Is Consciousness Beyond Physical Explanation?

[SW VandeCarr]

My question was about "thinking". Point me to a source from physics that says that properties of matter are responsible for the process of thinking.

Are you aware of the disease schizophrenia? Are you aware that there are drugs such as haloperidol which, although not a cure, can allow many of the afflicted to live reasonably normal lives as long as they take the medication? Schizophrenia is a classic thinking disorder. Moreover you must be aware that there are many drugs (too many) available legally and illegally that affect mood, emotion, the way we sense things. Why do you think people experiment with LSD or Ectascy ? If thinking and consciousness are such ineffable, mysterious non physical qualities, why are they affected by chemicals to such a degree?

It's true we don't know, in a deep sense, exactly how they work, although many receptor systems have been identified. How come something as physical as a chemical have such profound and mostly predictable psychic effects if there wasn't some physical connection?

http://psyweb.com/Mdisord/MdisordADV/AdvSchid.jsp

If you want more detail on the current state of knowledge of the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia:

http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Mechanisms_of_Action_of_Second_Generation_Antipsychotic_Drugs_In_Schizophrenia.pdf

 

[Pythagorean]

My question was about "thinking". Point me to a source from physics that says that properties of matter are responsible for the process of thinking.

As I've already stated, psychology has well accepted the tenants of neuroscience by now. There's not as much resistance from religious fanatics to exploring the brain-mind problem nowadays. Previously, it would have been sacrilegious to claim that there was no such thing as some nonphysical "soul" and so not much research was done in it: psychology was isolated from neuroscience.

That's not the case anymore, not in the last 20 or 30 years, but especially not in the last 10 years. People are getting over the fact that they're not magical beings, just like they got over the fact that they don't hold the center of the universe in centuries past.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Galois was a dualist and look where it got him. I haven't read any of the posts in this thread except for the OP and I have no intention of wading through it all. However, this quote caught my eye.

Furthermore, any two identical physical states produce the same mental states.

Has anyone in this thread pointed out that according to the latest understanding (that is since 1926) two identical physical states don't necessarily produce the same subsequent physical state, let alone the same mental state?

 

[G037H3]

Galois was a dualist and look where it got him. I haven't read any of the posts in this thread except for the OP and I have no intention of wading through it all. However, this quote caught my eye.


Has anyone in this thread pointed out that according to the latest understanding (that is since 1926) two identical physical states don't necessarily produce the same subsequent physical state, let alone the same mental state?

Cute.

Meh, I argue philosophy (which I am already skilled at), not physics (which I am putting off until after my mathematics is solid and far-reaching).

If two 'identical' systems diverge in states, either:

A: they aren't actually identical

B: they are 'identical', but only to the level we can measure sameness

C: the divergent states are a result of interaction with other things

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If two 'identical' systems diverge in states, either:

A: they aren't actually identical

B: they are 'identical', but only to the level we can measure sameness

C: the divergent states are a result of interaction with other things

Clearly, A and C are not the case when two physical states are identical without the scare quotes. B is Einstein's "Hidden Variables" objection.

 

[G037H3]

Clearly, A and C are not the case when two physical states are identical without the scare quotes. B is Einstein's "Hidden Variables" objection.

what's wrong with C?

for all we know, one of the two things that are the same happen to be bumped by some fleeting random spike in energy, and it causes a chain reaction that results in a non-deterministic change

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

what's wrong with C?

QM has something to say about what can happen to two systems that are in the same state. State includes all bumps.

 

[G037H3]

QM has something to say about what can happen to two systems that are in the same state. State includes all bumps.

Well, I already said that I'm avoiding a physics interpretation, I was just using pure logic.

 

[Upisoft]

If two 'identical' systems diverge in states, either:

A: they aren't actually identical

B: they are 'identical', but only to the level we can measure sameness

C: the divergent states are a result of interaction with other things

Didn't you miss:
D: they are not deterministic
?

 

[G037H3]

Didn't you miss:
D: they are not deterministic
?

I was only discussing a comparison between two things, not universal laws.

I take it that universal laws are much more complex than an endless number of comparisons between things.

 

[Upisoft]

I was only discussing a comparison between two things, not universal laws.

I take it that universal laws are much more complex than an endless number of comparisons between things.

But the list you you put assumed that the low that controls the way the two systems diverge has to be deterministic. Right?

 

[G037H3]

But the list you you put assumed that the low that controls the way the two systems diverge has to be deterministic. Right?

nope

i was just separating possibilities into major likely groups

 

[Upisoft]

Then what about

D: the systems were identical and now they are not.
?

 

[G037H3]

Then what about

D: the systems were identical and now they are not.
?

what i was talking about was reasons

 

[Upisoft]

what i was talking about was reasons

But you exclude non deterministic law as a reason. If you did not, then I don't see where it fits in A, B or C.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Has anyone in this thread pointed out that according to the latest understanding (that is since 1926) two identical physical states don't necessarily produce the same subsequent physical state, let alone the same mental state?

