Can the physics of consciousness transcend space-time?

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Nereid
Er, this thread is in "Scepticism and debunking", isn't it?

Correct. So since there is no way to directly test the phenomenon as things stand, find a whole different way of approaching the subject by first asking yourself why it is your interested in testing the phenomenon. Weed out what you want to be the case and generally you'll be able to find a way of coming at the issue such that you can answer your question. Do not quote people out of context.

Re-phrasing the question as a claim (this is a strawman; Kenneth V did not make this claim):

our brains break free of space-time, actually visit parallel dimensions and can even see ourselves in the future

As a claim this strikes me as fantastic, pseudo-scientific, naive, probably mystical.

Here's a rewrite as a "breathtakingly egotistical" claim:

"My extrordinarily powerful brain can break free of space-time, actually visit parallel dimensions, and even see my awesome self in the future, which none of your brains can do."

That is the type of claim I would call "breathtakingly egotistical".

-Zooby

 

[Nereid]

Correct. So since there is no way to directly test the phenomenon as things stand, find a whole different way of approaching the subject by first asking yourself why it is your interested in testing the phenomenon.

Hmm, just read the thread again to be sure; may I ask what lead you to the conclusion that I had an interest in the the phenomenon, beyond establishing that there is no way to directly test it?

N: Re-phrasing the question as a claim (this is a strawman; Kenneth V did not make this claim):
our brains break free of space-time, actually visit parallel dimensions and can even see ourselves in the future.

Z: As a claim this strikes me as fantastic, pseudo-scientific, naive, probably mystical.

Not quite what I was looking for; 'egotistical, but referring to humans in general, rather than one person'; what's your favourite word for that?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Nereid
Hmm, just read the thread again to be sure; may I ask what lead you to the conclusion that I had an interest in the the phenomenon, beyond establishing that there is no way to directly test it?

I came to that conclusion based on the fact that you suggested a way to try and test it. My reading of that suggestion was that you were interested, not in proving it couldn't be tested, but in finding a way to test it so it could be debunked.

Not quite what I was looking for;

I don't recommend describing what you're looking for. It's a difficult enough task to simply describe what's there.

'egotistical, but referring to humans in general, rather than one person'; what's your favourite word for that?

Not a word, but a cliche": "Barking up the wrong tree."

 

[KennethV]

Hey everyone, I really enjoy reading all the posts you've replied with. I have found much insight to my questions I asked in my posts. It seems that there may be some confusion in regards to the way I wrote my thoughts. I just want to set the record straight by saying that my thoughts were and still are only speculation and not claims by any means. I had an idea and wanted other peoples opinions.

I personally believe in proven science and the "unproven" or unexplained. This leads me to believe in the neurological seizure ideas that have been posted as well as wondering in what else could be out there. Thousands of years ago people never would have guessed that the light that they experienced was a 'real' substantial thing. Now we know today that it is made from actual particles in a wave pattern moving at an astonishing velocity. My point here is that even though technology isn't advanced enough for me to physically prove my point (which is why I asked for other peoples opinions), it also isn't advanced enough to completely disprove it either. So who knows maybe in the future we may understand John Cramers ideas, on the physics I describe before, enough to really test these ideas. Like I said I'm only speculating and do enjoy your replies... keep em coming.

Kenny

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by KennethV
It seems that there may be some confusion in regards to the way I wrote my thoughts. I just want to set the record straight by saying that my thoughts were and still are only speculation and not claims by any means.

Do not worry. I understood this.

I personally believe in proven science and the "unproven" or unexplained. This leads me to believe in the neurological seizure ideas that have been posted as well as wondering in what else could be out there.

I would like to divide the issue of Deja Vus from whether or not it is possible to "see" the future. (It may well be that this is possible. We hear anecdotal evidence frequently.) The point I wanted to get across is that I don't believe a Deja Vu ever represents an authentic instance of this. It is a purely illusory experience that must be subtracted from the speculation because it is just going to unnecessarily confuse the issue.

