[Xmca-l] Re: The vibrations of consciousness

[Annalisa Aguilar]

Hello Harshad and others,

I do not think I was alone in asking for your definitions. My role was merely emphasizing why it was important. I welcome others to push me to define my words. It engages me to think harder about my position.

In using your biological metaphor I might say that a word is like a virus, and that it kills its host. This doesn't help me understand what you mean when you use *your* words. As they are your words, not mine.

Just as you say, words vary in many ways they are comprehended, and that's why in a philosophical conversation (if that is what we are having), understanding the speaker's definition of a word is vital. It doesn't mean it is THE definition of the word, but the way the speaker chooses to use the word.

If I say word "A" and it can equally mean "a", "b" or "c" where "a?b?c", then for me to be understood, it is of value for me to say "when I say 'A,' I mean 'A=b' and nothing else."

You could on the other hand say "A" and mean "A=c" and David could use the word "A" and he could mean "A=a". There is no right or wrong way to use the word "A", but it is polite to be clear when someone asks, what do you mean when you say "A"?

Otherwise it just seems you do not wish to be transparent nor provide clarity, which doesn't lend to an equitable discussion.

For example, when you say "mankind" do you include women? It might be more inclusive on this listserv to say "humankind." When someone uses the term "mankind" it sort of says where the person is coming from, which does not include women as part of the discussion. This may antagonize others, even men who do consciously wish to be inclusive of women or non-binary gendered folks, who are people present on this list.

You say also say:

"As a responsible thinker and writer one should use a word with its popular, wisdomful and logically supported meaning without definition and same should be adhered with positively and frankly even if critiques might compel to correct the view/thought, there should not be any hesitation."

I beg to differ, a responsible thinker and writer should be open and transparent about the use of her words, and to effect welcome inquiry as to how the words are used. Much like were I to make a cake and someone were to ask me, "what is in your recipe? I would like to know." If I ignore the inquiry, it makes me look rude. Even to say "I can't tell you because it is a family secret" that would be far more polite than to meet the question with silence, to say nothing at all.

While an academic listserv is not a court of law, there are academics present who I sometimes feel possess basic natures of the skeptical kind, but I do not feel that in anyway they are unwelcome, nor is their skepticism intended to be unfriendly, though sometimes it might seem that way.

That's just the way academics ARE MADE. It is how they express their conatus! ??

There are times we don't like to be challenged, but it is for our self benefit to reflect upon our own beliefs which may not be sound. I offer that that is the most responsible posture to hold on this list.

You may not understand that the basis of your worldviews might have put off a few people, even angered them, it appears. But it is important not to cancel a person out as well. To encourage discussion, despite disagreement.

I invite you to look into the history of this listserv, so that you might understand better how it came to be and the wide scope of what people intend to do here. See: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_of_Comparative_Human_Cognition__;!!Mih3wA!S3rBuP1sXaDRJLHsfxp6c10iI1bEHS8HZZruz6LYZxo6ttg-oZ3te0Yd7HSgacuMrCJlhw$ 

I say this to help, not hinder. I do not position myself as authority on or about this list, but many have been intimidated when posting, and they shouldn't be.

Kind regards,

Annalisa

________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Harshad Dave <hhdave15@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2020 4:28 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The vibrations of consciousness


  [EXTERNAL]



Hi all there,

I hope I do not interfere with the subject matter of discussion by writing this message. Here, while reading the messages exchanging views/thoughts on the subject topic, somewhere during the discussion, I learned the participant asks for the definition of the word used in the view/message. If I recall, in the recent past, when we were discussing one issue, Annalisa also repeatedly asked for the definition of the words I used in my saying. As I did not want to lose the tract of my saying I did not respond to her request as asked for. Here, I agree with David and put my views as follows.

If we just treat (symbolically) a word as a cell of a living body, then the language is the body of the word. The established relations between a word and the language might be just compared symbolically with the cell and the living body respectively. Now, if we agree that the path of development of the body as well as the cell has linked both with evolved relations and dependency on each other, likewise the word and language have also evolved through such a historical path.

Even today, the comprehension (understanding) for any word might vary person to person. If not sure, there are fair chances of getting the word grasped by two different persons with a marginal difference as two persons are with different mindset. The grasping and the application of a word in communications might contract a difference in meaning at two places falling apart at some distance. The evolutionary history of language is no less complex than that of mankind and social development.

The subjects of science and mathematics need some precise and stable level of meaning and some words are well defined there in the science/mathematical subjects. But, the validity and linking of the definition of such scientific words are limited up to the subjects only. It is because the topics of science and mathematics are not linked with human characteristics, emotions, sentiments, feelings and the mindset of the man. While our discussion and thought process is always on such topics/issues that have strong links with human characteristics, mindset and other biological parameters as above. A thinker/philosopher cannot set aside the above human values. This helplessness will never allow us to define any word/term used in our discussion, and, if it is defined, the thinkers/writers free thought flow will find suffocation by this definition during further discourse of his task. It is the writer's duty, honesty and self discipline to adhere with the logical meaning of the word used in his arguments/presentation uniformly. However, I understand the root source of the demand of Annalisa for the definition of any word used in the discussion, but my view in this regard is as follow…

When there is a presentation of views by any thinker on any topic, it is obligatory to comply with a self discipline that the writer should not walk on the path with an intention to prove his point of view by any ways and means. The views might be erroneous or wrong, it is not an issue but any argument against the views should not be countered with the help of making a departure from the popular and wise logical meaning of the word used by him in the subject discussion. As a responsible thinker and writer one should use a word with its popular, wisdomful and logically supported meaning without definition and same should be adhered with positively and frankly even if critiques might compel to correct the view/thought, there should not be any hesitation. I believe that a thinker/writer free from this botheration will have fair chances to adhere with the spine of the subject matter (topic) while presenting his views. When the task of a writer becomes more tense by accurately defining words and then after keeping every nerve keeping alert to comply the given definitions in his/her writing views/thoughts, the thinker (writer) will surely feel as if he/she is facing a court proceedings that has all the bearings of verdict on any contradiction if emerges with reference to the definition. Here I say the author/thinker/writer will lose the direction of his concentration instead of resting on the prime line of the subject matter, he/she will sacrifice his/her all the intellectual potential at the wrong place.

