Non-Locality

[Dave Toast]

Now take this a bit deeper and imagine how would have a complex brain, or say even a precursor to that as in a bunch of primitive neuro-cells/nerves, or say even LIFE could have come about if there was absolutely no form of “implicit memory” involved at an atomic or quantum level?

I'm not completely sure what you're saying here mate. Are you saying that there cannot be a conscious whole unless the constituents of that conscious whole are necessarily conscious? And in fact that higher forms of consciousness could not synthesize from non-conscious constituents? And further that consciousness is necessary to all synthesis?

If so, this ignores the possibility that consciosness is an emergent property of a gestalt. Also that an explanation of elementary and molecular synthesis exists without the need to posit consciousness.

And even the tiniest bit of anticipation has to necessarily be involved for any kind of Natural selection to work coherently, but because of its dependency on the form or structure that it possesses, it has its own limitations dictated accordingly.

I'm not so sure Sap. You have to look at the bigger picture to understand how the processes of natural selection produce results. Any novel synthesis is either better or worse than extant syntheses at negotiating its environment and thereby proliferating its pattern. As such, you could say that the process of natural selection is the agent of 'memory' that 'decides' which patterns of synthesis prevail. This would mitigate the need to assign that 'necessity of memory' to the elements of the synthesis.

Or maybe I'm missing your point completely?

So, the higher the complexity of a consciousness which is dependant on the implicit AND explicit memory of a particular thing, the further does it have the probability to anticipate or “see” into the future a bit further, or even remember the past or "see" into it.

No doubt about that.

I think, though, that there are different strata and thresholds involved in this multifaceted anticipation of the future. The process involved with explicit memory is simple enough. Memories of past events and their eventualities are consciously cross-referenced with perceptions of current events to extrapolate possible future eventualities. When it comes to certain simple things, like 'If I throw this stone with a certain trajectory and a certain velocity, it will likely land just about there', explicit memory (with its more considered quality) is probably better at the job than procedural implicit memory, depending on how well practiced that procedural memory is (So if someone has been throwing stones all their life, their procedural memory will likely do a better job than extrapolation via their explicit memory. Any golfer will confirm the problem of adding the considerations of explicit memory to to the carrying out of practiced procedural processes). However, once we get to a certain threshold of complexity of the computational factors involved, explicit memory becomes no better at anticipating the future than chance, statistically. So if someone were to try to anticipate the outcome of a coin toss by considering the factors involved, their extrapolation would be no more accurate than a guess. This is where implicit memory seems to come into its own. It anticipates future eventualities according to the complex computational factors of present events as a matter of course and has been doing it as long as you've been alive. As such, its well practiced at it and will likely yield more accurate results than the ruminations of explicit memory or guessing.

So the processes of explicit memory, the ones we are conscious of being conscious of, aren't always necessarily going to produce a better ability to 'see into the future' than the processes of implicit memory.


And in the end we have a great example right here. My conscious explicit memory processes tells me that I'm answering the questions you've asked here. But I have a rather large niggle, a feeling, pushing itself forward from the back of my mind, that's telling me I've actually not understood your questions at all. :-)

[Sapius]

.

Dave: But I have a rather large niggle, a feeling, pushing itself forward from the back of my mind, that's telling me I've actually not understood your questions at all. :-)

Your implicit memory is doing you more justice to you, but we are not necessarily too far. I will get back tomorrow tough :)

[divine focus]

Animals are actually creations of ours as essence, and they naturally defer to our belief systems within their perception. They are not capable of their own beliefs, as they are not capable of imagination.

But they do perceive a "self" and something other than that, don't they? Otherwise how could they coherently operate or interact with their environment; it goes for a newborn human baby too, who has not yet developed a belief system. Don't tell me that a baby does not perceive. Or are you saying that I perceive that a baby perceives whereas it actually does not?

:D No, I am not arguing that anything does not perceive. I am agreeing with you, in that all consciousness has a form of perception--except the entirety, that is, which is simply you subjectively, "outside" of perception. It perceives through you.

