Consciousness and the World

[paulhanke]

Andy Clark wrote a book entitled "Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again" ... in it, Clark expresses the concept of "external scaffolding" (pencil and paper, etc.) without which the human mind would be incapable of certain types of thought (long division, etc.) ... and if I'm remembering correctly, Clark actually asserts that such "external scaffolding" can be considered a functional component of the modern human mind ... a very interesting read.

Taking Clark's concept of "external scaffolding" to its logical conclusion, do you think there are elements of the world without which there could not be (modern) human consciousness?

[Holiday20310401]

I can see external scaffolding being a feature to our evolutionary progress.

So its a benefit to our future generations to write a lot?

But external scaffolding as a functional component of the modern mind. How far is he willing to go? That reality is independent of consciousness and consciousness is dependent on reality.

Maybe the media should switch to hypercube advertising and maybe it will benefit future generations be providing an advanced mind or something. lol.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

Andy Clark wrote a book entitled "Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again" ... in it, Clark expresses the concept of "external scaffolding" (pencil and paper, etc.) without which the human mind would be incapable of certain types of thought (long division, etc.) ... and if I'm remembering correctly, Clark actually asserts that such "external scaffolding" can be considered a functional component of the modern human mind ... a very interesting read.

Taking Clark's concept of "external scaffolding" to its logical conclusion, do you think there are elements of the world without which there could not be (modern) human consciousness?

Paulhanke,

I take it I am missing something here, but, without the world in general there would be no human consciousness, the physical world is the fuel that the mind operates on. It is the old subject and object stand or fall together thing, take away the physical world as object and there is no reality whatsoever. That said, what am I missing? Ok I reread, so, you are saying that certain conditons must be in place in order to evoke potentiality from the mind, yes that does seem reasonable. People born and raised in the desert, do not often make strong swimmers.

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

That reality is independent of consciousness and consciousness is dependent on reality.

... in a nutshell - yes

The next time you take a walk, pay attention to your leg muscles ... what do the muscles in your trailing leg do when it's time to take the next step forward? - they relax! ... your leg just swings forward into the next step naturally, powered by gravity, and controlled by the passive dynamics of bone, joint, and tendon ... the alternative (tried by many early roboticists) is to compute and actively control every minute movement - which is so computationally expensive that the resulting robot can only manage to walk excruciatingly slowly ... so to steal from the above quote, reality is independent of walking and walking is dependent on reality.

Why should consciousness be any different?

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by boagie

... you are saying that certain conditons must be in place in order to evoke potentiality from the mind, yes that does seem reasonable. People born and raised in the desert, do not often make strong swimmers.

... that's one aspect ... another is exemplified in the possibility that modern human consciousness is qualitatively and/or quantitatively different than the human consciousness of, say, medieval times precisely because the world ("external scaffolding") was different then ...

[Holiday20310401]

I know that morals are defined relative to society because what is moral then is not moral now but I never really allowed myself to believe that the mind back then was a little primitive compared to today. Somehow I doubt it, it would be very minimal in that short of a period, which really stinks when knowing that our society will eventually progress at too fast a rate.

I agree with Boagie, and you when considered in the long run. If humanity found a planet that could sustain life, but was different in a lot of ways it would make sense for the body to adapt to the changes in the envionment. But in this situation, aren't we assuming that the consciousness relies on the mind? Which is ok ofcourse.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... that's one aspect ... another is exemplified in the possibility that modern human consciousness is qualitatively and/or quantitatively different than the human consciousness of, say, medieval times precisely because the world ("external scaffolding") was different then ...

paulhanke,

Really I don't think there is any doubt that there would be a correlation between the environment and the mental state of a subject. It would not be unlike the adaptation of an organism to a given environment, the environment changes, thus the organism of necessity is in process of change in relation to its environment. As a matter of fact I think there is a correlation in the quality of consciousnes with the quality of the environment in general, the degradation of the environment means degradation of consciousness. The environment must be considered an aspect of consciousness, for without it, there is no consciousness.

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

But in this situation, aren't we assuming that the consciousness relies on the mind?

... yes! ... and assuming that the mind that exercises the external scaffolding associated with the scientific method is a different mind than the one that has no concept of science (and the fact that this external scaffolding is culturally transmitted completely sidesteps the need for biological evolution), can something similar be said of consciousness? ...

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by boagie

As a matter of fact I think there is a correlation in the quality of consciousnes with the quality of the environment in general, the degradation of the environment means degradation of consciousness.

... so let's take it a step further - as the quality of consciousness changes, does the experience of consciousness change?

[Holiday20310401]

As the quality of the mind changes so does the reality, right? Is consciousness the interpretation of actuality into a reality that can be cognated by the mind? Because afterall, the environment is just emanations of immaterial when sought at deep, deep down.

But as the quality of consciousness changes the experience does not change because I think consciousness is just a threshold, a uniform part of being. The consciousness will either be there or not there, I don't see any superpositionitive state of consciousness being controllable through experience, although then what am I to say dreams are?

And when you say the quality of experience, do you mean perception? Because perception is a part of the mind, not the environment, well, I suppose the body is part of the environment, but the body is what is causing your consciousness anyways. Its turning to a conundrum.
If you meant experience as the reality we envision, well, thats proportional to the mind's construct anyways. If it were meant that the actual environment were to change then the mind would in order to make sense in its construct to what is applicable to the new actuality. But there is not bias out there in the environment so the environment in acutality can't degenerate to make the mind also do so, it can only change... if thats even possible which I doubt too.