November 22, 2004

My Semi-Conscious Mind

Posted by Kieran

Following on from last week’s case, which was concerned with the ontological argument, this week’s nutter in Laurie’s Inbox gives us the complete and comprehensive solution to consciousness and morality, two perennial favorites.

The Essay       (Forward this to all!)
[Name Redacted to Protect the Innocent]
This universe is filled with atoms, unified into clusters or systems. They make up all things of matter from rocks to humans. All things of matter are either unconscious (a.k.a dead/ non living), semi- conscious (partially conscious), or fully conscious. Intelligence is the ability to be conscious. If one conceives, then one also sees an amount of right and wrong. One always does what one truly conceives is right.  When one does not conceive what is right, then one is blind and may do wrong. Right and wrong will always exist as long as life exists. …
Emphasis in the original, naturally. Onward:
The condition of being unconscious is having no consciousness of all the worlds components, including right and wrong, at any given point in time (not being aware of anything) … The condition of semi-consciousness is defined as not fully conceiving the world at any point in time. … The condition of being fully conscious is being conscious of everything in existence at any point in time, past, present, and future (a.k.a all knowing). … The more conscious one is, the more likely one would be to make righteous decisions. The less conscious one is, the more likely one would be to make wrongful decisions. The humans living on Earth, and all other living beings on Earth are not fully conscious. The following are not rules. They are statements that are facts (not mere philosophies) that my semi-conscious mind has conceived. …

You can’t make this stuff up. Apart from the semi-consciousness, I like the insistence on facts. Reminds me of the work of another philosopher: “I am Vroomfondel, and that is not a demand, that is a solid fact! What we demand is solid facts!”

Posted on November 22, 2004 02:44 AM UTC
Comments

Looks like somebody’s ripping off Gurdjieff/Ouspensky. There are some strange people into that stuff.

Posted by rps · November 22, 2004 04:10 AM

Scientology, maybe? “Clears” have perfect memory and judgement - might qualify as fully conscious under the correspondent’s rubric. Or maybe he’s high.

Posted by luci phyrr · November 22, 2004 09:35 AM

I’ve programmed drunk (for my private use, not professionally) with results not substantially inferior to my usual output. One of my best inventions sprang itself upon me in the course of one of the worst hangovers I’ve ever endured.

The clarity of one’s consciousness is generally less important than one’s understanding of the task at hand.

That being said, I’m not sure I understand the point of this post. It put me in mind of the old line, “I’ve been thrown out of better places than this!”

Posted by bad Jim · November 22, 2004 09:50 AM

Well, my mind is notoriously bent way out of shape, but “semi-conscious” in that seems to be doing much the same work as “finite” in the existential tradition. (Although I am by no means claiming that you would treat Kierkegaard or Heidegger with more respect, perish the thought.)

And I, for one, demand rigidly-defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.

Posted by des · November 22, 2004 10:34 AM

I’m not sure I understand the point of this post

Are you sure you should be reading blogs?

Posted by Kieran Healy · November 22, 2004 02:11 PM

So, most everything is somewhat conscious, to some degree or other? Sounds like he’s been reading David Chalmers! Are you sure he’s not a U. Arizona Grad student?

Posted by Matt · November 22, 2004 03:56 PM

My husband is a physicist and used to work at Lawrene Livemore Laboratory. They got the people who invented Whole New Theories of Physics. Not to mention Grand Unified Field Theories. I went with him to visit the guy who had figured out All About Magnetism! Really really scary, though probably harmless, dude.

MKK

Posted by Mary Kay · November 22, 2004 05:42 PM

Well, it is true that atoms “make up all things of matter from rocks to humans.” Hence, consecutively and consequentially, you can safely infer that you are made of atoms yourself and so is your fob pocket and the tail of your shirt and the instrument you use for taking the leavings out of the crook of your hollow tooth. Which explains why some people act like bicycles.

Posted by The Eradicator! · November 22, 2004 06:23 PM

Looks like somebody’s ripping off Gurdjieff/Ouspensky.

No reason to give those guys credit for every spontaneous outbreak of emanational theology. Every couple years another group of the locals trips over an archetype, just like the hominids finding the black monolith in “2001” … this time it’s one of the gnostic monoliths. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Actually, if John Holbo is reading this, he should be interested to know that Neal Adams is convinced of a very similar idea. (It’s on his website. Look for the plate tectonics sections.)

Posted by pierre · November 22, 2004 07:28 PM

I would think there is a spectrum of consciousness starting from a system with a mere reaction to an input (for example a transistor where the level of voltage on one end (the gate) determines the current flow from the source to the drain terminals) to a highly complex system (which is yet constrained by the physical laws) as our brain. There may even be a higher level of cousciousness.

To me consciousness is nothing but a cause-effect chain of events purely explainable by matter and physical laws. But then I expect these to be the views of most people here.

Posted by AAB · November 22, 2004 07:36 PM

“To me consciousness is nothing but a cause-effect chain of events purely explainable by matter and physical laws. But then I expect these to be the views of most people here.”

it depends what kinds of inferences you make from physicalism (a substance monism). the way the “nothing but” claim is framed tends to cause some people to get entangled in weird ideas about determinism and the human will. (similar to but different from people like Kurt Vonnegut who are also a little bit crazy and solipsistic, but driven more by pessimism about human nature than “we’re meatbag robots” talk)

Posted by Shai · November 22, 2004 10:32 PM

For example, in reference to Shai’s post, Donald Davidson argues from a (relatively) consistent physicalist perspective that mental events are identical with physical events, yet cannot be subsumed under physical descriptions. You can be a property dualist and a substance monist. Indeed, I tend to think that if you have the same Kantian motivations as Davidson, you’d better be exactly that.

The email however, looks to me like a religious nut (pace des).

Posted by Rob · November 22, 2004 11:19 PM

No, no. People acting like bicycles happens because of the bouncing. It’s the atoms. After years of bumping over rough roads, the rider has exchanged so many atoms with his bicycle that he starts to take on its characteristics, and can be seen parking himself by leaning up against walls.

Posted by Teresa Nielsen Hayden · November 23, 2004 01:07 AM

I know perfectly well that I shouldn’t be reading blogs, much less commenting upon them, but I thought there might be something more to this than holding one of an infinitude of fools up to ridicule.

“Hain’t we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain’t that a big enough majority in any town?”

Mark Twain, Huckleberry Finn, used as an introduction to The Fools in Town Are on Our Side by Ross Thomas, now perhaps the slogan of the Republican majority.

Posted by bad Jim · November 23, 2004 09:00 AM

I’m not sure why there was such immediate aversion to the essay fragment that was posted. Getting past the potentially awkward tone of the author, just look at the ideas. Are you fully aware of EVERYTHING at this moment? No? Are you completely oblivious to EVERYTHING at this moment? No? Well then, you must be to some degree semi-aware. If you disagree with that or other ideas, well, let’s focus on them in particular and not simply throw up reactionary flags.

Posted by keebler2012 · November 23, 2004 08:28 PM
Followups

→ The consolations of philosophy.
Excerpt: Why do people become philosophers? Kieran Healy lets the world in on a little secret--mail call is always exciting. One of the advantages of not being a philosopher — and, in particular, not being a metaphysician — is that youRead more at Majikthise

This discussion has been closed. Thanks to everyone who contributed.