Kevin's Watch

What I'm interested in here is not just [what I call] 'conciousness', not 'self-awareness', but that bigger thing we all have [unless the evil genius idea of philosophy, and that you all are automatons set there to decieve me is correct] - the Mind. That thing that, over and above my awareness of my being, my cognitive and decision making faculties, my ability to make mental models of the future etc, exists that makes me aware that I am Me, that some days is kind to me and on others tortures me beyond [it appears at the time] my ability to bear. That thing that is so far beyond any 'evolutionary fitness' purpouse, any necessary adjunct to increasing my chances of propogating those little bastard tyrants coiled up comfortably in my DNA, that at least some explanation of it's presence has to be made if we are going to believe that we are at least beggining to get a handle on how it is we come to be here and doing what we are doing.Deutsch [as clear headed a thinker as I think perhaps I've ever encountered on these matters] would put it down to 'reach'. Something will have happened in the formation of the human brain hardware and it's subsequent software development [for want of a better analogy] that provided a means of achievement that waaay outstripped it's original purpose. What was that? Do we have any idea on this or are we as far from elucidating the mystery of this as Plato's Cave-Dwellers were to understanding what was going on behind their very backs.

Or are we going to run with the idea that the Mind is just a deception; that when all the stuff I listed above gets to working in tandem a 'picture-show' is produced as illusory as is Batman walking across the screen to the individual frames of the film that produces him. While it would be tempting here to run into the answers that satisfied pre-enlightenment thinking - explanations of Gods and Monsters etc - science, in eschewing these approaches places the burden of providing alternative and more testable solutions squarely on its own shoulders. Has it squared up to the challenge yet or does it perform a guilty shuffle of it's feet and whistle into the air in apparent abstraction when such questions are raised. [ ]

Quite a time for Minds! peter starts this thread as I'm reading Peter Watts' Blindsight, and Danlo posts this on fb:

"Proprioception was the way the body sensed its own internal stimuli, the firing of nerves, the movement of its cells, the deep feeling of its own reality. In many ways it was the very sense of the self, the deeply physical self of blood and bones which lay far below the awareness of the mind. Of all the senses, it was the most difficult to confuse." from The Wild by David Zindell

One character in Blindsight tells another about proprioceptive polyneuropathy:

"There used to be people without any sense of—well, of themselves, physically. They couldn't feel their bodies in space, had no idea how their own limbs were arranged or even if they had limbs. Some of them said they felt pithed. Disembodied. They'd send a motor signal to the hand and just have to take it on faith that it arrived. So they'd use vision to compensate; they couldn't feel where the hand was so they'd look at it while it moved, use sight as a substitute for the normal force-feedback you and I take for granted. They could walk, if they kept their eyes focused on their legs and concentrated on every step. They'd get pretty good at it. But even after years of practice, if you distracted them in mid-step they'd go over like a beanstalk without a counterweight."

The book also talks about things like Cotard's Syndrome and Hemineglect. I don't have any idea what is known about what the mind IS. But things like this tell us what the mind is NOT. Absolutely fascinating.

peter wrote:What I'm interested in here is not just [what I call] 'conciousness', not 'self-awareness', but that bigger thing we all have [unless the evil genius idea of philosophy, and that you all are automatons set there to decieve me is correct] - the Mind. That thing that, over and above my awareness of my being, my cognitive and decision making faculties, my ability to make mental models of the future etc, exists that makes me aware that I am Me, that some days is kind to me and on others tortures me beyond [it appears at the time] my ability to bear.

I'm not sure which distinction you're making. Something over and above our consciousness and self-consciousness? What, like a soul? What could mind be other than your consciousness?

Do you mean the self? Your sense of self? I think of that as just a kind of consciousness, or a 'shape' that consciousness can take. It comes from our body awareness and our sensory apparatus mapping out the world from the perspective of a single, discrete organism ... as well as a social status within a group of such organisms.

