[Xmca-l] Re: The vibrations of consciousness

[Annalisa Aguilar]

Hello Andy, Mike, and VO's,

But what is required for consciousness to express itself? Or does it require anything?

If perception is not required, then consciousness must be a base of some sort, by which everything turns.

If as Mike indicates, Marx's definition of consciousness is human beings' relationship to the environment, this sounds very similar to Spinoza's conatus. Because to relate to anything one must be consciously aware of it first, (but this puts us back to the brink of a fall, into the void on backs of turtles!)

When I am hungry, I do not perceive the apple first and then decide I am hungry. The hunger is there first and then when I see the apple. I might become aware I am hungry and then desire to eat the apple.

But I certainly do not see the apple, eat it, and then become aware that I was hungry. I don't reason like this about my hunger. It's there, or it's not there.

Unlike David says, there does have to be a genera, seeking a genera results when we can't get any "farther down" basis that could be denied to be something else. Truth is that which cannot be denied.

Conatus is a genera for the subsequent points Spinoza makes about pretty much everything. For him, it is a basic truth that cannot be denied.

Even when we ask "what is this definition for?" part of the exercise when defining the usage of the word, is sort of like understanding the rules of a game before we play it. What are the rules to which we are agree when we define this word?

Of course there is a context, there is always a context.

We can reflect on using a definition in the wrong context and all agree, "no that doesn't work," while in another context *it does*.

That awareness we bring to the definition helps in communicating the definition we intend to employ to develop the argument further along. Otherwise an argument falls apart, like a house on a soft foundation. Right?

So this is why I can, with *my* definition of consciousness, bring in the relationship of clouds and the lithosphere, because I make the distinction that consciousness is not solely human. There is nothing naughty about it, because I am being exceedingly consistent in my logic. There is no slight of hand, no demogogery.

Metaphors are totally allowable because they are simply maps to help show where we are. "This = that" but in employed very specific way, as for illustration, because metaphors are not global for use in any and all cases. Those are the rules of the game for using metaphors. The map is not the terrain, and we all know that.

Certainly Marx didn't believe in ghosts just because he used the word "spectre." (or did he??)

When David states: " ...ruling this or that subject matter off topic will prevent you from ever finding something that is both not consciousness and consciousness," really depends upon what you define consciousness to be! Though I do agree with you David that arbitrarily deciding this or that subject is off-topic prevents from identifying the non-conscious from the conscious, if I am not bending his words too much to find agreement in what he says.

That is why it's totally fine to talk about clouds and lithospheres when discussing consciousness.

Sorry to be difficult!

If everything is conscious, then how an entity springs (as-if) to be, is just an expression of conatus in that form of consciousness, specific to that form.

Consider the clay pot. We say "clay" as an adjective to the noun "pot," yet to map more precisely to reality we should say "potty clay", because the material of the pot *is* clay. Pot depends upon clay to exist. So no matter how we might debate of the linguistic flaw of saying "potty clay" (in light of our human language rules, specifically English), it doesn't change the reality of a manifest pot as a clay object in time and space.

When you say meaning is organization, what is the meaning of the destruction of something, while still not being entropic? Is it possible? Fascists are huge fans of organization. Does it mean that Fascists are more conscious, or less entropic?

 Entropy is "a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process." For a closed system, the system "evolves toward a state of maximum entropy." In an open system, there can be increase and decrease in entropy toward infinity, because where that energy isn't located in one part of the system, it is located in a different part or different system. It is a constant play of musical chairs where no one removes the chairs, but the music continues to go on and off and the same number of players go without chairs, even if the individuals sometimes have a chair, and sometimes don't.

I am reflecting upon when you say consciousness (as the highest form of meaning and organization) "is the defiance of entropy, and the very fact that both matter and information have entropy and defy it shows that Spinoza is right: everything around us can be thought of as either matter or as meaning, or as increasing or decreasing in entropy."

I am not remembering where Spinoza indicated that all that is here is meaning and matter (I presume combined) in a state of increasing or decreasing entropy. Would you mind letting me know where he said this? I am itching to know, so I would be most grateful for the location of that citation, not literally, but from where you gain this insight as being his?

By definition, entropy in a closed system derives to maximum entropy. If consciousness is solely human, that would be a closed system. We would evolve to a state of maximum entropy, meaning I suppose that we each would have less ability to defy entropy than our grandparents, and even the Neanderthals.

That doesn't make sense to me.

I'm pretty sure Spinoza did not consider consciousness to be solely human; it's the only way he could conceive of conatus as he did.

I do agree that consciousness defies entropy, because it is from where everything springs, including entropy.

What I wonder is whether Vygotsky wrestled with Spinoza's version of conatus, in order to wear it away from Spinoza's worldviews on emotion and affection, to show them in play without a God as a central basis for conatus (as nature). Interestingly, this would actually transform conatus into a drive to clean clocks and maintain machines. It would be a world without consciousness, a universe of brain-eating zombies, perhaps.

