Ken Wilber

[trivas7]

Ken Wilber is an exciting true contemporary American philosopher. I am currently reading his "A Brief History of Everything", a layman's introduction to his referenced writing. His is an Hegelian/holistic take on "God, life, the universe and everything". He espouses what he call an "all-level, all-quadrant" Kosmos, a term introduced by Pythagorians meaning the patterned nature or process of all domains of existence, from matter to mind to God, and not merely the physical universe, the usual meaning of both "cosmos" and "universe" today. Are people familiar with him? Any RevLefters? What's your take on him? I find him compelling and a good remedy for the incompleteness of Marxism.

His twenty tenets (more or less) are some of the tendencies of evolutionary systems wherever we find them; "Kosmic patterns". Here they are in summary form:

1. Reality as a whole is not composed of things or processes, but of holons (wholes that are parts of other wholes; e.g. whole atoms are parts of whole molecules, which are parts of the whole cells, which are parts of whole organisms, etc.

2. Holons display four fundamental capacities: self-preservation (agency), self-adaption (communion), self-transcendence (eros), and self-dissolution (thanatos).

3. Holons emerge.

4. Holons emerge holarchically.

5. Each emergent holon transcends but includes its predecessor(s).

6. The lower sets the possibilities of the higher; the higher sets the probabililites of the lower.

7. The number of levels that a holarchy comprises determines whether it is "shallow" or "deep"; the number of holons on any given level is its "span".

8. Each successive level of evolution produces greater depth and less span. Addition 1: The greater the depth of a holon, the greater its degree of consciousness.

9. Destroy any holon and you will destroy all of the holons above it and none of the holons below it.

10. Holarchies co-evolve.

11. The micro is relational exchange with the macro at all levels of its depth.

12. Evolution has directionality: increasing complexity; increasing differentiation/integration; increasing organization/structuration; increasing relative autonomy; increasing telos.

13. Addition 2: Every holon issues an IOU to the Kosmos

14. Addition 3: All IOUs are redeemed in Emptiness.

[Revolution starts with U]

Im not a fan of philosophical jargon with no foundation in material reality.

[trivas7]

Im not a fan of philosophical jargon with no foundation in material reality.
But the bulk of human reality -- values, beauty, intersubjective dialogue, meaning, etc. -- has no foundation in material reality.

[Queercommie Girl]

But the bulk of human reality -- values, beauty, intersubjective dialogue, meaning, etc. -- has no foundation in material reality.

Actually they do, only that in many cases the connections between base and superstructure are very complex rather than simplistic.

But ultimately everything is based on material reality.

[trivas7]

[...] But ultimately everything is based on material reality.
Nonsense. Human consciousness, e.g., has no location in space and time and therefore has no material basis.

[Queercommie Girl]

Nonsense. Human consciousness, e.g., has no location in space and time and therefore has no material basis.

Human consciousness has a location in space-time: the human brain. In the last analysis, the human mind is nothing but the physical brain. The brain is the material basis of all human consciousness and mental activities.

Empirically if you remove someone's brain, or terminate his/her brain functions, all consciousness would be gone.

So please take your unscientific idealistic nonsense elsewhere. I will believe in the existence of a non-material "human soul" when I see it or can empirically verify it.

[trivas7]

Human consciousness has a location in space-time: the human brain. [...]
Conflation of brain and consciousness is what I expect from most RevLefters. Despite your protest to the contrary, there is no material object located in anyone's brain called consciousness.

[tbasherizer]

Just because scientists don't have all the answers doesn't mean that there isn't a scientific answer to consciousness. If you cut out the part of the brain that connects to the optic nerve, the associated person would stop seeing. If you cut out the part of the brain that is most active when someone is angry, they won't be able to get angry. There's almost a 1:1 correspondence with parts of the brain to parts of the consciousness.

The things that you say supposedly cannot have a materialistic basis have evolved through natural selection over the millions of years that hominids have existed. It's comforting to just say "We're too complex, therefor God"(Or whatever other mystical entity you please), but the reality is that there's more to human consciousness than that.

A Marxist, who believes that the technology-induced advancement of the means of production will bring about humanity's eventual salvation, should have more of a philosophical base in scientific reason.

EDIT: Ps- Sorry to turn the thread into one ragging on your philosophical beliefs.

[Queercommie Girl]

there is no material object located in anyone's brain called consciousness.

Yes, you have. This object is called the human brain. Consciousness is simply the higher-level function of the physical brain. As I said, I don't agree with crude materialism, everything has a material basis, but the relationship between base and superstructure is often a very complex one.

In other words, consciousness is not an essence, it is a function. In computer science terms, consider the physical brain to be the computer hardware, and consciousness the actual software of the operating system, like Linux. The OS is simply computer circuits being wired and connected in certain specific ways when the software is running, the software is a function of the hardware, there is no actual object inside the computer that corresponds with Linux.

When neuron connections in the brain are wired in a certain way, consciousness develops as an emergent function of the underlying neural "hardware".

On the other hand, there is no empirical evidence of any kind of "brain-independent consciousness" at all. So why shouldn't I "conflate" the two?

Maybe in the future non-human consciousness could develop, e.g. AI (artificial intelligence). But that would still have a material basis - the computer circuits that creates the AI.

[trivas7]

Yes, you have. This object is called the human brain. Consciousness is simply the higher-level function of the physical brain. As I said, I don't agree with crude materialism, everything has a material basis, but the relationship between base and superstructure is often a very complex one.
[...]
On the other hand, there is no empirical evidence of any kind of "brain-independent consciousness" at all. So why shouldn't I "conflate" the two?

Because conscious awareness isn't the brain. Neither is there scientific evidence that consciousness is a higher-level function of the physical brain; this is merely your bare assumption.