But it's still just consciousness ... just as space is still space when it's curled into a singularity. I think there are other kinds or 'shapes' of consciousness that other forms of life can have (or have ourselves, with the right chemicals).

That thing that is so far beyond any 'evolutionary fitness' purpouse, any necessary adjunct to increasing my chances of propogating those little bastard tyrants coiled up comfortably in my DNA, that at least some explanation of it's presence has to be made if we are going to believe that we are at least beggining to get a handle on how it is we come to be here and doing what we are doing.

I think that consciousness itself obviously increases survival and reproduction, and consciousness "shaped into a self" would do this even better. I don't see the quandary, evolutionarily speaking.

Or are we going to run with the idea that the Mind is just a deception;

I think it's a 'real illusion.' I don't think it's anything more than a reflective, knowing, intelligent relationship with reality. But on the other hand, such relations with reality--these strange eddies in existence--are themselves just as real as the larger currents around them. We're more a process, an activity, a way of being than a thing. But the only deception here has been using the wrong language and concepts all along.

No Z. I mean the thing that is sometimes kind and sometimes fucks up my day. The thing that is 'happy' a bit of the time, sad a bit too, relaxed and stressed, contented and inflamed - and all of which I am concious of, for the simple reason that I am concious at all. Not soul, absolutely not. The bit I'm concious of, aware of and that differs from day to day, hour to hour; my 'state of mind'. My mind, that I can make up when confronted with a menu or a film program, but whose deciciveness desserts me when I ponder the 'big stuff'. I'm concious of my mind, I'm aware of my mind.

Or am I?

[Proprioception rapidly desserts the body in a relaxed state - say lying in bed and not moving a muscle for a period of time. Before very long that lack of movement causes your sense of where your limbs are to 'blur' in a rather unpleasant way; the limits of your body sensation begin to [sort of] dissolve and only a movement causes everything to snap back into focus, into place. Try it some time - it's a slightly weird experience that we don't normally focus on.]

Can I canvas oppinion here; I believe 'mind' to be a faculty over and above conciousness [which a cat might have] and self-awareness [which might be accorded a dog]. Does anyone else feel this or am I in a minority of one here with the general feeling that the mind as I'm [badly] attempting to nail it down, is an illusion?

Peter, I realize you're not talking about souls, but I brought it up because what you're suggesting seems to be just as superfluous as the idea of a soul. I still don't see a distinct thing or process besides our self-consciousness in your descriptions.

You can be sad or happy. Aren't these also ways to be conscious? You can be aware of your sadness/happiness. Aren't these ways to be self-conscious?

I think you're talking about a self. We feel we are a singular entity, despite the fact that what we are (mentally speaking) changes from moment to moment. Since our mental states are various streams of consciousness, we marvel at our feeling of unity. Is that it? Does that capture the quandary you're getting at?

Again, this seems to me just an organization of consciousness (what I was figuratively describing as its 'shape'). It is a bit of a paradox, but I think this is due to dualistic language and dualistic metaphysics. We imagine a 'little self' inside of our consciousness, the Me who is viewing all my experiences in the Cartesian Theater (as D.C. Dennett calls it). While this is philosophically naive, there is a part of the brain that organizes the various inputs into a single 'overseer.' Various experiments have purported to show that this is an illusion, that it's not really where our decisions are made, which happen prior to us becoming fully aware of them. However, I've questioned those experiments, as you may remember from previous discussions.

The question of identity/self is tricky, because which self are you? The one that's aware of its own consciousness now? Or the one that can become aware of that awareness? You can see the infinite regress here. It seems that no matter how you try to grab ahold of your own awareness, that particular awareness can always be 'bracketed' and considered as an object of consciousness itself. So it's like a dog chasing its own tail, never able to get it. But if you give up the idea of a 'little self' inside a Cartesian Theater, then this paradox dissolves into process. The self is a process, not a thing. A becoming. We're constantly unfolding, becoming something new with each second.

