[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Consciousness
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
- Subject: Re: [xmca] Consciousness
- From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:18:40 +1000
- Delivered-to: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
- In-reply-to: <6B37823C-45D9-4756-A8FC-6C87F22098D9@duq.edu>
- List-archive: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>
- List-help: <mailto:xmca-request@weber.ucsd.edu?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-subscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:xmca-request@weber.ucsd.edu?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:xmca-request@weber.ucsd.edu?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <30364f990909031102q666ac3a7l46b752678fb20fe4@mail.gmail.com> <624060.13654.qm@web110305.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <30364f990909031618s40125ff2p50863dba7a5bf79c@mail.gmail.com> <5D044212-FC18-47CC-AC58-02C1C8B266D1@me.com> <30364f990909101435j2914ad66l4cd3b6cac04c1b2c@mail.gmail.com> <7C68D2F4-58A0-4879-A46B-3DCEE3EDC53B@me.com> <30364f990909111359v6a5ded3ag659ab926400924e0@mail.gmail.com> <4AB7859A.3080002@mira.net> <7160CDAC-E1E7-4560-AC45-773221FE7B44@duq.edu> <4AB84596.30205@mira.net> <4DA304E1-8785-44C8-8730-4155F7540B1C@duq.edu> <4AB8DA76.9030407@mira.net> <47B37666-B926-4142-9A0D-3F1EEC6C37DF@duq.edu> <4AB96812.9020709@mira.net> <22614801-F94B-46FD-8BF8-C27D57BD3776@duq.edu> <4AB99B06.4070208@mira.net><C3A0227B-6A46-4E6B-885B-3F82A146427F@duq.edu><4ABA3BE6.3090409@mira.net><000e01ca3ca8$50b74200$6501a8c0@atticus> <4ABABEBC.9070302@mira.net> <005301ca3d5d$3fcd4330$6501a8c0@atticus> <4ABC0C96.8000607@mira.net> <6B37823C-45D9-4756-A8FC-6C87F22098D9@duq.edu>
- Reply-to: ablunden@mira.net, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
- Sender: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
- User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
The ideal is not a negation of the material. We agree that
there is no problem in things being both ideal and material.
But if we are going to talk about "matter" and "material",
tell me, what is not matter? A category is meaningless if it
is everything.
"My relationship to my environment is my consciousness" is a
fine definition of consciousness, but it suffers from a
certain unclarity. We need to be more precise. But notice
even in this definition, it is in the first person
*singular* and it refers to an other.
Every writer uses words like "actuality", "reality",
"objective reality", "being", "matter", "existence" and so
on slightly differently. So I won't attempt a definition of
them just now, until we agree that a thought of something
belongs in some different category from the thing in itself.
Also, I could spend all morning telling us why Kant was
wrong and Hegel was right, but then come back after lunch
and berate you on why Hegel was wrong and Marx was right.
But eacj of these characters made some point which is not
overthrown and destroyed by those who came after. So for
example, Kant has a point about the thing-in-itself: we can
only get closer and closer to a knowledge of it, but never
absolutely, there is always something unexpected still to
reveal itself. He is also right about the transcendental
subject, up to a point. etc., etc. and Damassio will never
find the subject somewhere inside the brain or anywhere else.
Andy
Martin Packer wrote:
Andy,
LSV's point was not that Cs is only an appearance, quite the contrary.
Cs is real; but the subjective is an appearance. He criticizes
phenomenologists such as Husserl precisely for considering Cs as merely
appearance.
Definitions of Cs?: Well, LSV cites Marx: “‘My relationship to my
environment’, says Marx, ‘is my
consciousness’” And I think a good definition of Cs *would* have to
capture the way that it is constantly moving, transforming itself into
what it was not.
You ask, "Are you saying that there is *no* meaning whatsoever which is
not social? " First, we're talking about being, not about meaning. But
yes, all that is real is 100% social. And 100% material. Latour has an
excellent article bemoaning the way that 'socially constructed' or
'socially produced' has come to seem to mean unreal, flimsy, easy to
change, "only in our consciousness." As he points out, a building is
socially produced, and it is substantial, real, material, and objective.