-Zooby

 

[KennethV]

I see your point, Zooby, and by all means, anyone who wishes to take this debate of "Can the physics of consciousness transcend space-time"(since that is my root question) to another topic relating to this question, feel free to do so. This is an interesting question to me (that's why I ask it) and I want to hear ideas.

Zooby, can you relate to me some of this anecdotal evidence. Sounds interesting.

Kenny

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by KennethV

Zooby, can you relate to me some of this anecdotal evidence. Sounds interesting.

I am referring in general to mystics who claim to be able to see the future in clear visions while conscious.

The reports of this I trust the most are some brief mentions of it in connection with Zen Buddism. After a certain level of expertise is reached the Buddist monk is reported to be able to see both scenes from the past and the future, with complete accuracy. They get used to this and pretty soon it is no big deal to them.
(I don't think you'd get very far asking one to participate in any study of the "physics" behind this. They don't see science as an important human endeavor.)

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I came to that conclusion based on the fact that you suggested a way to try and test it. My reading of that suggestion was that you were interested, not in proving it couldn't be tested, but in finding a way to test it so it could be debunked.

Two-stage programme zooby; first see if it's possible to test, then if it is, test!

Standard scientific method, IMHO.

Nereid: 'egotistical, but referring to humans in general, rather than one person'; what's your favourite word for that?

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I don't recommend describing what you're looking for. It's a difficult enough task to simply describe what's there.

Not a word, but a cliche": "Barking up the wrong tree."

How about anthropomorphic hubris?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Nereid
Two-stage programme zooby; first see if it's possible to test, then if it is, test!

Standard scientific method, IMHO.

You seem to be trying to create the impression that your suggestion as to how it might be tested was intended to demonstrate that it couldn't be tested. You also seem to be trying to create the impression that you were and still are completely neutral about what the results might be if it could be tested. Am I reading this right? Are you trying to create these impressions? anthropomorphic hubris? [/B][/QUOTE]
This term, anthropomorphic hubris, doesn't mean anything. I think you are shakey on the meaning of the word "anthropomorphic". The verb form "To Anthropomorphize" means to ascribe human characteristic to things that are not human. "Anthropomorphic Hubris", therefore, would mean something like pride associated with the act of ascribing human characteristics to something non-human. I don't get the impression that is what youre shooting for.

 

[Nereid]

anthropomorphic hubris

Zooby said: This term, anthropomorphic hubris[/color], doesn't mean anything. I think you are shakey on the meaning of the word "anthropomorphic". The verb form "To Anthropomorphize" means to ascribe human characteristic to things that are not human. "Anthropomorphic Hubris", therefore, would mean something like pride associated with the act of ascribing human characteristics to something non-human. I don't get the impression that is what youre shooting for.

Words and phrases, in any language, mean what their speakers mean when saying them, and what their listeners understand when hearing them. Langauge is a living thing, not subject to the will of an academy, or the wishes of your high school English teacher. Just look at "its" and "it's", as in 'belonging to it', or 'of it'; by common usage, they're the same now. (I still see red over 'affect' and 'effect' though).

With the internet and Google, it's much easier for everywoman to do real research. My short effort to find out what the accepted way to describe 'egotistical, but referring to humans in general, rather than one person' yielded the following (no, the effort lacked rigour as an application of the scientific method, but it was quite fun!):
- anthropomoric hubris has been used
- egotistical is much more common.

My guess is that the extension of the core meaning of egotistical to refer to 'the general conceit of the views of humanity' is not yet well established (otherwise you'd have not challenged my use of the term), but it's certainly well under way.

 

[marcus]

Originally posted by Nereid
...quite fun!):
- anthropomoric hubris has been used
- egotistical is much more common.