[divine focus]

I'm not completely sure what you're saying here mate. Are you saying that there cannot be a conscious whole unless the constituents of that conscious whole are necessarily conscious? And in fact that higher forms of consciousness could not synthesize from non-conscious constituents? And further that consciousness is necessary to all synthesis?

If so, this ignores the possibility that consciosness is an emergent property of a gestalt.

What is a gestalt other than consciousness? What could be more than the sum of its parts other than consciousness?

[Sapius]

Dave;

Are you saying that there cannot be a conscious whole unless the constituents of that conscious whole are necessarily conscious?

Not a ‘conscious’ whole as in a universal cosmic intellectual consciousness, but an ingredient, say “awareness” present in every detectable particle, that acts like an engine or a “force” that fuels the dynamic movement of existence.

And in fact that higher forms of consciousness could not synthesize from non-conscious constituents? And further that consciousness is necessary to all synthesis?

No, not ‘consciousness’, but ‘awareness’ is; of a very minimal value that results in a more complex consciousness like ours, and is a different emergent property however. Conscious and non-conscious are but categories we impose on “life” any ways, but what is it that is not always in motion, always; our incapability of detecting such motions due to our dimensional limitations should not deter us in further exploring it philosophically. I’m told even some Scientists propose to extend the meaning of life since it is possible for even rocks to literally grow under certain alien conditions.

If so, this ignores the possibility that consciosness is an emergent property of a gestalt.

I had to look it up.
Gestalt: a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts.

Absolutely not, it is an emergent property, but the seed of it is already there so to speak.

The word ‘consciousness’ has quite a broad sweep actually, but an animal although “conscious”, is not the same as us, for it cannot logically deduce through abstract symbols like we do. So I prefer calling our consciousness as ‘logi-consciousness’, since we are logically self-aware and not only self-aware like an animal is by default, and in a similar manner, all the particles that make up any “thing” have to necessarily be “aware” of their immediate environment to act coherently, otherwise no organ could have organized itself unless there was some sort of “memory” involved in ever bit of a DNA strand, and every particle in there was not “aware” enough to react accordingly as per what it detected, although its reactions are very limited. As in reacting to 1 but not 0 for example, but I’m sure you know it is more complex than that even on the quantum level.

Also that an explanation of elementary and molecular synthesis exists without the need to posit consciousness.

Not “consciousness”, that does not exist at all levels, but a very primitive and rudimentary “awareness”, be it merely a 'sensual' one, but then again, our definition of "sensual" is also quite limited in my opinion.

Sap: And even the tiniest bit of anticipation has to necessarily be involved for any kind of Natural selection to work coherently, but because of its dependency on the form or structure that it possesses, it has its own limitations dictated accordingly

Dave: I'm not so sure Sap. You have to look at the bigger picture to understand how the processes of natural selection produce results. Any novel synthesis is either better or worse than extant syntheses at negotiating its environment and thereby proliferating its pattern. As such, you could say that the process of natural selection is the agent of 'memory' that 'decides' which patterns of synthesis prevail. This would mitigate the need to assign that 'necessity of memory' to the elements of the synthesis.

I am looking at the bigger picture, and hence it seems incoherent. What I’m saying is that every sensed particle has the capability to sense and negotiate, how ever minimal the choices that may be open to it.

I think, though, that there are different strata and thresholds involved in this multifaceted anticipation of the future. The process involved with explicit memory is simple enough. Memories of past events and their eventualities are consciously cross-referenced with perceptions of current events to extrapolate possible future eventualities.

Ok.

Just look at this for now… I consider that certain events that shape our DNA holds certain core ‘implicit memories’. Just like once you learn to cycle, it becomes an implicit memory, but the sense of balancing and standing upright as humans in an implicit memory since millions of years, that helped further enhance our posture and sense of balance. Just keep this in mind, and this may help put a bigger picture together later.

When it comes to certain simple things, like 'If I throw this stone with a certain trajectory and a certain velocity, it will likely land just about there', explicit memory (with its more considered quality) is probably better at the job than procedural implicit memory, depending on how well practiced that procedural memory is (So if someone has been throwing stones all their life, their procedural memory will likely do a better job than extrapolation via their explicit memory. Any golfer will confirm the problem of adding the considerations of explicit memory to to the carrying out of practiced procedural processes).

