glitch IMO, as we can easily embrace the dialectic (and even be energized by it).
3. At the same time, you used the capitalized “Self” in your question. If by this you mean some sort of foundational, essential, spiritual Self (as the term is often used), then I would say that this aspect of our being is more unified and consistent. That does not mean it is a calcified nugget without potential for growth, but that it retains certain fundamental characteristics, or “suchness,” that may be fluidly emergent but nevertheless unitive in nature. This ground-of-being Self may also inform our narrative self at times, but (perhaps ironically) that input stream tends to be momentary or fleeting for most people. So again - as a felt experience in the moment, the Self contributes to the “multiple self-states” that unfold over time.
4. There are mental, emotional and spiritual conditions that interrupt the consistency of the narrative self. As one example, we might apprehend the bare reality of our constructed self - or even the essential Self as inhabiting a construct - so that we arrive at an apprehension of No Self, and eventually an integrated condition of No Self. As another example a person might find themselves unable to emerge from a unitive peak experience of consciousness, so that they can no longer differentiate between self and Self. And as Proust famously opined, there is an erasure of self-referential identity during sleep, so that we must “reassemble” ourselves upon waking, which speaks to the tentative nature of all of this.
You could say, therefore, that all versions of self are a choice, along with the choice to incorporate unitive consistency (or trajectory). You might even say that our efforts around these choices (to inform, deliberate, idealize, aspire, operationalize, etc.) are a unique feature of our consciousness, and one that is, IMO, pretty darn cool. That is what my book *Memory:Self *seeks to demonstrate in the context of multidimensional self-healing, addressing the contributive elements to self-conception and actualization as “semantic containers,” with many different input streams, which we can actively reshape and reinforce.
Is super intelligence artificial or real?
In answer to Quora question "Is super intelligence artificial or real?"
Thanks for the A2A Carl.
Discussions of superintelligence as an outgrowth of strong AI often restrict themselves to a reductionist, mechanical view of human intelligence, and to replicating and amplifying a narrow set of cognitive processes from this perspective. Confined to this line of thinking, "superintelligence" is a predictable development IMO - I just wouldn't call it that. Why? Because, as with many monodimensional views of intelligence, that development emphasizes quantitative, objective metrics that sidestep important qualitative and subjective and intersubjective issues - or even the full spectrum of objective ones. To appreciate what I'm getting at, take a look at my paper Functional Intelligence (http://tcollinslogan.com/code-3/images/functionalintelligence.pdf). It is easy to lose sight of the full breadth of intelligence and its evolutionary implications when employing reductionist perspectives and methods. In a way it is easy to understand why this happens when the fields of science and technology themselves disproportionately attract people who exhibit Asperger's or other Autism Spectrum Disorder, and who are often high achievers in these systematizing fields. Among this population, the objective narrowing of "intelligence" is a comfortable way to systematize its functions. Add to this the fact that science and technology themselves have undergone increasing specialization, where the relationship with other fields or a broader, more inclusive understanding has been either crippled or abstracted. In my view, until the vastly more multidimensional spectrum of human experience (perception, insight, complex and nuanced ideation, intuition, emotional sophistication, somatic felt sense, etc.) becomes part of the generative synthesis of superintelligence, that synthesis will remain monodimensional, incomplete, and not representative of the evolutionary trajectory already established in homo sapiens. In other words, it will fall short. To fully expand what I believe to be a more appropriate (and ultimately more useful) avenue of heightened intelligence, we would need to answer Chalmer's hard problem - the whys of consciousness itself. This is what would allow us achieve something truly superintelligent in the most inclusive, multidimensional and holistic sense. Otherwise, we are just creating systems and tools, expanding on mechanization, and not really on intelligence at all. Thus the development of strong AI may indeed lead to supertools, but not to a superintelligence that represents the complexity and integrations of consciousness itself.
In answer to Quora question: "On what basis do people argue that the universe is conscious?"
You asked about a basis. For a mystic that basis is the personal experience of a unitive condition inclusive of subject and object - and indeed all objects -as the result of disciplined mental, emotional and physical practices. Direct experience of this felt reality is profoundly persuasive. However, how we react to or interpret such unitive apperceptions tends to reflect the structural sophistication and moral development within which our own consciousness currently operates. Wilber examines this idea in his discussion of a "pre/trans fallacy." Panpsychism is one response or explanation in a spectrum of responses and explanations to unitive apperception, but is really an abstraction of the core experience. Another response was Gutei raising a single finger. Another is immersion in profound love-consciousness. Another is worshipful gratitude toward the Divine. Thought-without-thought, action-without-action, no-self, Atman Brahman, supramentalisation...this list is varied and endless, but the core experience that inspired these reactions or conditions is the same; it has undifferentiated unity. So to appreciate the "mechanism of consciousness" in seemingly inanimate objects, you would need to commit to a mystical practice that could eventually offer you a directly apprehended answer. Then again, you might interpret your experience differently. But if you constrain your answers to rational arguments, you will tend to become mired in endless loops that can't resolve themselves. It would be equivalent, say, to trying to explain the relationship between manifest and unmanifest, or characteristics of the Ayn Soph, or what Buddhist "emptiness" is, etc. without experiencing these directly.