Spinoza did not refute free will per se, but that our will is determined from our natures. The choices provided are the choices that we are given. Who gives? An immanent God does, in the way the clay provides form to the pot.

Americans in order to vote, must vote either for republicans or democrats. I might vote for one or the other, though I may actually want to vote libertarian or green. Is that a choice of free will? Is it *all* free will? Is it *all* determined? It is both (and neither).

In this sense, the clouds DO mean rain, when on the surface of the earth, and the lithosphere CAN also mean time, since the crust of the earth can be said to last longer than human existence, and will likely exist long after we are gone. In both instances the context pertains whether one makes reference on the earth, from Mars, or some other form of transport in the realm of space, with or without a clock.

As Einstein states, it is relative.

(Hmmm.... Or.... is it a relationship?)

Kind regards,

Annalisa




________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 10:04 PM
To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The vibrations of consciousness


  [EXTERNAL]

For Marxism, Annalisa, "consciousness" is an all-embracing category. It does not refer to any specific "part" of the mind such as awareness, or in distinction from some other part of the mind such as the Unconscious. It is difficult to define because there is nothing more basic in terms of which "consciousness" could be defined other than abstractions which in turn rely on the concept of consciousness. So only a general sense can be given.

Andy

________________________________
Andy Blunden
Hegel for Social Movements<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!XbYmB_z-uAeKpBg65taY2coYM7CzQSY1YdCNcBXjyiEOpXFgKAtWeHcSCmw7d5vYPfRuZw$>
Home Page<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!XbYmB_z-uAeKpBg65taY2coYM7CzQSY1YdCNcBXjyiEOpXFgKAtWeHcSCmw7d5uE8rAzSA$>
On 24/07/2020 5:05 am, Annalisa Aguilar wrote:
Hi Mike,

Thank you for that!

Of course then, my question is, what is the definition of "relationship"?

Is there a relationship between the clouds and the lithosphere of the earth? Would that mean that the clouds and earth are conscious?

Another question I might offer, is perception a requisite for consciousness?

Kind regards,

Annalisa

________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu><mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu><mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 11:04 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu><mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The vibrations of consciousness


  [EXTERNAL]

Annalisa -

I am sure there are more ways that LSV thought of consciousness,  but a la marx,  I believe its "human being's relationship to
the environment"..... the rest of nature. Plenty of room for vibrations in that formulation.
mike


On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 10:00 AM Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu<mailto:annalisa@unm.edu>> wrote:
Hello Xmcars,

I'm not sure what the connection is but it seems there is one between consciousness and art-making with AI, and 3D printers.

This article (2018) about consciousness is from The Conversation. Perhaps you might also like to read it:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://theconversation.com/could-consciousness-all-come-down-to-the-way-things-vibrate-103070__;!!Mih3wA!SPWyQSldyDPAUXCLZMliJQQGsCg8A8IL-qNax4bfvItViK9k2OS3FlGpR-I9KPHTynTBuw$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://theconversation.com/could-consciousness-all-come-down-to-the-way-things-vibrate-103070__;!!Mih3wA!TZlto8nrkoF8DlozCb-AGO-XOQFqazTIeHOkpr51jiE65n6raRLlJgEMCUwsPhiNZIn0wA$>

and a more recent one from last year by the same author is here:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://theconversation.com/how-can-you-tell-if-another-person-animal-or-thing-is-conscious-try-these-3-tests-115835__;!!Mih3wA!SPWyQSldyDPAUXCLZMliJQQGsCg8A8IL-qNax4bfvItViK9k2OS3FlGpR-I9KPHkaYJFaA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://theconversation.com/how-can-you-tell-if-another-person-animal-or-thing-is-conscious-try-these-3-tests-115835__;!!Mih3wA!TZlto8nrkoF8DlozCb-AGO-XOQFqazTIeHOkpr51jiE65n6raRLlJgEMCUwsPhjcpwvgAw$>

I'm curious how Vygotsky defined consciousness? I'm not recollecting it at the moment. Maybe Andy could explain?

On a different related topic I stumbled on these articles on AI created artwork:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://theconversation.com/when-the-line-between-machine-and-artist-becomes-blurred-103149__;!!Mih3wA!SPWyQSldyDPAUXCLZMliJQQGsCg8A8IL-qNax4bfvItViK9k2OS3FlGpR-I9KPGC12q0Cw$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://theconversation.com/when-the-line-between-machine-and-artist-becomes-blurred-103149__;!!Mih3wA!TZlto8nrkoF8DlozCb-AGO-XOQFqazTIeHOkpr51jiE65n6raRLlJgEMCUwsPhjzG5V5uQ$>

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/arts/design/ai-art-sold-christies.html__;!!Mih3wA!SPWyQSldyDPAUXCLZMliJQQGsCg8A8IL-qNax4bfvItViK9k2OS3FlGpR-I9KPH6JdU-bw$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/arts/design/ai-art-sold-christies.html__;!!Mih3wA!TZlto8nrkoF8DlozCb-AGO-XOQFqazTIeHOkpr51jiE65n6raRLlJgEMCUwsPhgx_FIiKg$>

What happens to labor as defined by Marx when the computer or the robot end up overriding human craft and labor? Is it a development in which value shifts? or is it the equation that determines value remains the same with different exponentially-numbered inputs that provides a different salient output?