I think Z, your last paragraph sums up what I am trying to get at and the 'infinite regress' is an aspect I'd not considered (but again I think you may have made this point before). I am quite literally often left beyond words at what we humans can do across such a range of different areas - and so much of it seems beyond anything even remotely related to meeting our 'survival/reproductive' needs that it sort of begs examination (Bach for example could extemporise multilevel harmonies on demand on a piano, at a level analogous to playing six world class level chess games simultaneously and blindfolded. How can this be?) One day we will understand such feats and perhaps when we do they will seem a bit less 'magical', but in the mean time I stand in awe of the simple but exquisite mechanism that allowed such things to be.

+JMJ+

Zarathustra wrote:The self is a process, not a thing. A becoming. We're constantly unfolding, becoming something new with each second.

Wosism #426: Being and Becoming are not mutually exclusive.

peter, though it pains me to say it, you overstate Bach's abilities. Don't get me wrong. You'll not find a bigger Bach fan.
kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4137
kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=9107
kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=998
So I cheer your enthusiasm!


So, regarding the mind... I believe I'm with Z, although I don't know how much our thinking might differ. Truth is, I'm not sure how much I agree or disagree with any of you! (Except you, Wos. LOL! )

Vision is a certain way of perceiving energy within a certain frequency range. Different colors are our way of perceiving different frequencies within this spectrum. And what do we perceive all this with? Our eyes.

I do not believe there is a similar relationship between consciousness and mind. I believe they are the same thing. At least they are the same thing when a mind is conscious. Not all minds are. Some creatures can't be said to have a mind at all. A couple of cells that function as a brain do not give rise to a mind. Enough cells (I would not even try to guess how many, or exactly what they do), and there is a very basic mind. More, and we have, say, mouse's brain. More, and we have a dog's brain, which is more aware of more things. More, and a dolphin. At the top, we have humans. We could chart out the spectrum, from most rudimentary mind to ours, with different levels of awareness, and self-awareness, between the poles.

Now, we could try to say the brain is to mind and/or consciousness as the eye is to vision. But it's an entirely different thing, for two reasons. First, vision/eye are not their own entity. They are part of the brain and the mind/consciousness. (Or, when there isn't a mind/consciousness - and I assume there are critters with too few brain cells to have what anybody would call mind/consciousness that have at least the beginnings of vision - they are part of a purely physical body/system.) Without the mind (or purely physical system), there is no vision.

Second, and more important, vision is the result of very specific, clearly understood physical/chemical events that take place within the eye. We know what vision is. How does the mind work? We know a lot about various physical/chemical events that are parts of the mind. Things like memory storage, and where in the brain various functions are performed.* But that's all physical/chemical/bioelectric processes. Where is our awareness? It's not at any specific spot. It's not a function of this or that. As Hashi said, it's synergy. Undefinable synergy. All of these purely, observable, explainable physical/chemical things somehow combine in a way that gives rise to awareness, and even self-awareness. I wouldn't be surprised if we come to understand it to a much greater degree than we now do. But I also wouldn't be surprised if we never figure it out. "If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't." — Emerson M. Pugh (I first saw that quote in Neverness. Now also in Blindsight.)




* I don't know these things! From www.human-memory.net/processes_storage.html

Since the early neurological work of Karl Lashley and Wilder Penfield in the 1950s and 1960s, it has become clear that long-term memories are not stored in just one part of the brain, but are widely distributed throughout the cortex. After consolidation, long-term memories are stored throughout the brain as groups of neurons that are primed to fire together in the same pattern that created the original experience, and each component of a memory is stored in the brain area that initiated it (e.g. groups of neurons in the visual cortex store a sight, neurons in the amygdala store the associated emotion, etc). Indeed, it seems that they may even be encoded redundantly, several times, in various parts of the cortex, so that, if one engram (or memory trace) is wiped out, there are duplicates, or alternative pathways, elsewhere, through which the memory may still be retrieved.

