A Prolegomena to Alternative Architectures of Consciousness:
Currently, I still understand consciousness as articulated by the distinction between subject and object. This is problematic because the distinction is no longer sufficient. It is prone to category mistakes [1], for example, reading the type distinction between subject and object as though it were a token distinction between things. This mistake relegates the subject of experience to the status of an object. I am not a thing so I find this way of seeing the world problematic (even though I like nihilists).
The materialist might argue that there is no problem other than my misplaced idealism. If the world can be comprehensively explained in purely physical terms, why complicate things? I think this gain in simplicity results in a different kind of loss. Materialism does not directly address why there is a subjective element of experience. Either conjectures of the transcendental idealist, dualist or materialist are not entirely comprehensive on their own, or, assumptions regarding their mutual exclusivity require further investigation. Although these points of view can be helpful, they mostly contain and/or result in conflict like the hard problem of consciousness.
The point is that there are many interpretations of consciousness, and most of them are problematic, in one way or another. That consciousness does not always lend itself to only one interpretation, however, also hints to something about its nature. I think a solution may result from articulating a phenomenological kind of temporal idealism that allows for understanding things primarily in terms of time. The hypothesis: Meaning is linked to the structure of time. I think that investigating the temporal framework of experience will help discover a different, primordial architecture of consciousness [2].
To overcome the nihilist's position of an alienated subject, or to generally relocate meaning, we can bridge the gap between subject and object by breaking the dominance of space over time. The tyranny and time of space must end. Space has permeated understanding to the point of being obtrusive, and now it is time to try something different. When I think about continuity or extension, it is usually in spatial terms. This seems fine until I find it hard to think in any other way. Even when I think about time, it is as though grafted to the x-axis of my mind, with the ordered finitude of moments interpolated by experience de-confined from birth to death. Something about this is not right. There is something linear and spatial about this conception of time that does not correspond with how it is experienced. Analyzing time in spatial terms is like thinking about consciousness; it can result in not addressing the initial intention.
Phenomenologically, time is not a thing extended: it is not retained or contained in the past, like how it is not projected into the future. The inside/outside distinction is primarily spatial, of things located and bounded, existing partes extra partes. Time is not actually divisible like this; temporal distinctions are of a different kind.
It is challenging to illustrate how time is articulated because mental images or static representations thereof consistently fail to capture or transmit the nature of time -- it outstrips itself, shedding in its wake the trace of what it was and for which it is again mistaken. For example, I was just watching a Zeitgeist video, Derrida [3], which begins with his narration over a train-ride sequence shot from the perspective of a passenger looking out the window:
"In general, I try to distinguish between what one calls the future and "l'avenir." The future is that which -- tomorrow, later, next century -- will be. There is a future which is predictable, programmed, scheduled, foreseeable. But there is a future, l'avenir (to come) which refers to someone who comes whose arrival is totally unexpected. For me, that is the real future. That which is totally unpredictable. The Other who comes without my being able to anticipate their arrival. So if there is a real future beyond this other known future, it's l'avenir in that it's the coming of the Other when I am completely unable to foresee their arrival."
Phenomenologically, the time is always now. This now, however, is never alone. Now, in the mode of being present, always and already comes together with l'avenir, the Other. In the same way that l'avenir is substituted for the future, having-been is substituted for the past. Therefore, now spans from having-been to l'avenir, always and already in the mode of being present. More of this phenomenological discourse needs elaboration.
In its pure form, time is beautifully clear, simple and non-problematic. Space, however, complicates things. If I can express time predominantly in its own terms, then the crutch of space is no longer of use. Although time itself is not an abstract concept, it is reified if understood primarily in terms of space. The phenomenological aim is not to entirely suspend the experience of space, just to put it in its proper place because I think time deserves priority. During the following weeks, I will work on unpacking a time-related synthesis of experience while fielding different possible contributions to the discussion. The goal is to provide expositions of the problem from various points of view to engage, enable and obtain some informed, disclosive and productive conversation on the subject of meaning.
---
[1] Ryle, Gilbert. The Concept of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.
[2] Dealing with the distinction between the present and ready-to-hand means to recognize that when addressing consciousness; thought, reflection, and observation can sometimes get in the way of obtaining the desired result. Phenomenologically, it is as though observation interferes with the act of (self)consciousness. If I want to catch consciousness in the act, so to speak, my intention to observe consciousness will obvert the act to which it was referring. It is like a finger trying to point to itself, or trying to catch a flowing river in a small paper parcel. The analysis of consciousness occasions its breakdown; it switches from being ready-to-hand to being present-to-hand. Consciousness is always there, only that it is most itself when I am not thinking about it. Thinking can be to consciousness what a short-circuit was to my keyboard.
