tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post1002317345932786890..comments2024-03-25T11:49:21.281-07:00Comments on The Splintered Mind: Is Consciousness Sparse or Abundant? Five Dimensions of AnalysisEric Schwitzgebelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-56932822918824488762018-02-13T23:59:53.320-08:002018-02-13T23:59:53.320-08:00I think a certain amount of this is subsumed under...I think a certain amount of this is subsumed under attention. I was struck by the question<br />of Tsuchiya and Kanai as to whether a face is (usually) a quale: "the most elementary phenomenal experience indecomposable to smaller elements of experience". So, if you are concentrating on a conversation, there is undecomposed "Bob's face". <br /><br />Philosophers tend to stick to simple stuff like colours, but anthropologists seem to apply a similar concept to objects like artworks eg "Qualia are pragmatic signals (indexes) that materialize phenomenally in human activity as sensuous qualities" [Harkness 2015]. (What does that actually mean?)<br /><br />But if you pay attention to the details, the quale of say "a true smile" will decompose into muscular contractions around the eye as well as the mouth (remembering that that particular quale might be culture specific).<br />David Duffynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-64485740990616490632018-02-09T12:07:44.554-08:002018-02-09T12:07:44.554-08:00The last item on your list as to depth of understa...The last item on your list as to depth of understanding can be understood in terms of Buber's I-Thou, I think. He used the example of a tree himself in his work, and the first Psalm uses a tree as a metaphor for man, though I'm no theologian, nor I suspect are youHowiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12474061778220524205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-66575603598463024412018-02-09T08:44:01.699-08:002018-02-09T08:44:01.699-08:00Perhaps there's a further dimension. The stand...Perhaps there's a further dimension. The standard position these days (I think) is that each conscious entity has its own numerically distinct consciousness. A more <b>numerically sparse</b> position holds that all conscious entities share in just one reservoir of consciousness. I don't know of any contemporary exponents of such a view, but Emerson's view of the Over-soul and James' radical empiricism are along this line. A more <b>numerically abundant</b> view would hold that consciousness is or can be fragmented, so individual entities sometimes or even always possess multiple consciousnesses.P.D. Magnushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07799239684943144310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-44917033421895981572018-02-09T06:35:11.777-08:002018-02-09T06:35:11.777-08:00Bump> "but I can't recall seeing a goo...Bump> "but I can't recall seeing a good structuring of the landscape of options here which both captures the many different mix-and-match possibilities here"<br /><br />-I hope someone can enlighten me on this as well. I'll be keeping a look out..<br /><br />As a started reading I thought of "Qualitative Sparseness v. Qualitative abundance" which would probably fall under your "modality/modality width" criteria. <br /><br />One sense in which this dimension might be different from yours: the extent various psychological propositions exhaust or don't exhaust the properties of a conscious state. Someone might have a notion of consciousness that is made more rich with je ne sais quoi... Hmm maybe just call it, "Ineffable Sparseness v. Ineffable abundance"Uncommon Sensehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14074154544564162403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-67601470192491722092018-02-08T20:02:43.815-08:002018-02-08T20:02:43.815-08:00via @anilkseth
https://neurobanter.com/2018/02/01/...via @anilkseth<br />https://neurobanter.com/2018/02/01/conscious-spoons-really-pushing-back-against-panpsychism/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com