On the other hand, I believe it is the equal responsibility of a reader to adhere to the wisdomful and logical meaning of the word used in the writing by a thinker. If a reader pretends to read an article with a motive to learn the message or views that the writers intended to give in his/her article, but, the attitude of the reader is to catch him/her (thinker) by any means where he/she is missing/contradicting somewhere, then his/her unconscious motive surely tempts him/her to define everything accurately, instead of concentrating on “What exactly the writer wants to present?”.

Here, I recall the words of Abraham Lincoln “The true rule, in determining to embrace, or reject any thing, is not whether it has any evil in it; but whether it has more of evil, than of good. There are few things wholly evil, or wholly good.”

Regards,

Harshad Dave

On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 2:49 AM David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com<mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>> wrote:
Andy's point about consciousness not having any "genera" which we might "specify" is related to a point I always have when people ask for definitions. What exactly is this definition for? One rather Talmudic reason why people like to define terms at the beginning of a discussion is so we can tell when folks are off topic ("clouds" and "lithosphere" do not belong to the realm of consciousness, Annalisa--naughty, naughty, naughly!) Another reason is so that we can decide whether particular discourses involve metaphor, sleight-of-hand, demagogery (the use of war rhetoric against a virus; conspiracy theories in general assume that all human events of consequence are the result of conscious ill will). But a third reason is so that we can decide where something comes from and determine the precise moment it starts being what it is (when does something that is not conscious acquire consciousness?)  I think you can see that the first reason for defining contradicts the third one. That is, ruling this or that subject matter off topic will prevent you from ever finding something that is both not consciousness and consciousness.

Halliday said that everything around us can be thought of as either matter or as meaning, and he thought whether matter and meaning are the same thing was an open question. For me, it is the question that Spinoza answered. We are anthropo-centric and so we tend to think of meaning as linguistic, as symbolism, as deliberate representations: making "this" stand for "that". But of course for most of time meaning-making was not deliberate in this way: red leaves in fall do not "stand for" winter, although they certainly came to mean that for hibernating animals, and the relationship between the physical changes that James and Lange (and Dewey and Hegel) are talking about are probably related to emotions in the same way. Meaning is organization; it 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. Consciousness is simply the higest form of meaning-making, the most egregious and obvious way of flouting the second law of thermodynamics. That is why clouds mean rain, but in the long run--they don't; that is why the lithosphere means time, but in the long run it won't.

David Kellogg
Sangmyung University

New Article: Ruqaiya Hasan, in memoriam: A manual and a manifesto.
Outlines, Spring 2020
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238__;!!Mih3wA!S3rBuP1sXaDRJLHsfxp6c10iI1bEHS8HZZruz6LYZxo6ttg-oZ3te0Yd7HSgacvMBJe-KQ$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238__;!!Mih3wA!QX8A4s_69fPqrKgXcc7ABLWKBuAXO9ymR1-vTutmK9dbsKDeH-iDriK2EMxNudCBwKNwFg$>
New Translation with Nikolai Veresov: L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works Volume One: Foundations of Pedology"
 https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!S3rBuP1sXaDRJLHsfxp6c10iI1bEHS8HZZruz6LYZxo6ttg-oZ3te0Yd7HSgacuBDgt8MA$ 
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!QX8A4s_69fPqrKgXcc7ABLWKBuAXO9ymR1-vTutmK9dbsKDeH-iDriK2EMxNudB9vcXqMw$>


On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 1:06 PM Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org<mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:

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!S3rBuP1sXaDRJLHsfxp6c10iI1bEHS8HZZruz6LYZxo6ttg-oZ3te0Yd7HSgacvnVW12vA$ <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!S3rBuP1sXaDRJLHsfxp6c10iI1bEHS8HZZruz6LYZxo6ttg-oZ3te0Yd7HSgactNWOhu1A$ <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!S3rBuP1sXaDRJLHsfxp6c10iI1bEHS8HZZruz6LYZxo6ttg-oZ3te0Yd7HSgacvU33NhjQ$ <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!S3rBuP1sXaDRJLHsfxp6c10iI1bEHS8HZZruz6LYZxo6ttg-oZ3te0Yd7HSgact8h38T2A$ <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!S3rBuP1sXaDRJLHsfxp6c10iI1bEHS8HZZruz6LYZxo6ttg-oZ3te0Yd7HSgacu_kG67jg$ <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!S3rBuP1sXaDRJLHsfxp6c10iI1bEHS8HZZruz6LYZxo6ttg-oZ3te0Yd7HSgacsATrb6Gg$ <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!S3rBuP1sXaDRJLHsfxp6c10iI1bEHS8HZZruz6LYZxo6ttg-oZ3te0Yd7HSgacuwdK_nHA$ <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/20200726/9b4c7db0/attachment.html