HOW are "neurons primed to fire together"??? How the hell does that work!!

And does the same memory [say the Master of the House song from Les Mis] produce the same pattern of firing in the same places of the brain in different individuals, or is the 'memory firing sequence' randomly laid down by a given brain where their is 'space' in the network, ready for recall when needed.

We used, in years now gone, to talk of 'Mind, Body and Soul'; I wonder if now the rearrangement into 'Conciousness, Body and Mind' would be analogous to the same conceptual form, but adjusted for post-enlightenment thinking. If this is so, then it speaks of a continuation of 'internal percieved experience' [can I put it like that?] that has remained unaltered by the otherwise seismic conceptual/cognitive shifts that the advances in cosmological and evolutionary understanding have wrought. {Fuck - does that even mean anything? }

peter wrote:And does the same memory [say the Master of the House song from Les Mis] produce the same pattern of firing in the same places of the brain in different individuals, or is the 'memory firing sequence' randomly laid down by a given brain where their is 'space' in the network, ready for recall when needed.

From the site I linked in my previous post, and from this post in the The Future of the Mind thread:

Fist and Faith wrote:Reading about memory. I never knew that different aspects of the memory of an event are stored in different parts of the brain. Short-term memories are run through the hippocampus, where they are broken down into different categories, and sent to different parts of the brain for long-term storage. The emotional content of the event in the amygdala; the visual aspects of the same event in the occipital lobe; etc.

"...but reliving just one aspect of the memory (e.g., the smell of freshly cut grass) can suddenly send the brain racing to pull the fragments together to form a cohesive recollection. "

This is extraordinary!!

The next sentence is: "The ultimate goal of memory research is, then, to figure out how these scattered fragments are somehow reassembled when we recall an experience." That's all well and good for "memory research", but I haven't yet learned the actual mechanism of memory storage! HOW is the emotional aspect of a memory stored in the amygdala? HOW is the visual aspect stored in the occipital lobe? Three carbon atoms, two phosphorus atoms, and a potassium atom together means the smell of freshly-cut grass, and it's stored in whichever cortex handles smells? I guess things might be stored using the same mechanism that is used when the brain experiences them in the first place. But I have no idea what that is. *sigh* Too much to learn.

So yes, it seems the patterns are in the same places. But I couldn't guess how similar the patterns, themselves, are in our memories of the same event (if we were together and witnessed the same event). I don't sufficiently understand what it means by "groups of neurons that are primed to fire together in the same pattern that created the original experience". How different can our patterns of the same event be? Our memory of the exact same event will certainly be different, since it will mean different things to each of us. My memory of a tree falling might be associated with video of a hurricane I saw on the news, while your memory of us watching the same tree falling might be associated with the Twin Towers. When we remember the event, the patterns for even such a simple tree falling would surely be fairly different. If we describe our memory of the tree falling to other people - even if we try to describe only the objective, physical event - would they think we were talking about the same tree falling?


This groups of neurons stuff is nuts!! How many patterns can one neuron be a part of? What mechanism makes neurons A and B fire off at the same time for Memory 1; neurons B and C, but not A, fire off at the same time for Memory 2; etc etc.

peter wrote:We used, in years now gone, to talk of 'Mind, Body and Soul'; I wonder if now the rearrangement into 'Conciousness, Body and Mind' would be analogous to the same conceptual form, but adjusted for post-enlightenment thinking. If this is so, then it speaks of a continuation of 'internal percieved experience' [can I put it like that?] that has remained unaltered by the otherwise seismic conceptual/cognitive shifts that the advances in cosmological and evolutionary understanding have wrought. {Fuck - does that even mean anything? }

My position is that it's Mind (or Consciousness) and Body, not all three, because Mind and Consciousness are the same thing. And actually, I'll now say it must be Mind and Body. Because some minds - those of various species - are not particularly conscious, and certainly not self-conscious. So Mind and Body applies to all things with a mind, while Consciousness and Body only applies to those minds with any kind of consciousness.