And what is a mental state? How is it defined? How are mental states in any way distinct from the physical states of the brain in an objective sense?

EDIT: Galois wasn't a duelist. That was the problem.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

How are mental states in any way distinct from the physical states of the brain in an objective sense?

If mental states are physical states (non-dualist?) then all the more does my first post hold. According to QM, the same physical states do not necessarily lead to the same subsequent physical states and since mental states are physical states, do not necessarily lead to the same mental states.

 

[Upisoft]

If mental states are physical states (non-dualist?) then all the more does my first post hold. According to QM, the same physical states do not necessarily lead to the same subsequent physical states and since mental states are physical states, do not necessarily lead to the same mental states.

I don't even know why you bring that point. The brains are unique, thus they are always in different state. There is no need to go as deep as QM.

 

[DaveC426913]

EDIT: Galois wasn't a duelist. That was the problem.

:rofl:

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't even know why you bring that point. The brains are unique, thus they are always in different state. There is no need to go as deep as QM.

I didn't bring the point. The OP wrote:

Furthermore, any two identical physical states produce the same mental states.

All of my posts have been narrowly focused on this.

 

[Upisoft]

I didn't bring the point. The OP wrote:

"Furthermore, any two identical physical states produce the same mental states."

All of my posts have been narrowly focused on this.

Ah, sorry, after 10 pages I've got a little lost.

Anyway, if the physical states and mental states are of different origin, then QM doesn't help. You can't apply QM on mental states.

On other hand, if they are the same thing, then again there is no need to bring QM, because the physical state is the mental state. And the OP statement is correct.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Ah, sorry, after 10 pages I've got a little lost.

Anyway, if the physical states and mental states are of different origin, then QM doesn't help. You can't apply QM on mental states.

On other hand, if they are the same thing, then again there is no need to bring QM, because the physical state is the mental state. And the OP statement is correct.

No, as I stated in my first post, QM says that two identical physical states do not necessarily produce the same subsequent physical state. Therefore, in contrast to the OP's statement, they do not necessarily produce the same mental state. This is so whether they are different (dualism) or the same (non-dualism?)
For reference, I quote the OP one more time:

Furthermore, any two identical physical states produce the same mental states.

 

[Upisoft]

No, as I stated in my first post, QM says that two identical physical states do not necessarily produce the same subsequent physical state. Therefore, in contrast to the OP's statement, they do not necessarily produce the same mental state. This is so whether they are different (dualism) or the same (non-dualism?)
For reference, I quote the OP one more time:

I think that OP say that P(physical) and M(mental) are related this way P->M. And you are arguing that QM say P->P' and P->P'' are both possible. But then, the OP only argues that P->M, P'->M' and P''->M''. There is no contradiction. What you say is quite compatible with what he say . And yet you don't sound like you agree with OP...

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I think that OP say that P(physical) and M(mental) are related this way P->M. And you are arguing that QM say P->P' and P->P'' are both possible. But then, the OP only argues that P->M, P'->M' and P''->M''. There is no contradiction. What you say is quite compatible with what he say . And yet you don't sound like you agree with OP...

I can't speak for Jimmy Snyder but as far as what you quoted, I don't disagree although I claim to be a non dualist. I do argue that so called mental events are simply signatures of potentially observable events in the brain. However unlike the public observation of an experimenter reading tracks of particle motions in a cloud chamber as signatures of sub-atomic events, signatures of physical events in the brain may be both public and private. The private signatures are sensations which can only be experienced by the individual. I can't rule out the possibility that some advanced science couldn't transfer these sensations to another "observer". In any case, my basic view is that there is just one nature and if you rule out the supernatural, you cannot be a dualist.

Our knowledge is of course limited, but the question is: Are there hard limits which we cannot ever hope to exceed? There may be. Present physical theory requires that we cannot know of events outside of our light cone or directly observe events inside a black hole. Special and General Relativity may be replaced by a new theory someday, but the point is that even censored knowledge doesn't refute physics or a monist nature.

 

[Upisoft]

I can't speak for Jimmy Snyder but as far as what you quoted, I don't disagree although I claim to be a non dualist. I do argue that so called mental events are simply signatures of potentially observable events in the brain. However unlike the public observation of an experimenter reading tracks of particle motions in a cloud chamber as signatures of sub-atomic events, signatures of physical events in the brain may be both public and private.

That depends on many things that we still don't know. Let's assume you are right. Also let's assume that the processes in the brain are sensitive enough to experience the uncertainty principle. In this case we cannot study the brain without disturbing it. Or, in other words, if I'm able to read you thoughts I'll be changing them in the same time.

The private signatures are sensations which can only be experienced by the individual. I can't rule out the possibility that some advanced science couldn't transfer these sensations to another "observer". In any case, my basic view is that there is just one nature and if you rule out the supernatural, you cannot be a dualist.

Even if we are able to transfer the sensory input from person to person we will not be able to observe what they observe. The problem is that observation is done by analysis of the sensory input and it will be still your unique wired brain that will do the analysis in a different way.