My guess is that the extension of the core meaning of egotistical to refer to 'the general conceit of the views of humanity' is not yet well established (otherwise you'd have not challenged my use of the term), but it's certainly well under way.

my attention caught by anthropomorphic hubris (strikes a chord with me) but the phrase
"the general conceit of the views of humanity" is what--Johnsonian in grandeur? Swift? Gibbons? Did you make up this ringing phrase. it is a very good one and contains some humor while "hubris" is just kind of dull and pejorative---tho perhaps accurate

anthropocentric? too buzzy, rhymes too well with Eurocentric or ethno whatever

replace humanity with mankind and reduce number of syllables?

who said that phrase, unless you just now discovered it

 

[marcus]

presumption

anthropic presumption

we have recently evolved from fish and naturally assume ourselves to be the model for intelligent life in all creation
and that our understanding of things is the model for all
physical law

Lubos Motl signs his SPR posts "String theory is the language in which God wrote the universe" which should be tongue in cheek but then his posts undermine that

I have to go sit at a political table at the farmers market this morning but I will try to think about the overweening and unconscious conceit of mankind the center of creation and perhaps a name for it will occur to me

 

[Nereid]

zooby: You seem to be trying to create the impression that your suggestion as to how it might be tested was intended to demonstrate that it couldn't be tested. You also seem to be trying to create the impression that you were and still are completely neutral about what the results might be if it could be tested. Am I reading this right? Are you trying to create these impressions?

I've got a kinda 'love-hate' relationship with scepticism and debunking; I also sometimes trip when crossing from content to process or vice versa. I've toyed with developing a 'Debunking, a Practical Guide', which would describe an effective approach. In this, establishing whether the claim is testable, even in principle, would be an early step; if the person making the claim can work through this with me (or any sceptic), and propose their own tests, so much the better.

Would you be interested in collaborating to develop such a guide?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Nereid Words and phrases, in any language, mean what their speakers mean when saying them, and what their listeners understand when hearing them. Langauge is a living thing, not subject to the will of an academy..."

This is true, but we have a situation here where I don't understand the word anthropomorphic to mean what you mean it to mean. The word marcus introduced into the conversation, anthropocentric, is a great deal closer to what you're looking for, but I really don't understand why you don't either settle for a phrase to describe what you mean, or coin a new word, (perhaps: anthropohubric) rather than commit the linguistic crime of trying to twist a preexisting word into meaning something other than its presently accepted and very useful meaning. If you use anthropomorphic to mean the concept you are trying to name what are you going to use to describe the attribution of human characteristics to non-human things?
Likewise, people use words incorrectly all the time, here, on this forum, all over the place. Usually you can tell what they mean. This doesn't mean, however, their incorrect usage has become correct. The fact they can be understood is a side phenomenon, and is not a criteria of correct or incorrect usage. It does not become correct to use the word horse to mean pig until most people use it that way. The people who write dictionaries are extremely sensitive to common usage and are constantly monitoring all forms of the media to take the pulse of common usage. I always bow to the results of their research.
zoob

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by marcus
"...but the phrase
"the general conceit of the views of humanity" is what--Johnsonian in grandeur? Swift? Gibbons?

This is why I love you, Marcus. Who else would have noticed, this phrase, and asked those questions?
(Incidently, since none of the people on the short list I published contacted my privately with bribes, as I had hoped, I ended up voting for you.)

anthropocentric? too buzzy, rhymes too well with Eurocentric or ethno whatever

Also not quite close enough in meaning yet; lacks the clear indication of pride.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Nereid
I've got a kinda 'love-hate' relationship with scepticism and debunking;

There are medications and therapies for this. (Just teasing)

Actually you will have to expand on this. I don't know what that admission of ambivalence might mean in specific terms. Does it mean you firmly believe in the Loch Ness Monster and hate it's debunkers, while scarcely being able to contain your distain for those who believe in Bigfoot?

I also sometimes trip when crossing from content to process or vice versa.

Expand on this too.

I've toyed with developing a 'Debunking, a Practical Guide', which would describe an effective approach.

My first question is:"Whom do you envision as the audience for such a guide?"

In this, establishing whether the claim is testable, even in principle, would be an early step

That sound right.

if the person making the claim can work through this with me (or any sceptic), and propose their own tests, so much the better.