Wasn't this a central point of Marx's analysis, to point out the social
construction of commodities, the worker, capital, et al.? Labor is a
social process that produces various kinds of real things.
Andy, you are drawing now not only a categorical distinction between
consciousness and matter, but a distinction between reality and
existence. Is this distinction categorical too? Appearances exist, but
they are not real? I'm a bit confused.
Martin
On Sep 24, 2009, at 8:19 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
Martin and Vera,
We agree that there is a categorical difference here, then, somwhere.
I still wouldn't call it "material" v. "non-material" since
"consciousness" is primary here. It's between this and the something
else outside my head.
Martin introduces appearances: "Science does not study appearances, it
studies realities, though it can then use these to *explain*
appearances."
I am cool with the idea that consciousness is not a "reality" but only
an "appearance." And certainly if we are talking about *science* that
is, as you say, exactly what science is about - getting behind
appearances.
But reality and existence are two different categories. All that
exists is not necessarily real. Science cannot ignore appearances just
because they are "not real", but has to penetrate them, negate them.
Lenin insisted with Hegel against Kant, that there is no categorical
difference between appearances and things-in-themselves. But he also
insisted that appearances exist. I'm OK with that if that settles the
argument.
I agree that in all his rant about "reflection" Lenin barks up some
wrong trees, but as you quite rightly point out, he has a truth there
doesn't he. (1) How can you make the point here about the categorical
difference between a thing and the thought of it without insisting on
a categorical difference and getting into the difficult kind of
discussion we are having? and (2) How does an animal survive unless
its impressions reflect something. A person whose thoughts do not
reflect anything outside of his consciousness will die very soon. The
bus will run over you even if you have never heard of public transport.
Ideal v material and consciousness. Of course I hope and believe that
we are all clear about the ideal on this list. I deliberately used
dollars and Presidents and not trees and stones because dollars and
presidents have an obvious ideal aspect. Nowadays you can have dollars
with absolutely nothing in your pocket, just a silicon switch
somewhere in some computer! But the fact remains that a Martian might
laugh at you if you pulled the coin out of your pocket to prove that
you *do* have a dollar in your pocket, and the Martian knew nothing of
coins, and if they were blind they would not even see that there was
*something* in your hand. But if you put your hand in your pocket and
found it empty, or if the Martian used whatever senses she had to test
your claim, are you saying that there is *no* meaning whatsoever which
is not social? That reality is entirely 100% social? That as
Baudrillard said in 1991 - the Gulf War never happened, it was only a
text?
By the way, Vera and Martin, I initiated this difficult talk in answer
to Mike's question: how to define consciousness? Want to have a go?
Can we have a definition which does not select just one mode of
consciousness, continually transforming itself moving into another,
which ipso facto is "not consciousness", and one which does not lead
to the conclusion that the Gulf War exists only in "our" consciousness?
comradely,
Andy
Vera Steiner wrote:
Andy,
But does the categorical difference have to be between material and
non-material? And by the way, I did not mean to ignore culture in my
response,
there is no way to specialize neural pathways without the culturally
mediated actions that shape them, but there is no way to appropriate
culture without its material, neuronal, foundation. (I think part of
the problem is with the word substrata which puts material, neuronal
participation in appropriation into a subordinate position vis-a-vie
thinking.)
Vera
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net>
Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: [xmca] Consciousness
But Vera, all the complexity and nuances of the idea of
consciousness and its relation to the material world (both its
substratum in the body and in culture and in its relation to its
objects) do not obliterate the categorical difference between the
President and my thought of the President. And reflecting on this
overnight, I am now convinced that this is an *important* as well as
a "bleeding obvious" difference.
I think that the early investigators of this problem (pre-18th
century and contemporary "learning scientists" who are about 200
years behind) believe that the human body is in some way endowed (by
God, by genes or by education doesn't matter) with a reflective
ability which is inherently natural, and give no special place in
the idea of consciousness to *artefacts*. That is, the cultural and
natural worlds are conflated. It is this conflation which leads to
contradictions and misunderstandings. It is impossible to overcome
the dichotomy without the nature/culture distinction.