Of course there is just one nature, but what OP wonders about is if we will be able to explain the "essence" of everything. The mathematics of QM may predict pretty well what happens with quantum systems, but is the mathematics the essence of QM?

For example, if you want to represent the spin of an electron all you need are two real numbers. If you have two electrons, you would expect (classically) that 4 numbers will suffice (2 x 2 = 4) to describe their state. But no, QM says you will need 6. It looks like 2 more degrees of freedom just popped out of nowhere, just because you've put 2 electrons together. Weird, right? Yet pretty natural as we have the mathematics covering it. But do we know what is the "essence" behind this phenomenon?

I'd say it all depends on what you call the "essence".

Our knowledge is of course limited, but the question is: Are there hard limits which we cannot ever hope to exceed? There may be. Present physical theory requires that we cannot know of events outside the our light cone or directly observe events inside a black hole. Special and General Relativity may be replaced by a new theory someday, but the point is that even censored knowledge doesn't refute physics or a monist nature.

I think it is just problem of the definition. One can always label everything natural and try to find some laws governing it. The problem is that others can always say the law is not enough and there must be something else that explains the weirdness of the law.

 

[Pythagorean]

Sorry, Maui, didn't notice this post from you until now. Wasn't neglecting you.

What do you mean by "before people have made them"? Before they were aware that they would make them?

Yes. Up to six seconds before they push the button, the fMRI analysis can predict their answer, even though their instructed to push the button immediately when they make a decision.

It's clear to me that if you had ANY links whatsoever about how thinking and perception arise, you'd have posted them by now. All i can see is speculation about circuits in the hope that you'd find a mechanism for personal subjective experience that will confirm your or someone else's thesis.

I HAVE posted them! It was in a thread about willpower, months ago. I encouraged you to look up that thread so we don't repeat old arguments. This isn't exactly a new topic here at physicsforums.

...and of course LOGIC! And logic only exists in minds(especially the ability to predict possible outcomes). Surprized?

surprised? no.. not at all, why should I be? This is irrelevant to our discussion. We both know and use logic. The discussion is about whether the logical operations are handled by a physical brain or some... nonphysical... soul thing?

You do, of course, realize that a simple set of transistors can do logic for us? Isn't it interesting that our neurons work in a similar way? Even physically, the way the handle currents is comparable.

Making choices is a good indicator of a well functioning mind.

Exactly, which is an indicator of a well-funcitoning brain. This is well established by the psychiatric community.

 

[Pythagorean]

Maui, I'll save you some time:




from the thread "Do Mental Events Cause" (also started by Q Goest)

 

[Hurkyl]

Also let's assume that the processes in the brain are sensitive enough to experience the uncertainty principle.

Why does this argument apply to the brain, but not to quantum systems sensitive enough to "experience the uncertainty principle"?

 

[Maui]

What's your point? There are no cooking recipes in the physics textbook either. That does not mean the cake is unphysical...

Are you able to identify the difference between a cake and a conscious mind? If not, there is no hope.

 

[Maui]

Are you aware of the disease schizophrenia? Are you aware that there are drugs such as haloperidol which, although not a cure, can allow many of the afflicted to live reasonably normal lives as long as they take the medication?

What is this supposed to prove? That there is a connection between body and mind? Where did i even once engaged in debating against such a point?

And how does what you say explain how conscious thoughts arise from inanimate matter? Or even what thoughts are?

 

[Hurkyl]

Are you able to identify the difference between a cake and a conscious mind? If not, there is no hope.

There are lots of differences. That doesn't mean any are relevant.

 

[Maui]

That's not the case anymore, not in the last 20 or 30 years, but especially not in the last 10 years. People are getting over the fact that they're not magical beings, just like they got over the fact that they don't hold the center of the universe in centuries past.

We did great so far, science has advanced 10 feet and now there remains less to be known. The problem is that there are now 10 less feet in a million mile road to complete knowledge. The other problem is that the deeper we probe, the greater the confusion and the possibility of all current knowledge collapsing(since science is a tool for investigation based almost entirely on unverifiable assumptions).

For starters, you might want to address the issue of what 'thinking' is. What is a thought? You don't have to be desparate, as there are close to 7 billion people who don't know too.

 

[Maui]

There are lots of differences. That doesn't mean any are relevant.

Like the difference that any recipe for a cake could be adequately explained by high-school physics and perfectly explained by quantum chemistry.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

the OP only argues that P->M, P'->M' and P''->M''.

No, he argues that if P->M and P->M', then M=M'
For reference, I quote the OP one more time:

Furthermore, any two identical physical states produce the same mental states.

QM says that if P->P' and P->P'' then it is not necessarily true that P'=P''

 

[Upisoft]

Why does this argument apply to the brain, but not to quantum systems sensitive enough to "experience the uncertainty principle"?

Because the quantum systems are sensitive enough. But the question is if the brain has any significant sensitivity, or if it is more like computers that have definite states despite the quantum fluctuations. If the latter is true then we can stick electrodes in every neuron and record/analyze the data. (Or we may find way to do that observation in more gentle way )