This would be a rare bird: a person making such a claim who is actually open minded enough to face their claim being debunked. Almost never found in Nature.

Would you be interested in collaborating to develop such a guide?

I am more than happy to knock around ideas.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
This is true, but we have a situation here where I don't understand the word anthropomorphic to mean what you mean it to mean. The word marcus introduced into the conversation, anthropocentric, is a great deal closer to what you're looking for, but I really don't understand why you don't either settle for a phrase to describe what you mean, or coin a new word, (perhaps: anthropohubric) rather than commit the linguistic crime of trying to twist a preexisting word into meaning something other than its presently accepted and very useful meaning. If you use anthropomorphic to mean the concept you are trying to name what are you going to use to describe the attribution of human characteristics to non-human things?
Likewise, people use words incorrectly all the time, here, on this forum, all over the place. Usually you can tell what they mean. This doesn't mean, however, their incorrect usage has become correct. The fact they can be understood is a side phenomenon, and is not a criteria of correct or incorrect usage. It does not become correct to use the word horse to mean pig until most people use it that way. The people who write dictionaries are extremely sensitive to common usage and are constantly monitoring all forms of the media to take the pulse of common usage. I always bow to the results of their research.
zoob

Amen to all of that zooby.

Thanks to you and marcus for the advice; and to any other reader who has some ideas as to the phrase or word, please don't be shy.

Actually you will have to expand on this. I don't know what that admission of ambivalence might mean in specific terms. Does it mean you firmly believe in the Loch Ness Monster and hate it's[/color] debunkers, while scarcely being able to contain your distain for those who believe in Bigfoot?

A thespian who prides himself on the correct use of the language of Shakespeare? Musta bin a slip a' t' fingar.

My first question is:"Whom do you envision as the audience for such a guide?"

Zooby acolytes , folk who want to do their debunking quickly and cleanly, people who read Skeptic magazine, ...

This would be a rare bird: a person making such a claim who is actually open minded enough to face their claim being debunked. Almost never found in Nature.

Hope springs eternal!

I am more than happy to knock around ideas.

Good. Online or off?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Nereid Just look at "its" and "it's", as in 'belonging to it', or 'of it'; by common usage, they're the same now. (I still see red over 'affect' and 'effect' though).

I use its and it's alot, and always have the queasy feeling my instincts are confused, but I haven't taken the time to pin down the correct (accepted) usage. Since you have raised the issue; a look in my grammar book reveals that its, no apostrophe, is the possessive form (encompassing both "belonging to it", and "of it"). It's is a contraction of it is.

I don't actually pride myself on my use of English because in the world where I was raised (college prep schools, 1960s-1970s) my command of English was passable, at best. What worries me is that there seem to be so many people posting on this forum who were born and raised in English speaking countries (USA, England, Canada) whose grammar and vocabularies are so bad that I honestly don't know what they are saying sometimes. The concepts being discussed are usually very complicated to begin with. Add incorrect syntax, grammar, and inaccurate choice of words (not to mention typos), and the result is ambiguous at best, incomprehensible at worst. Using language correctly isn't a form of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, it's a matter of comprehension, pure and simple. I can't leave the subject without mentioning that there are alot of extremely clear thinking, articulate people who post here as well, and their posts are a pleasure to read.

Zooby

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe Actually you will have to expand on this. I don't know what that admission of ambivalence might mean in specific terms. Does it mean you firmly believe in the Loch Ness Monster and hate its debunkers, while scarcely being able to contain your distain for those who believe in Bigfoot?

You evaded this. I'm still not sure what a love/hate stance toward debunking might mean in specific terms. Personally, I don't see myself as standing at either pole.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Nereid Zooby acolytes , folk who want to do their debunking quickly and cleanly, people who read Skeptic magazine,

I'm not a skeptic or debunker by inclination. I was content when this forum was "Mystics and Pseudoscience". I would be content if it were called "Mysteries of the Unexplained". I would be content if it were called "Cool, Weird Stuff." I step in, as I did in this thread, when it happens that I know a perfectly scientific explanation for something that someone thinks might be paranormal. If I didn't happen to have that information I might have offered more of the same, if it were a subject that interested me;
additional speculation along the same lines.