I think the solution to the riddle of a categorical distinction
between thought and matter, and a dialectical unity of the ideal and
the material and subject and object in consciousness, is *history*,
that is, the historical construction of *culture*, i.e., the
manufacture of thought-objects and activities organised around the
use of these "thought-objects". It cannot be resolved within the
confines of the individual organism. As a result of culture and
history, the nature-given reflective capacities of our organism are
built upon and transformed, and this process of construction is
where we find all the dialectical processes which, for example, you
are describing Vera.
You suggest consciousness is brain cells organized in a certain way.
I think Vygotsky makes an analogy somewhere with a machine, every
part of which is obedient to natural laws, but the overall design
and construction is obedient to human will. Right? A great metaphor:
the human body as an artefact - an object for cultural critique not
natural science.
But what is being described here is only the material substratum
(conditions) of thought, not thought itself. I was reading Damassio
a while ago, and he still expects that any day now neurobiologists
will discover the subject in some part of the brain. Even at the
highest level (Damassio is regarded as one of the best today) we
have not got beyond Descartes who believed thought and matter were
joined at some point in the brain! Was it Engels who said something
like: when I see an object, I do not see the excitation on my
optical nerve, I see an object (or a unicorn for that matter). There
is a categorical difference between the material organisation of
this thinking body and its thoughts.
But this dichotomy is not a fruitful starting point for science.
Joint artefact-mediated activity overcomes the dichotomy and makes
the fruitful starting point for a science of consciousness. But that
does not mean that the dichotomy is simply a mistake or illusion. It
is actually correct and necessary.
Andy
Vera Steiner wrote:
Hi,
A quick thought while I am reading the exchanges on consciousness.
I think consciousness is matter (brain cells) which become
organized as a consequence of activity, and once organized (never
fully, finally, until the moment of death) they facilitate (and
that,too is an activity) certain kinds and speeds of activity. My
consciousness of the act of writing is multi-layered, it runs ahead
of the text while it also monitors what is written, these are
activities that are facilitated by the consequences of previous,
repeated, experience I now write in English, my monitoring a text
written in Hungarian is slower, I have less current practice and
thus the conscious focus required to write in my mother tongue is
differently organized, it may require a shifting back and forth
between planning and monitoring rather than the simultaneous
activities called forth if the task is in English.
The example is to serve us to think developmentally of matter, of
differently structured matter, rather than dichotomously.
Thanks for the stimulating exchanges,
Vera
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net>
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [xmca] Consciousness
THis is indeed a tricky question which inevitably generates
seemingly contradictory positions. Please recall the context. Mike
raised the problem of multiple definitions of "consciousness"
among us - we who share a lot of agreement on these questions. I
responded that I didn't think we *should* tie Cs down to a single,
well-defined meaning. Then realizing that it was unsatisfactory,
to leave us in such an open-ended, undefined position, I thought
about it, and realized that what unified all these multiplicity of
legitimate definitions and concepts of Cs was Cs as a
philosophical category.
Descartes introduced us to the philosophical catgory of Cs, but he
did not at all solve the problem of the scientific study of
consciouness. Only Vygotsky solved this, but quite specifically he
built on Hegel and Marx.
If I ask you to accept that the dollar you think is in your pocket
and the dollar which is actually in your pocket (or not) are
categorically different, this is asking you to state the bleeding
obvious, and does not give you a program for the scientific study
of consciousness. But nor can a program for the scientific study
of consciousness forget or turn its back on this categorical
difference between Cs and matter.
The big step that Hegel took in fact was to lay to the side the
whole issue of an absolute difference between thought and thing,
between subject and object, and to look instead at the movement of
(subject/object), with the whole idea of objectified thoughts and
internalised artifacts.
So here we have these two (as you say) completely *opposite*
proposals about how to proceed, and I am advocating *both* of
them. But we can't go all the way with Hegel. Hegel basically
elided the mind/matter distinction and this proved to be very
productive. But it couldn't be maintained, could it? Feuerbach
called his bluff, and Marx agreed.
On science: I am saying that science is one of a number of
possible ways of apprehending the world (quoting Marx in the
Grundrisse). It is good for certain tasks up to a certain point.