And I'm entirely willing to listen to arguments that consciousness is a different thing than mind, and not, as I'm positing, a characteristic of a more advanced mind.

Fist and Faith wrote:My position is that it's Mind (or Consciousness) and Body, not all three, because Mind and Consciousness are the same thing. And actually, I'll now say it must be Mind and Body.

You might as well go all the way and say it is all body.
You don't separate your heart from your body just because it's a particular kind of tissue that performs a particular function.
Well...you do for some purposes. But you don't say it is a different thing from your body because of the purpose/function.
In one way or another, every bit of your "body" is integrated with your "mind," and the reverse.
Your brain does the heavy-thinking-lifting...that's it's job. And at some level---even though it's incredibly small, and overwhelmed by so much always going on---every protein or whatever anywhere in your body that does [or fails to do] anything in every given moment changes your mind.

Which doesn't make the mind/consciousness any more explicable [or inexplicable] right now or in the future, nor any less amazing.

It just means it isn't separate. We are, literally, at all times and places, one with everything.

Cool ideas and speculations and tons of stuff come out of speculating about what mind is, what consciousness is, what awareness is...
But lately I've been becoming more and more convinced that the reason we don't understand mind/consciousness/awareness/thought/creativity is because we don't understand the brain, the body---the physics and chemistry of it.
If the Sumerians 5k years ago saw a 747, they could tell some amazing tales about it---it might inspire all kinds of searches and questing and myths and philosophies. They might all be meaningful/valuable in some ways.
But once they really got down to business with the nuts and bolts...once they got their hands dirty and understood all that stuff, they'd say "Well, DUH, of COURSE it flies."

You're absolutely right. It's all one unit. But I think there are good reasons for making the distinction between mind and body, but not between mind and consciousness. We can make the distinction between mind and body. We can examine the body, in amazing detail. We can see how things come about. On a large scale, we know that air goes into the lungs, oxygen is absorbed by the blood, and circulated throughout the body. On a smaller scale, we know that oxygen goes into the cells and picks up electrons, so that the electron flow continues, and ATP is continually made. In the brain, on a larger scale, we know that (as quoted above, from Kaku, "The emotional content of the event in the amygdala; the visual aspects of the same event in the occipital lobe; etc." On a smaller scale, as quoted above, "After consolidation, long-term memories are stored throughout the brain as groups of neurons that are primed to fire together in the same pattern that created the original experience..." On an even smaller scale, we (Well, not me.) know that neurons fire by way of electrical currents or neurotransmitters.

But what do we know of the mind? Do we have much of a clue about how it works? How do these memories have meaning to us? What's the mechanism? We don't even all agree on whether free will is real or illusion. Certainly, those who think it's real can't say how it can be, or there wouldn't be debate. How is this lump of billions of neurons aware or anything? More puzzling, how is it aware of itself??

As for consciousness: How is the consciousness that human minds have other than a higher degree of what dolphin minds have, which is a higher degree of what dog minds have, which is a higher degree of..., etc? I don't believe it's anything other than the furthest end of a spectrum of awareness. (At least the furthest end we're aware of.) Is there justification for speaking of it in a different way than that? (Honest question. Everybody please give answers!!! )

Fist and Faith wrote: But I think there are good reasons for making the distinction between mind and body, but not between mind and consciousness.

I don't believe it's anything other than the furthest end of a spectrum of awareness. (At least the furthest end we're aware of.) Is there justification for speaking of it in a different way than that? (Honest question. Everybody please give answers!!! )

Oh, I agree. Distinction is useful and meaningful for a wide variety of purposes...but it isn't "true" in many senses. Even with mind/consciousness there is use separating them for study/analytical purposes. But at some point you have to put them back together. Sometimes it matters to separate your car from your driving/road trip. The basis/thingness from the process. But full understanding requires reintegration.
[[[though mind/consciousness---they're identical, I think. I'm thinking more brain vs. mind/consciousness.]]

