CONSCIOUSNESS, MIND AND THE WORLD - FOOTNOTES

1. Visit the Banana Slug Home Page at http://www.slugs.com/slugweb/slug_home_page.html... [entertainment value]

2. Consider alternatives to behavior…except, note, I argue below that behavior is not non-mental

3. Words relating to the stark aspect: central, multiple, recollection, reference, comparison, symbol, language, social, cultural

4. The concept of a nervous system in this paragraph is simply what is recognized as nervous system in biology. Communication and coordination among cells in a multi-cellular organism may be [and is] accomplished by other means that in terms of discreteness and speed are more elementary. These other modes of communication - simple mechanical interaction among cells that respond to mechanical stimulus, endocrine and immune action…- also show elements of mind and, therefore potentially, of consciousness at least in any revised universal sense

5. The discussion here is open to the accusation “this is an absurd view called pan-psychism”. Of course the accusation itself is open to the criticism of being based in an anthropomorphic -or zoomorphic - view of mind. The argument here is not that the universe is or is filled in every last crevice by consciousness as I experience it. This is analogous to the point that a scientific world view does not make any claim that the material nature of the world is constituted of matter as I know it through my direct experience. However there is an extension of the immediate percept of matter, based in conceptual and perceptual [empirical] extension that is the foundation of the material side of nature. Similarly, I am arguing for a conceptual-perceptual extension of the idea of mind and consciousness beyond the immediate perceptual apprehension as “qualia”. I am further arguing that such an extension does not so much pervade matter but is a more general and inclusive idea than the idea of matter and the inclusivity is such that matter appears as a special case. This argument is distributed through the present system of essays - the “three circles”

6. As instanced, for example, by Atomism and by the evolutionary paradigm - and theory - in biology

7. It will not because the materialist mode excludes experience as a fact although it may allow a language by means of which one may refer to experience. It need not since an efficient alternative described here is available

8. The scheme that follows implicitly includes process/action

9. Used here in the semantic rather than the existential sense. I may use the word in an existential sense - which may have analogies to the semantic meaning of meaning - and may then need to be careful. I do not want to get into the notion of literal meaning here. Clearly meaning is an element of language and thought; actual systems of language cannot be asserted to have final adequacy according to any criterion of significance; therefore the idea of literal is something of an illusion

10. “One cannot guess how a word functions. One has to look at its use and learn from that. But the difficulty is to remove the prejudice which stands in the way of doing this. It is not a stupid prejudice.” Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 340

11. Including art and the existential sense of meaning for witness the history of the use of esthetic criteria in mathematics and science - not only the classical period, but also in the Medieval Era, in India and Arabia, and in Modern Science - especially modern theoretical high energy and particle physics and cosmology

12. Dictionaries and associations for language and language/linguistic standards are conveniences

13. ...and, of course, the possibility that the exploration may yield a nihilistic universe in which exploration is meaningless, or a lazy one...or one in which a commitment - perhaps one with sufficient detachment from ends - is truth and wonder

14. Note: Elevate the following from its status as a footnote. The topic of discussion is the idea that the most fundamental of truths can be known from “common experience.” Although this is not a perfectly well defined idea here is an example - a reflection the popular “why is there something rather than nothing?” Here is a brief answer - that ignores the problematic meaning of nothing and nothingness as distinct from no-thing and no-thing-ness. If there were nothing, there would be nothing not even laws or determinism. Indeterminism in the case of nothing existing can only mean that something will come into existence...along with the conditions of its existence - laws, patterns. The existence would have to have some kind of stability...otherwise it would be a mere virtual or potential existence. There may have been phases of non-existence. The universe can only be observed in a state of existence...we are around to observe the present incarnation. There are related comments on indeterminism-determinism in section 5, below. Objection: But is not a real “State of Nothingness” necessarily and inexorably nothing without even the potential for something? This objection to something from nothing is absurd in that it violates the idea of nothing. Resolution idea: necessarily and inexorably is a law. Next question...why is it us who are around...who or what are we? It is your turn to answer a question. Yes, you, the reader. Participate! This line of thinking is seductively simple. The Zero = All = Zero...of indeterminism, also necessary on grounds of creation in the world - species, ideas - also implies a neutral monism “zero,” that being = becoming...the logic of “common experience” is more powerful than ironic reductions from modern science. [I came across the phrase “Ironic Science” in John Horgan’s pretty neat 1996 book the End of Science. I might add that this is an entertaining and well written book even though I am ambivalent about its hypothesis that science as we know it is winding down I was persuaded to pay attention to both the narrative and the argument. The accounts of interviews with the major intellectual figures have intrinsic interest apart from the thesis of the book itself.] The idea of derivation from common experience means looking to what is accessible to every reasonably completely developed human being as the basic data. The idea of “reasonably completely developed” is somewhat vague but that does not diminish the workability of the idea. I think the idea is an important one and can be developed into a philosophy of exploration and discovery. However, I definitely am not contending that concepts from science are not useful...or intrinsically devoid of common content. I am arguing that the more immediate the experience that is the basis of an argument, the more powerful is its appeal. For example, one could argue from evolutionary biology or from quantum mechanics to an emergentism. However it would be more powerful to argue the same conclusion from a few basic facts - for example, the power of organism to recreate seen every day in childbirth - observable on a day to day basis. These facts would not, of course be essentially distinct from evolutionary theory or quantum mechanics - it does not make sense to make too much of the distinctions...but such facts are not toward the esoteric ends of the disciplines. Corroboration by the disciplines would then be additional vindication. The process does not end at any predefined point. The broader the base, the more “real” are the conclusions. Input from various cultures - modern and other - would not invalidate without reflection and sufficient incorporation but corroboration would also be a validation. Tradition would similarly be included - just as in the esoterica where the system is not recreated by each generation of practitioners. Criteria would also be generated by the same process and included dynamically. That is the systems and accepted criteria are subject to review...In this way the base of the real is made more secure. If, as now appears natural, the philosophy of common experience is related to the question of being then there is the dual question as to the nature of being and common experience. This can be generalized to a multiple question about the nature of philosophy, common experience, being, exploration, and criteria discussed here...and the question is “what are these”? The various criteria related to being can be generalized to the critical function in philosophy. There is no meaningful equation f [CE, B, EXP, PHIL, CRIT] = 0 to be solved. The process is one of iteration. The concepts of philosophy, common experience, being, exploration, and criteria as encountered are taken as the “starting” point