Or any other professional, like basketball players.

So the processes of explicit memory, the ones we are conscious of being conscious of, aren't always necessarily going to produce a better ability to 'see into the future' than the processes of implicit memory.

Sure, but ‘implicit’ memory is entrenched far deeper than we can imagine, and is not only accessible by a particular individual as a particular conscious thing according to only its own experiences, but any particular consciences can tap into such ‘memories’ because existence is far more intricately and intimately connected that we could logically deduce, and its all but very natural and down to earth.

[Dave Toast]

I'm not completely sure what you're saying here mate. Are you saying that there cannot be a conscious whole unless the constituents of that conscious whole are necessarily conscious? And in fact that higher forms of consciousness could not synthesize from non-conscious constituents? And further that consciousness is necessary to all synthesis?

If so, this ignores the possibility that consciosness is an emergent property of a gestalt.

What is a gestalt other than consciousness? What could be more than the sum of its parts other than consciousness?

Anything that presents an emergent property through the interaction of its parts, as opposed to the individual properties of the parts themselves. For example, the Man in the Moon is a psychological gestalt, any strange attractor within a chaotic system, like a cyclone, would be a physical gestalt and the behaviour of swarms or even life itself would be biological gestalts.

[David Quinn]

Dave;

Are you saying that there cannot be a conscious whole unless the constituents of that conscious whole are necessarily conscious?

Not a ‘conscious’ whole as in a universal cosmic intellectual consciousness, but an ingredient, say “awareness” present in every detectable particle, that acts like an engine or a “force” that fuels the dynamic movement of existence.

I reckon it's little fairies driving the dynamic movement of existence.

-

[divine focus]

What is a gestalt other than consciousness? What could be more than the sum of its parts other than consciousness?

Anything that presents an emergent property through the interaction of its parts, as opposed to the individual properties of the parts themselves. For example, the Man in the Moon is a psychological gestalt, any strange attractor within a chaotic system, like a cyclone, would be a physical gestalt and the behaviour of swarms or even life itself would be biological gestalts.

Besides life, what you mention are not gestalts but simply "things," in the scientific view. The Man in the Moon is not emergent of itself, while a cyclone is no more than the activity of air. Of course, the gestalt that is consciousness is embedded within all of it and all of us, who can recognize it.

[divine focus]

This appears to follow with the BBC documentary "The Trap" and I am in the process of watching these still.

Seems like they are fairly interesting.

part 1 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3935962254

part 2 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5732629565

part 3 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2019895635

part 4 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7063541716

This is insightful.

[Sapius]

Dave;

Are you saying that there cannot be a conscious whole unless the constituents of that conscious whole are necessarily conscious?

Not a ‘conscious’ whole as in a universal cosmic intellectual consciousness, but an ingredient, say “awareness” present in every detectable particle, that acts like an engine or a “force” that fuels the dynamic movement of existence.

I reckon it's little fairies driving the dynamic movement of existence.

-

Not only little fairies, David, cute little Goblins too :)

Next time you get a tiny pinprick, you will notice that millions of little fairies and goblins get to work and move your muscles and make you jump two feet away; now it couldn’t have been that such a little push of a pin, which dispersed a tiny amount of energy, creates such an energetic reaction; correct? And that since “awareness” resides only in your head, so it couldn’t have been that every particle has any ‘awareness’ of causal connectivity, from your skin all the way to your brain and back, not even electro-chemically; so such an inversely proportional reaction can only be justified by little fairies at work internally, and goblins to keep them company when our muscles are at rest.

It’s quite simple really, but it is not for you; however I’m glad you could enjoy a moment of amusement :)

[Ataraxia]

This is insightful.

I watched the first 3 last night.Some interesting political and psycholigical insights.Curtis makes good documentaries."Baby it's cold outside" is another good one by he.

I've never seen it contended before that Freuds work may have given rise, or at least been a contributing factor to Goebbel's ideas.