AI seems to be a kind of mirror-neuron wind up toy, if only because the inputs are required first in order to come up with simulacra outputs to then be considered art (by Christie's, no less).

This made me consider 3-D printers as well. If someone can take a car part, scan it, and re-print the part for pennies, I'd guess that auto manufacturing is about to explode from this technological change.

I'm wondering what Walter Benjamin would think about AI created portraiture (I'm thinking specifically about his wonderful essay on art here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf__;!!Mih3wA!SPWyQSldyDPAUXCLZMliJQQGsCg8A8IL-qNax4bfvItViK9k2OS3FlGpR-I9KPFLwCc6yw$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf__;!!Mih3wA!TZlto8nrkoF8DlozCb-AGO-XOQFqazTIeHOkpr51jiE65n6raRLlJgEMCUwsPhi28s3Zbg$> ), but what about reproduction of the reproduction of car parts? I pause as I consider the future of manufacturing parts that used to require large iron forges, machinery, welding, engineering, etc.

If there are printing communities that spring up to print parts (and there are) and they could conceivably create a car not much above the value of the steel materials, what happens to General Motors? Will it suffer the same demise as Kodak?

I noticed that HP is coming out with industrial printers that seem to indicate the arrival of this sort of change:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www8.hp.com/us/en/printers/3d-printers/products/multi-jet-fusion-5200.html__;!!Mih3wA!SPWyQSldyDPAUXCLZMliJQQGsCg8A8IL-qNax4bfvItViK9k2OS3FlGpR-I9KPGf8rC1uA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www8.hp.com/us/en/printers/3d-printers/products/multi-jet-fusion-5200.html__;!!Mih3wA!TZlto8nrkoF8DlozCb-AGO-XOQFqazTIeHOkpr51jiE65n6raRLlJgEMCUwsPhhTORRgXA$>

There have been online communities that show how to make one's own 3-D printer. So I wonder how this innovation will become absorbed into manufacturing?

Remember the desktop publishing revolution?

This quote by Paul Valéry opens Benjamin's essay and reflects relevance to my questions:

“Our fine arts were developed, their types and uses were established, in times very different from the present, by men whose power of action upon things was insignificant in comparison with ours. But the amazing growth of our techniques, the adaptability and precision they have attained, the ideas and habits they are creating, make it a certainty that profound changes are impending in the ancient craft of the Beautiful. In all the arts there is a physical component which can no longer be considered or treated as it used to be, which cannot remain unaffected by our modern knowledge and power. For the last twenty years neither matter nor space nor time has been what it was from time immemorial. We must expect great innovations to transform the entire technique of the arts, thereby affecting artistic invention itself and perhaps even bringing about an amazing change in our very notion of art.”*

Paul Valéry, PIÈCES SUR L’ART
“Le Conquete de l’ubiquité,” Paris.

I look forward to hearing the sparkling conversations these articles might inspire.

Do tell.

Kind regards,

Annalisa




--

I[Angelus                                                      Novus]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelus_Novus__;!!Mih3wA!QKYWsd2osOCt7VWAmlDhv9LZLVufjS0x09zcmmUeIudHX_TAW1dvHFbFUNJETZr_XMveQQ$>

The Angel's View of History is looking as plausible in 2020 as it did to Walter Benjamin & Klee in 1940

---------------------------------------------

Cultural Praxis Website: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!SPWyQSldyDPAUXCLZMliJQQGsCg8A8IL-qNax4bfvItViK9k2OS3FlGpR-I9KPEzCm3SzQ$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!QKYWsd2osOCt7VWAmlDhv9LZLVufjS0x09zcmmUeIudHX_TAW1dvHFbFUNJETZp2QOjRvg$>
Re-generating CHAT Website: re-generatingchat.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://re-generatingchat.com__;!!Mih3wA!QKYWsd2osOCt7VWAmlDhv9LZLVufjS0x09zcmmUeIudHX_TAW1dvHFbFUNJETZoCGayATg$>
Archival resources website: lchc.ucsd.edu<http://lchc.ucsd.edu>.
Narrative history of LCHC:  lchcautobio.ucsd.edu<http://lchcautobio.ucsd.edu>.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20200726/03c96e0e/attachment.html