On the second...there is something close to a smooth spectrum in the brain/biology/machinery.
But I also think the spectrum of the process/mind/consciousness is less curve-like and more step-like [or even upward-leap like]. Certain small changes in the matter and/or the patterns of connection/networking, every so often, enable a step/leap to the next level. [[probably more like a teleport. Minds are "here" then some little twist, they're "up there."]]...still "spectrum"---but a different shape.

There's an unbroken connection in where mind comes from [the brain/machinery], but real separation in what those minds can do [processes/capacities].

And aside, tangential with Kaku---it's been thought for a long time that memory [long-term especially, I think] was in the synapses. [serotonin and other proteins create the synaptic connections that fire for memories].
If you destroy the synaps, the memory is destroyed...that is known.
However, fairly recently, it's been shown at least in some lower life-forms, if you replace the synapse with a new one, the memory comes back.
It isn't rebuilt, it just comes back. Kinda like if you blew up building, then laid down a new foundation and the whole building suddenly appeared.

So the synapses are necessary for the memory---but they aren't where memories are stored. [apparently---I only saw a blurb/abstract--and I don't know what's been done with it since, if anything].

To take a practical example, one of my favourite paintings is Rousseau's 'Surprised'. When I look at it I'm conscious of it - but then so is my cat. It takes my mind to really appreciate it, to see what is there over and above the image that I'm conscious of. This appreciation is more than just a heightened awareness of its presence, of what it is. My cats vision of it, its awareness of it is already higher than mine, with its heightened animal senses brought to bear on the painting - its already more conscious of it than me, but it takes my mind to really get inside the picture, and for me this 'mindfulness' represents a divergence from the place where ever increasing consciousness would take you: there is fork in the path that my cats brain has not taken - and mine has. No?

peter wrote:this 'mindfulness' represents a divergence from the place where ever increasing consciousness would take you: there is fork in the path that my cats brain has not taken - and mine has. No?

The way in which a cat's brain (or nearly any animal, for that matter) is wired prevents it from being able to rise too far above its own hardwired programming. Left on its own a cat will seek out food, water, and shelter; it will seek out other cats for the purposes of procreation but if it doesn't find any then it won't care. If its other needs are satisfied for the moment it may engage in play with some object it has found or a smaller animal whose leg it has pulled off.

We are able to rise above our hardwired programming, including the ability to recognize that we have hardwired programming which, incidentally, a cat cannot do. Our brain is also wired to allow for abstraction and empathy--if you have two cats and one of them gets hurt chances are the one that is not hurt will not feel sorry for the one that is hurt. Some individual cats may, yes, but in general they won't.

peter wrote: but it takes my mind to really get inside the picture, and for me this 'mindfulness' represents a divergence from the place where ever increasing consciousness would take you: there is fork in the path that my cats brain has not taken - and mine has. No?

There IS a difference in path---but while it is readily apparent/easily observed as mind/consciousness, that difference is the RESULT of the material brain path---which was a result of evolution/environment/randomness. It's not "something different" from its basis, it is what that basis does. Flying isn't separate from wings---flying is what wings DO.

And the cat isn't more mindful/conscious of the painting than you in any way at all.
It may see some aspects of it [like contrast, maybe tiny brush grooves and dust accumulations] better than you---but also better than the artist. So those things are not/cannot be part of the meaning.

And even on the sensory, it can't see as many colors as you [and IIRC, the cells are even different in range, so the colors it does see won't likely be human colors].
Also, it doesn't know that it is a painting OF something else...
It doesn't even know what a painting is.
It has no awareness/consciousness of it as subject or object, as signifier or signified, in content or context.
So it certainly doesn't have more mindfulness/consciousness despite some sensory acuity advantages.