15. The experience vs. reason dualism is an epistemic dualism that mirrors the dualism of matter and mind. Is there not a place where experience merges into reason? Also note: by reason I mean the use of the agencies of the mind so long as they are not completely determinate; emotion is not at all excluded

16. This is not to imply that any trajectory is free of interpretation or that any trajectory can - or cannot - provide definite conclusions

17. This is not a claim that those conclusions include monism

18. Others, especially those in cultures with non Western cosmologies have other views

19. Placement in context, in the world...the antithesis of alienation

20. I emphasize “normal” in no particular sense except to suggest that it is neither necessary nor absolute...and that the inclusive view is not necessarily foreign to either biology or culture

21. This is always the task. Heidegger viewed metaphysics as an obstacle, introduced insights, clarifications for his time...and further “confusion.”

22. Or “becoming.”

23. Further elaboration: Being that lies in the continuum of question and answer...questions that are not only asked and explicitly with the intellect and answers that are not only given [with thought, reason, intellect...] but are the fabric of its existence, grounded in its heart, sealed in its soul. Question and answer that are one and the same when on the beach silently gazing out at the deep blue...or amid the multiple currents and transactions of everyday life

24. I do not feel that I am different from others in this regard. I may of course have different ideas and make different choices

25. See Consciousness, Mind and the World for elaboration and specification of what I mean by common

26. Knowledge has an aspect as relationship...and another aspect as being

27. We do not perceive zero durations of time and therefore zero duration is not a good meaning of an instant. Nor do we know from physics that zero duration is a meaningful quantity even though it is used as a concept just as points of space are also used. An instant is the shortest duration of time that a being can experience or perceive. This may not be the final concept but it is in the right direction. An instant for a human being may be a significant period for a bacterium. Thus there may be being for which infinity is an “instant.” This means that an infinity could be perceived or experienced at a glance, “at once.” This does not mean that finite instants could not be seen - perhaps Absolute Being or some relative could perceive zero duration

28. The thrill of the ultimate is a specific and real emotion. Thrill could be replaced by a neutral feeling. By giving it a specific name, I intend a use that is not derivative of something else. It is not awe or mystery although it is related to or includes these feelings. It does not carry the implications of the, perhaps modern senses of awe and mystery related as they are to humility; while humility is not excluded or negated, the feeling of the ultimate is not essentially one in which the individual is shading one’s eyes from some greater or superior presence. It is real in that it is not related only to the psychological side, it is not just a feeling...it is a feeling of. It is the feeling of placement within, of knowledge of the map of reality...of simplicity, assertion, clarity, perhaps aggression [oh no!] and real power

29. Nothing

30. Further notes on being and consciousness: [1] Being is the thing that I have been trying to strain consciousness - the idea - to be. The sense in which being is the thing includes the idea of question and answer of feeling, experimenting a way toward recognition of self and world...a way in which strict and steely inexorable logic may be a tool but not a religion. Question: is it straining...or am I just somewhat trapped in the old ways of thought. And if it is straining then is it straining of the concept or of the imagination...or both? Either way, even though being is or may be “the thing,” a new word may be needed owing to the baggage associated with “being.” Therefore the circles of Being and the Absolute, of Consciousness, Mind and the World, and of Consciousness and Nature need to be reworked with these thoughts in view. [2] The route to being through consciousness is still valuable: it shows some structural details and approaches to being; we learn about being and consciousness. [3] The scientific and common explanation of consciousness therefore remains of primary - but not unique - importance. This explanation may or may not be much affected by idealism according to whether our immediate human experience does or does not specify the final concept of consciousness. However, idealism does show that the scientific and common explanation will be in an “as if” mode and that the hard problem of consciousness is fallacious i.e. not a problem at all. This problem has its origin in a material paradigm and, as such, is artifactual in nature and therefore will have no resolution within this framework

31. ...or atoms. Monads are not seen as existing in isolation but in relation. Monads in relation is a special case of distribution