[Queercommie Girl]

Neither is there scientific evidence that consciousness is a higher-level function of the physical brain


The evidence is actually very clear. On the other hand, there is no empirical evidence what-so-ever that consciousness could exist independent of the physical brain.

There is no empirical evidence for the existence of any kind of metaphysical consciousness. But then people who believe in metaphysics like you will simply claim that "metaphysics doesn't require any empirical evidence"...so who is making assumptions here? :rolleyes:

[trivas7]

The evidence is actually very clear. On the other hand, there is no empirical evidence what-so-ever that consciousness could exist independent of the physical brain.

What evidence?

[Queercommie Girl]

What evidence?


Empirical evidence that the function of human consciousness is associated directly with the physical human brain. Example: a person with certain kinds of physical brain damage would have his/her mental state affected in many ways; certain chemical drugs which affect neuro-transmitters in the brain directly affect a person's consciousness, etc. Also, consciousness has never been empirically manifested from someone who is literally brain-dead.

All of these empirical evidence suggests that the function of consciousness is associated directly with the brain.

Ancient natural philosophers used to think the seat of human conciousness is the human heart, (in the ancient Chinese language for instance "mind" and "heart" were actually the same word) modern empirical science proved them wrong.

[trivas7]

Empirical evidence that the function of human consciousness is associated directly with the physical human brain. Example: a person with certain kinds of physical brain damage would have his/her mental state affected in many ways; certain chemical drugs which affect neuro-transmitters in the brain directly affect a person's consciousness, etc. Also, consciousness has never been empirically manifested from someone who is literally brain-dead.

All of these empirical evidence suggests that the function of consciousness is associated directly with the brain.

The focus of most consciousness research is on understanding what it means biologically and psychologically for information to be present in consciousness—that is, on determining the neural and psychological correlates of consciousness. Unfortunately for you this is not the same thing as determining that consciousness is a function of the brain. No study has ever determined this. Indeed, because consciousness itself is not an object of empirical science, no study can determine this.

[Queercommie Girl]

The focus of most consciousness research is on understanding what it means biologically and psychologically for information to be present in consciousness—that is, on determining the neural and psychological correlates of consciousness. Unfortunately for you this is not the same thing as determining that consciousness is a function of the brain. No study has ever determined this. Indeed, because consciousness itself is not an object of empirical science, no study can determine this.


If consciousness can't be investigated empirically, then it sure can't be investigated through metaphysical mumble-jumble that provides no independent means of verification.

Scientific theories are never 100% firm, if they are then science would never be able to progress. But relatively speaking the scientific method is the best tool we've got for investigating the universe.

Another tool is mathematical deduction. But your metaphysics isn't rigorous enough for that. The best attempt at analysing theology using more rigorous deduction is the ontological proof for the existence of the God. But that "proof" merely "proves God" in the most boring and simplistic abstract Deist way, almost completely devoid of content, and the "proof" still has a lot of holes anyway.

[trivas7]

If consciousness can't be investigated empirically, then it sure can't be investigated through metaphysical mumble-jumble that provides no independent means of verification. [...]

Agreed. That is why Buddhists, e.g., have a 2500 year history of directly examining consciousness. Even Sam Harris indulges in meditation. Of course none of this is scientific investigation, but it is inquiry of a sort nonetheless.

[trivas7]

I hereby disavow and repudiate Ken Wilber's Hegelian idealism.

"Holons" are an ideal construct that reflects the self-contradictory nature of all material processes. There is not an "inside" and "outside" of hierarchically embeded "holons", but only material processes that demonstrate the law of the unity of opposites. Wilber posits an evolution of consciousness separate from the evolution of matter in general and the specific social conditions of a given epoch.

My hard-on for idealism can lead only at best to social democracy and reformism. Marxism IMO provides a basis to critique idealist philosophy: the development of things should be seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, each thing in its movement being interrelated with and interacting on the things around it, not embedded in a hierarchy, as Mr. Wilber would have it.

If (after a period of probation) a Revlefter could point out this post to an admin as proof that I eschew the metaphysics of capitalism I would greatly appreciate it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ken Wilber seems to be one of those kinds of philosophers I really hate, spouting erudite-sounding nonsense with terrible flaws:


1. Reality as a whole is not composed of things or processes, but of holons (wholes that are parts of other wholes; e.g. whole atoms are parts of whole molecules, which are parts of the whole cells, which are parts of whole organisms, etc.

2. Holons display four fundamental capacities: self-preservation (agency), self-adaption (communion), self-transcendence (eros), and self-dissolution (thanatos).

Atoms make no attempt to preserve themselves and display no behaviours consistent with having agency. They don't adapt or evolve at all, so self-adaptation and transcendance are out. If undisturbed, an atom can exist potentially forever, so self-dissolution is also out.

I know you've now disavowed those ideas, but I have to wonder why they grabbed your interest in the first place.


I hereby disavow and repudiate Ken Wilber's Hegelian idealism.

...

If (after a period of probation) a Revlefter could point out this post to an admin as proof that I eschew the metaphysics of capitalism I would greatly appreciate it.

Idealism may be a load of bollocks, but this kind of grovelling is unnecessary and quite frankly makes me uncomfortable.

[Apoi_Viitor]

"Holons" are an ideal construct that reflects the self-contradictory nature of all material processes. There is not an "inside" and "outside" of hierarchically embeded "holons", but only material processes that demonstrate the law of the unity of opposites.

Oh great, you went from one idealist philosophy to another...

[trivas7]

Oh great, you went from one idealist philosophy to another...
OTC, Dialectical materialism isn't an idealist philosophy...but this off topic.