Consciousness is social entanglement. In order to better understand that, let's ask, "Can
there be or is there a science (study/investigation) of consciousness"?
Yes, however, many say no. Why? Because, in an age of hard sciences many who say no to consciousness as a focus of hard science fail to realize that those involved in artificial intelligence are seriously considering consciousness as something objective. Inasmuch as consciousness appears to be subjective it can only be realized as something to contemplate as an experience of thinking and being from an objective standpoint.You see, there is no
consciousness without others to be engaged with on both a subjective and
objective level of social involvement/interaction; and that experience causes
consciousness in the first place. Therefore, there can exist the science of
consciousness in the social imagination because it can be observed as the social imagination = a
collection of persons/places and things in a place and time.
Even
so, what they miss is exactly what everyone else misses - social entanglement what we can call the experience of the social
imagination - collective conscious brought about only through entanglement which arrives at a kind of collapsed wave - collective agreement. This is what gives us what we think and or
imagine as real - our agreement is our reality. Yes, that is where true
consciousness exists just as Charles H. Cooley imagined and stated that
only in the collective
mind can we experience who we are and are not; and in that sense we can
imagine and agree that there is a science for consciousness... Social
Psychology.
We are socially entangled and because of that have consciousness, have a social imagination - social reality. Interesting is that entanglement does not mean anything until there is agreement reality about something or someone. However, still there must be a truly objective reality
that we can and must agree exists in the first place... agree on in the collective conscious; otherwise
there is nothing to agree on and there is no collective and no reality. It somehow feels like a catch 22 or chicken before the
egg mind exercise.
Nonetheless,
there has to be...even if our collective
conscious agreement reality is only of the simplest of agreement for
even in there is a true embedded reality. There can be science of
collective consciousness because it
has the same problems that 'anyone' conscious does.. it is subjective
and yet objectively it knows that it is and so is everyone else
otherwise it would not be.
In that kind of investigation, you
may be able to follow a trail that shows how one and or another arrived at what
they think/believe as in agree on but that is not really contained enough to
say be able to come up with a scientific objective view of consciousness without
first agreeing upon absolutes or the absolute in any one given moment of time
and space.
Such an objective reality exists to a
certain degree of agreement reality within our let's say fixed situation
/condition here and now. The sun is a star and for us here and now such a fact
has not been changed. In
the beginning
was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God ~ John 1:1.
So what
is truly objective? Only that we have agreed the sun is a star. Do we
really
understand objectively what the sun truly is? No. Nor can we in this
fallen
condition really understand what it is any why and that objectively
there is and has to be an objective truth - the Creator... because of
Him, we are: we live, move and have our being ~ Acts 17:28.
We can objectively agree that man is not
the designer of himself or of his agreement reality. Why? Because, we cannot
subjectively know anything in an entirety, not even the sun. So, there must be
someone or something collectively bigger than our collective agreement reality. That omnipresent being why the reason why we can come to
agreement; for He alone holds all things together [COL 1:17] and allows us to agree/disagree
in the first place.
And, there is disagreement but not as much as there is
agreement. And, there is agreement to disagree. Try programming that into a
computer Ai.
There are those who argue that the real world is that which we see, touch and or relate to physically which leaves or provides us only an impression of a mental and spiritual life. That cannot be true because what we really have is the experience of 'agreement reality'. Though we experience the world first and foremost in a 'physical' way, it does not mean anything to us until we agree on what that is. So, as Cooley argued, our entire reality is a social reality, a spiritual reality too. In that social reality which is our 'spirituality' again pointing Cooley, we discover who we are and are not. We agree on what is 'being in a place' as in what is a common among us and that makes up who we are and are not... that is what truly matters. In that kind of social agreement, we also and constantly seek to conclude and define a higher authority that approves of our 'common among us'. It provides us with justification to move forward in a total experience and to sustain it.
ReplyDeleteWhen we consider the traffic of information in quantum computing, which also requires agreement reality, we should understand that each quantum computer must be unto itself an island of perfect information in the sense that it agrees with the information it has from the beginning to end and never doubts it as real and true (or at least think that within its actual closed system) and it could never come into contact with information that is other than what it considers real and true. If it did, the flow of information traffic would be stopped ... dead in its tracks.
ReplyDelete