Comment from Dimage Sapelkin: "Why don't philosophers speak normal understandable language? You probably said something interesting and meaningful, but I only understood a few words"
Dimage I apologize. Sometimes trying to be precise with words can result in less easy-to-understand language. If I try to simplify what I'm saying, it may also be misunderstood, but I'll give it a try: If I meditate, and have a sudden "aha" moment in which I perceive everything as one - completely the same in its essence or in its relationship to everything else - I may conclude that "everything is conscious," because I cannot separate my own consciousness from my mind's penetration of (or entanglement with?) everything that I perceive. In fact, I may discover that what I believe to be "real consciousness" is actually something very different than my own "monkey mind," and that aspects of this "real consciousness" are in fact present in everything around me. But this experience is extremely personal and subjective...it is challenging to explain it in rational terms. However, as a basis for "universal consciousness," it feels very convincing to the person experiencing it.
Comment from Dimage Sapelkin: "Yep, but if you think about the experience of other people who feel quite the same, you know that they have very different experience from yours. Their consciousness actually doesn't get included with yours while you feel as one with the universe. Isn't that a contradiction to what you are saying?"
From my discussions with others who have shared their mystical experiences with me, and from my readings of those mystics who have tried to write down their experiences, compared them with the experiences of mystics from other traditions, and so on...I would say that we all have encountered some pretty profoundly similar felt realities, and indeed "shared in the same consciousness." Sometimes our sensations and insights seem almost identical, but, I think more importantly, these mystical "ahas" share powerful central characteristics, such as feeling deep compassion for all human beings that endures into our daily lives, and never fades away entirely. Then again, their are many doors to the palace of wisdom, many paths up the mountain, and even if they at first may seem contradictory, they are ultimately reconciled in mystical union. I hope this was helpful.
Comment from Martin Silvertant: "A really excellent answer, and beautifully worded. I don't at all share Sapelkin's sentiment. I understood everything and didn't feel you were being pretentious in your choice of words.
One question though. What are you referring to exactly when you say one can't explain the relationship between the characteristics of the Ayn Soph? Are you implying it's inherently spiritual rather than rational?"
We can discuss or frame this rationally after encountering it in peak experiences, but I would say the experience itself is "transrational;" it integrates many different input streams, and rationality (or more accurately a "hyperrationality" that excludes felt sense, intuition, spiritual cognition, etc. from the mix) can actually get in the way - or at least cause us to stumble. My 2 cents.
What is the relationship between intelligence and consciousness?
In answer to Quora question "What is the relationship between intelligence and consciousness?"
Hi Jeff and thanks for the A2A. Interesting question.
For me it boils don't to qualitative factors: that is, what qualities of intelligence relate to what qualities of consciousness, and vice versa. That begins to plot some interesting correlations, and also excludes some of the more mundane metrics IMO. For example, I have a saying: "Because the Universe has conspired in favor of my consciousness, my consciousness conspires in favor of the Universe." This implies a certain quality of consciousness that engages with an intent that can only be governed by certain qualities of intelligence, and where both consciousness and intelligence have multiple vectors. In particular, it calls upon me to develop a highly functional intelligence that operationalizes a specific values hierarchy. Consider the differentiation between such a clearly conceptualized, clearly felt, and clearly actualized values system, and, say, the qualities of intelligence and consciousness that allow a leopard to stalk its prey, or a human to solve a math equation, or a chimpanzee to use a stick as a tool. There is an indication of orders of magnitude in that difference, or? So that realm of correlation, relationship and calculus that appreciates the complex, nuanced interdependence of an integral (holistic, multidimensional) conception of both intelligence and consciousness does indeed, I think, begin to narrow the field so that "both questions are answered at once." At the opposite end of the spectrum, one could speculate about a more linear correlation, and simply say that "levels of consciousness = evolution of intelligence," but that seems like a shortcut that sidesteps some really intriguing considerations.
On another, related thread, I often wonder about various kinds of curiosity (intellectual, emotional, spiritual, physical) and their impact on functional intelligence, qualities of consciousness, and the evolution of both. Is curiosity central to this nexus? I dunno...but it seems like an interesting line of inquiry.