On Scientific American: Consciousness Goes Deeper Than You Think

This is one of my points of departure with Tom Campbell. He says that only "high level" creatures have consciousnesses. 

People, monkeys, dogs,,,, of course. 
Ants? Of course not.
Dolphins? Of course. 
Trees? Of course not. 
Rocks? OF COURSE NOT!

It's completely arbitrary. Makes no sense to me.

While I would say that consciousness is ubiquitous, I wouldn't say that all conscious experience equates to the human conscious experience. Humans seem to have a particularly highly tuned and focused form of consciousness which allows self-awareness and the sense of "I am". Trees might have a radically different form of awareness attuned to the environment they exist in and perhaps nothing like the awareness of time that humans have. 

I can't imagine how a rock might experience consciousness but perhaps, by putting the question the other way around, we might gain some insight: how does consciousness experience being a rock?

I am familiar with the book and Lyall Watson has mentioned it I am sure.  Maybe in Supernature.  I have to admit the evidence is intriguing but being the incurable skeptic that I am I need more evidence before I will commit myself.

Bottom line is: if you buy into any of that stuff (which I do) you need to acknoledge that there is a lvel of consciousness in everything. 

Are you familiar with the frozen water experiments in Japan? 

Same thing shows up: signs of consciousness.

While I would say that consciousness is ubiquitous, I wouldn't say that all conscious experience equates to the human conscious experience. Humans seem to have a particularly highly tuned and focused form of consciousness which allows self-awareness and the sense of "I am". Trees might have a radically different form of awareness attuned to the environment they exist in and perhaps nothing like the awareness of time that humans have. 

I can't imagine how a rock might experience consciousness but perhaps, by putting the question the other way around, we might gain some insight: how does consciousness experience being a rock?

Of course one wouldn't expect the consciousness of a plant to equate to a human. 

First of all there's the whole difference in sense organs and nervous system.

But also the assumed difference in cognition.

So although there would certainly be a difference in the quality of conscious experience, it makes sense to me that in all things there is an aspect of consciousnesses. And as I've previously mentioned, it would explain a few things...

No but I would like to find out.

jkmac might be referring to the distant intention experiments on water crystal formation conducted by Dean Radin and Masaru Emoto in 2006:

http://www.deanradin.com/papers/emotoIIproof.pdf

I was one of the participants grading the sample photos in terms of "beauty" and "interest", and I have to say that the great majority of the nearly formless blobs I observed was neither beautiful nor interesting to me. I graded the blobs using ad hoc relative scales of beauty and interest loosely based on the amount and shape of crystalline structures evident in the photos.

It's very possible that I also graded blob photos in the pilot study, because Dean announced both studies, providing links to the photos, to members of the GotPsi Yahoo group to which I was an occasional contributor.

No but I would like to find out.

Well, not surprisingly there are lots of detractors of the work. And maybe rightfully so. Controls were weak.

"Consider your breathing right now: the sensation of air flowing through your nostrils, the movements of your diaphragm, etcetera. Were you not experiencing these sensations a moment ago, before I directed your attention to them? Or were you just unaware that you were experiencing them all along? By directing your attention to these sensations, did I make them conscious or did I simply cause you to experience the extra quality of knowing that the sensations were conscious?"

I don't think I was experiencing them a moment ago. If we define consciousness as some process about which we are not aware, then don't we render the term useless? What does it mean to have unexperienced experience?

~~ Paul

On Scientific American: Consciousness Goes Deeper Than You Think

[/url][url=https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/consciousness-goes-deeper-than-you-think/]

Very difficult to say if there is anything very useful in Schooler's ideas, or not. How can one label loose collections of observations, as though they were a jigsaw piece... i.e. 'meta-consciousness'... if the jigsaw piece is the wrong shape, it may not fit anywhere.

It's not at all clear what I'm doing to have my experiences, so I'm somewhat resistant to the idea of creating more jigsaw pieces (labels) for loose collections of things. In case one gets trapped into a way of thinking that makes the jigsaw piece become a thing itself, a trap, that prevents one from ever completing the jigsaw. Because the piece will never fit anywhere.

Better to talk about the collection of 'actual' observations that are being labeled as 're-representation' and 'meta-consciousness', before one starts turning them into jigsaw pieces... they may not be valid jigsaw pieces. Their edges and boundaries may incorrectly encompass the wrong stuff... because the author is looking at things from the wrong perspective.

I feel really resistant to his loose collections of reason... as if my brain is unhappy with the things he's trying to make me associate.

For example, I feel pretty resigned to the idea that I'm traveling through space-time... analogous to the car driver looking backwards in the rear view mirror, and forward through the windshield, just as much when moving through time, as we're very comfortable with thinking about the idea of moving through space.

I label patterns with meaning, well ahead of me in space(time). Using the same car analogy, A lampost, a street sign, a building and road markings etc., get labeled well in front of me in space, where I intend to turn left. When I reach those patterns I hang a left. (Simplistic and incorrect, but you get the idea).

I think I'm doing the same thing in time... perhaps that is what Schooler is talking about with his observations. Tagging future patterns with meaning, such that I get periods of checking/alternative perspectives, when I reach these patterns, or drift off course, or when they are not reached when expected.

I don't know, I think it's very difficult to talk about this stuff without having a better idea, or using a better structure, to the understanding we're trying to construct.

If Schoolers labels are built off the wrong perspective, what's the point... how does one check... how does he check... what insight does it provide.

This is one of my points of departure with Tom Campbell. He says that only "high level" creatures have consciousnesses. 

Then there is hs comment that "personal identity is simply a consciousness that has evolved as a result of all the choices (intents) a person has made in conjunction with all the people and objects with whom that person has interacted."

I agree with the majority of TOE but Tommy keeps getting off into the weeds too often for me to follow.

Then there is hs comment that "personal identity is simply a consciousness that has evolved as a result of all the choices (intents) a person has made in conjunction with all the people and objects with whom that person has interacted."

I agree with the majority of TOE but Tommy keeps getting off into the weeds too often for me to follow.

You and me both.