And what Kuhn means by "ontological assumptions" is not
necessarily really ontological. Natural science does assume the
existence of a material world, outside of, independent of, and
prior to consciousness. This ontology got a bump c. 1905, but it
was soon restored. But natural science is not the only way. I
don't think psychology can proceed on the same set of ontological
assumptions. If we make "Activity" a fundamental category, we
depart from natural science. And I don't believe we can proceed by
acting as if we can study the psyche on the basis of the same
metaphysical assumptions as natural science. We are part of it; we
cannot objectify the object of study.
Enough,
Andy
Martin Packer wrote:
Andy,
I am familiar with what seems to be your general line of
argument. It runs, indeed, through the philosophers you have
highlighted: Descartes, Kant, and Husserl (whose 'Cartesian
mediations' was both a criticism of Kant for being too mystical
and an affirmation of the continuity of his project with
Descartes). But I am surprised that you would follow this line
for, in my reading at least, Marx and Vygotsky took a different
line, prompted in my view by Hegel's critique of Kant.
But first, it seems to me there is a central contradiction in
what you have written, and I take this to mean that perhaps I'm
not correctly identifying your position, since you seem to
affirming and denying the same point. You write critically of
natural science:
"Natural science is based on the assumption that outside of
consciousness there is a natural world, which exists
independently of consciousness and prior to consciousness"
But when you cited Lenin you explained: "Consciousness is what is
given to us; matter is what exists outside and independently of
consciousness."
Perhaps your point is that science is not *critical* of this
central assumption, which was indeed what Kant and Husserl
argued? (I think this is actually an inaccurate claim: Kuhn's
work showed us that scientists constantly question their
ontological assumptions, and also made the important point that
these assumptions are embedded in the shared, social practices
of a scientific paradigm, not in the thoughts of individual
scientists.)
Where should I begin with a response to this D-K-H line? Perhaps
here: you write: "The reality is: you open your eyes, you see
things, and *then* you question whether what really exists out
there (matter) corresponds to what you think exists out there
(consciousness)."
...for this is precisely the move that Descartes, Kant and
Husserl made. They each engaged in a reflective attitude of
doubt, questioning the correspondence of (inner) thought and
(external) matter, and even the existence of the latter. The
problem is that this epistemological scepticism (Is my knowledge
valid?) is *always* a sign of an underlying ontological dualism
(My thoughts are inner; matter is outer). If one starts there, it
does indeed seem that only a God's eye view would be able to
resolve the problem. And with this dualism it seems that each
individual can form only mental representations of a reality that
they can never in fact be sure they know. Precisely the
representational model of human beings that cognitive science has
accepted, at least until recently.
But there is a different line of thinking about human being,
knowledge and consciousness. I first learned of it from studying
Heidegger, but it has been explored by Merleau-Ponty, Garfinkel,
and as I read them, Marx and Vygotsky. It is a line that gives
priority to practical activity rather than reflective thinking.
(You can see why I am puzzled that you would follow the former
line, and why, for example, you would write that post Heisenberg,
"not concsciousness but *activity* had to step in to provide a
rational foundation for even natural science." That seems to
imply that for you consciousness and activity are distinct.)
The central thrust of Heidegger's Being and Time was that the
typical and traditional philosophical move is mistaken and
unnatural. People in their everyday activity do *not* "question
what really exists out there." If I am digging in my garden, see
a strange object and have a question about it, I don't reflect on
the adequacy of my thought categories, I get down on my knees to
take a closer look at the object. I poke it, I pick it up.
Heidegger distinguished three modes of engagement (Tony mentioned
them recently). These philosophers operated in what Heidegger
called the present-at-hand mode, in which practical activity is
completely suspended. But the more fundamental mode is the
ready-to-hand, in which we are engaged in practical activity with
artifacts, and there is no separation between subject and object,
mind and matter. For Heidegger, *this* is consciousness. In this
mode, Cs is not separate from matter.
I find it particularly helpful to think in terms of children's
development, because infants have a practical engagement in the
world without the capacity for reflective thought.
There is obviously much more I could and should say to develop
the point I'm trying to make. But if I send this message now it
might reach you before night falls.
cheers
Martin
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
Ilyenkov $20 ea
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
Ilyenkov $20 ea
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov, Ilyenkov
$20 ea
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
Ilyenkov $20 ea
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca