BK in conversation with Tom Cambpell
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2022 2:12 pm
This may be of interest to some ...
This came up on the discord server, so I will just paste my thoughts here as well. I will say, this is one interview which still makes me appreciate BK's work to a certain extent when compared to where he could be intellectually, reflected in TC. Right at the beginning, TC says his model has explained everything about the "objective and subjective" worlds. That should be a huge flashing warning sign.
Indeed. Another example of the pernicious and stubborn legacy of materialism. Even held by someone of TCs own stated life experiences. He is positing something outside of consciousness that conscious 'jumps' into. Stubborn dualism in the mix too.Ben Iscatus wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:46 am Further thoughts:
In many ways, TC's computer game metaphor is bizarre. He said a Virtual Reality works by setting up initial conditions, then pushing the "run" button. In due course, life evolves. But since consciousness has to "log on" to avatars, there is an implicit assumption that the avatars exist as philosophical zombies (like elves in a computer game) until consciousness "logs on" to them. And what about the bacteria? Does pre-existing metacognitive consciousness really find it interesting to "log on" to them? Pretty weird!
This is a good way of putting it. But thinking about it a bit more, he would say that the evolving VR is itself still a form of consciousness, just "partitioned off" from the rest. Or, in more usual Idealistic terms, the VR might be seen as akin to an "idea" formed by a mind - a content of consciousness. Then consciousness could inhabit its own idea by forgetting itself. (No wonder BK talks of consciousness constantly fooling itself!)"Starbuck" wrote:He is positing something outside of consciousness that conscious 'jumps' into.
Fooling itself, or perhaps the better metaphor would be dissociation. BK always wins in the end!Ben Iscatus wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 1:02 pmThis is a good way of putting it. But thinking about it a bit more, he would say that the evolving VR is itself still a form of consciousness, just "partitioned off" from the rest. Or, in more usual Idealistic terms, the VR might be seen as akin to an "idea" formed by a mind - a content of consciousness. Then consciousness could inhabit its own idea by forgetting itself. (No wonder BK talks of consciousness constantly fooling itself!)"Starbuck" wrote:He is positing something outside of consciousness that conscious 'jumps' into.
That's exactly what it's doing most of the time, at least in the dimensions where we currently abide. Put it in another way: some activities (modules) of consciousness think that it can learn and evolve by fooling itself and lying to itself to become "somebody"/self/Self by creating ideas about itself and then forgetting that those are just fabricated ideas and starting to believe in their independent realities. I think Borges nailed it spot on. But I'm not convinced that it's a good way to evolve and learn though, I believe there is a way to evolve (and decrease enthropy as Tom calls it) without such self-deception. But regardless, this developmental stage may be inevitable because this self-deception is most-likely not intentional/pre-meditated, it just occurs naturally at certain evolutionary stages.Ben Iscatus wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 1:02 pm Then consciousness could inhabit its own idea by forgetting itself. (No wonder BK talks of consciousness constantly fooling itself!)
I agree, Ben, TC's view seems shallow to me and neglects the depths of subconscious and non-metacognitive processes in consciousness.Ben Iscatus wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 4:43 pm That Borges quote is very insightful, Eugene!
According to TC, decreasing entropy without self-deception involves overcoming fear. The problem here is that fear is part of evolutionary necessity. Looking out at my garden now, there are no rats or mice visible in the daylight. That's because they sensibly fear the cats and magpies. When applying this kind of situation to humans (e.g. don't go into the woods if bears are there), TC doesn't call this "fear", he says it's being rational. So effectively, he redefines a lot of fear as rationality. Then there are other, primal fear-based responses - where we have to react without metacognition or we're toast. This stuff he ignores. So a huge chunk of fear is either redefined or ignored. I don't buy it.