[3] Dick & Kofman. Derrida. Zeitgeist Films, 2003. DVD.
Dimitri Hamlin: Is That All There Is? A Preliminary Example
Jeffrey Small: The Common Ground Between Science and Religion
Philosophy of space and time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also, you presume consciousness to be a truth? Certainly not the only truth, even if one. And, if a truth, a truth, discovered, or a truth, created--or by who, or whom (can a non-conscious body create)? In the way that we mean here, and simply in the physical realm :)
Anyway, thanks for meaning. Because at least meaning requires a bit of agreement (i.e., can something mean something to me, and purely to me, strictly outside of context)?
Would appreciate a response here. Thanks.
PS, It is easy to change someones consciousness - via a lobotomy, anesthetic, drugs or just plain old degenerative disease like dementia. Frankly, trying to tie consciousness to some mystical realm, completely ignores this materialist truth. Just because materialistic scientists cannot explain consciousness yet, does not mean they will never be able to.
Lets explore objectively first, before jumping into the realm of idle and meaningless speculation. Emotions make us human, but do not make good science. After all, you can relive an experience just by stimulating the correct neurons in the brain. More proof of the materialistic nature of consciousness. Until your theory can explain that tangible fact, then it explains nothing.
Oh, PPS on the subject of subjective element of experience, thats easy. Their are a staggeringly huge number of ways neurons can connect to one another, and with every neuron pathway different in its construction in every person - (and frankly, its more likely this is a way nature uses chaos theory to program distinctiveness between organisms - or more accurately chaos leads nature down this path due to its fundamental nature in governing this universe), all experiences are governed by how the experience is shuttled down these pathways. Since they are not the same, all experiences of the same phenomena between two people are different. Wow, that was not too hard, was it.
And to Nagel. Learn some maths and neurology, before you discuss the concept of consciousness Put simply, A paper published in the 70's on neurophysiology and philosophy is worthless without proof. . The difference between philosophers and scientists is keeping upto date with the latest scientific research.
PS see stance on ID to discredit every word he has uttered.
Merleau-Ponty (not an old philosopher but a 20th Century scientist of perception) appeals to the human dimension of meaning in his study The Visible and the Invisible. Donald Davidson, analytic philosopher, requires a concept of "anomalous monism" to accound for human freedom. Both have shown that reductionism is the last resort of small minds.
Or it's what keeps things from happening all at once.
Whatever!
Consider this; the theory of Relativity, and Quantum theory do not fit together. Attempts have been made to unify these two different theories, resulting in unprovable ideas of superstring and other fantastic theories.
A more probable explanation is simply that interpretations of the information resulted in building two different and incompatible "realities". In the end, I think we will see that these grand acheivements in science were but reality-based belief systems.
I'll take the more humble position.
Yet for those who tie consciousness to a deity, then consciousness is automatically not within space and time because a deity created space and time which does not determine God's existence.
Now the puzzle comes into focus when the above premise is established. How is consciousness which exists in a human's brain connected to a deity which does not exist in space and time?
Consciousness may derive from a supernatural dimension (belonging to God) that could be named ria (air spelled backwards) which is a nano supernatural life zone that can inhale and exhale in God's realm as well as in the physical zone of space, time, & matter. This nano supernatural life substance, like a hologram, belongs to the deity's thought realm first, and then is a subset of the human brain's infrastructure.
This spiritual hologram is known as thought by humans, and could be named tot within its own reality. But tot's dna exists in the supernatural life zone called ria which is the atmosphere in which God exists. Tot is the language that God thinks in. God's consciousness is not tot. Tot is the expression of God's consciousness.
as to your problem with the adequate conveyance or portrayal of "time" in relation to phenomena I suggest trying literature. A favorite that comes to mind is Somerset Maugham. To me he exhibits an incredible talent at following several characters over time and making it seem natural and organic - meaning the characters seem to age and mature and change naturally over the course of the years chronicled in the books. His masterpieces in this area are "Of Human Bondage" and "The Razor's Edge". Please understand I am not saying Maugham is"experimental" or anything except conventional, however, in his technique he is quite adept at mimicking the affect of the time on a storyline and the characters' mentality and attitude.
Add in a 3rd dimension (i.e. the z axis) and one can conceptually rotate the plane of time and space, so the line of experience becomes a single point (like looking at a pin from the side, the rotating it to look straight at its point).
Time and space exist to serve as a medium for experiences, but they are relative when viewed from an outside perspective. Illusions with a purpose.