You know when the mind/consciousness could get really interesting [in terms of difference, if such exists]? When another creature has the material basis for it...and we can chat with them. Aliens. Or genetically enhanced cats. [[genetically/biologically enhanced cats are more likely to happen soon, if someone wants too. Probably withing a decade if someone were dedicated to it.]]
[[hopefully some particular lab mice weren't prescient, lest we end up with the Schmëerskåhøvên

peter wrote:This appreciation is more than just a heightened awareness of its presence, of what it is. ... it takes my mind to really get inside the picture, and for me this 'mindfulness' represents a divergence from the place where ever increasing consciousness would take you: there is fork in the path that my cats brain has not taken - and mine has. No?

Peter, this distinction you're making is very important in phenomenology. Mindfulness isn't really the right word, though you're directing your own mindfulness to it as you notice it. ("Mindfulness" to me just means attention.)

Here's some very basic phenomenology. Our awareness is characterized by intentionality. This doesn't mean "intentional" as in "I meant to do it." It means consciousness is always directed at an object (whether that object is a tangible thing or a feature of our own mind). It is impossible for consciousness not to have an object; this is fundamental to the very structure of it, without which consciousness would not be possible. Thus consciousness has an "aboutness" quality to it, unlike any other phenomenon we know. [e.g. electricity isn't about anything]

Our awareness of objects has a twofold structure: "that-ness" and "what-ness," for lack of better words. While I'm aware of this computer, I'm aware that it exists, and I'm also aware of what it is as it exists. Your cat would have the former awareness, but only a dim and incomplete sense of the latter, since cats don't understand what computers are. Actually, the same would be true of trees and catfood, too. Our knowledge of their 'what-ness' is much deeper.

Both of these types of awareness involve mindfulness. Your cat is probably only vaguely aware that the computer exists, not really focusing on it, though if you dropped it on your cat, its awareness of the computer's existence would become quite acute. You, on the other hand, can be much more aware of it because you know what it is and what it's for (... or you can nearly forget it as you explore its content).

This is where meaning comes into play. How do you know this is a computer instead of a chair? You can sit on both. The meaning, purpose, essence of an object is involved in our awareness of it. This has profound implications on whether 'essence' is anything real and objective, or just something we make up. Some phenomenologists (like Husserl) would argue that essences and meaning are real--they are ideal objects. He gets kind of Platonic in his realism on this point. But he deduces it from the nature of consciousness itself.

Anyway, I don't think you've taken any road that your cat has not. Your cat is still vaguely aware of that-ness and what-ness, otherwise it could not navigate the world of predator/prey, danger and food. We are simply more intelligent--aware of what-ness--and therefore we're also more deeply aware of that-ness! For instance, your cat can easily be aware of the stars, if it looks up at night. But their awareness of the nature of these pinpoints of light ( their what-ness) is so primitive, the stars' that-ness probably doesn't register much at all to a cat. The largest scale of the universe available to all life on earth with eyes--a scale that all seeing animals can directly witness by looking up--is simply lost on most organisms. Our deeper awareness of what stars are allows us greater awareness that they exist, of their mere presence.

Thus, this twofold structure of consciousness goes hand in hand, each strengthening the other. I don't think there's anything else there but a spectrum of intensity, all the way down to plants being 'aware' of sunshine to whatever unimaginable levels of awareness higher lifeforms are capable of attaining.

Vraith wrote:
When another creature has the material basis for it...and we can chat with them. Aliens. Or genetically enhanced cats.

How about cats who are aliens?

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

Vraith wrote:
When another creature has the material basis for it...and we can chat with them. Aliens. Or genetically enhanced cats.

How about cats who are aliens?

Them, too.
And AIs.
[And Alien Cat AIs. Whether dead or alive or uncertain.]