I am definitely not a skeptic, in that I don't adopt an attitude of doubt to begin with. I enjoy a good, solidly constructed debunking but I am equally pleased to see solidly constructed proofs.
As Fz+ pointed out when the forum's named was changed it is just as counter to science to decide a thing is false without an open minded examination, as it is to buy into wild claims without an open minded examination.

This is why I say I don't mind kicking ideas around. The notion of digging in, sleeves rolled back, to put together a debunking manual is outside my sensibilities in the matter.

-Zooby

 

[FitzHenHugh]

I'll start with some general ideas. It seems to me that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality that has yet to be explained by any basic theory. The mind obviously is closely engaged with our physical world, it is nested within a brain. We simply do not understand this relation and we may not understand the physical world in enough detail to even begin to see how it is possible. It seems likely to me that this will be a relation of 'fundamental kinds' or as philosopher's say, 'natural kinds' The problem is physical more-so than biological -- this may simply mean that (in my opinion) the consciousness problem will not be solved by biology per se (description of brain structure and dynamic) but will be solved by a fundamental theory that is 1) mathematical in nature and 2) weds the dynamics and structure (and substance of?) of consciousness to fundamental physical processes, or maybe just fundamental physical kinds and/or causal structures (time, casualty as interaction and light/causality cones)

Your idea about the mind operating on some kind of non-classical forward/backward time transaction, as in the fundamental description of interactions, may not be fundamental to sleep, but an aspect of the basic structure and dynamic of consciousness itself. While the mind is awake, alert, and operating upon highly filtered and pre-structured sensory information, this transaction may cover a narrower envelope, and in sleep the mind is severed from real time so the envelope expands because its is only constrained by the internal processes of the mind (thought) rather than the temporally independent physical continuum that it has access to when awake and alert (the world / sensory).

Also, It also seems a bit absurd to say the mind visits the future or past in any concrete sense. All that makes sense is that the internal processes (thinking about thinking, not being wed to sensory data) are free to temporally expand in some sense. As if temporal logic is out the window. This leads to many commonly reported phenomena associated with sleep or meditation. (That a dream seems to last and hour but the REM period was only a minute long, etc.)

"as every present state of a simple substance is naturally a consequence of its preceding state, so its present is pregnant with its future." -- Leibniz Maybe we should take this strangely and literally. weird stuff.

 

[ZapperZ]

I hoped you noticed the date of the last post in this thread before your reply.

Zz.

 

[FitzHenHugh]

Actually no, first post on any forum ever, getting used to it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Things have changed a lot since this thread was last active. Moved to Philosophy.

Welcome to PF, FitzHenHugh.

 

[baywax]

The physics of consciousness begs a definition for this thread to produce any conclusion or even direction.

The physics of consciousness is going to look a lot like the physics of neurophysiology. Is there anyone versed in this phenomenon before we have to resort to Google for the information?

 

[Math Is Hard]

The physics of consciousness begs a definition for this thread to produce any conclusion or even direction.

The physics of consciousness is going to look a lot like the physics of neurophysiology. Is there anyone versed in this phenomenon before we have to resort to Google for the information?

Well-versed in what phenomenon? The phenomenon of mind? The relationship of brain and mind? You do understand that this is not a simple question that you can just go google up the answer to?

 

[baywax]

Well-versed in what phenomenon? The phenomenon of mind? The relationship of brain and mind? You do understand that this is not a simple question that you can just go google up the answer to?

Well versed in the physics of neurophysiology.

Here's something of the sort:
Atomic physics and neurophysiology

http://www.icmart.org/index.php?id=83,0,0,1,0,0

It would also entail the physics or neurophysics of consciousness.

Consciousness combines information about attributes of the present multimodal sensory environment with relevant elements of the past. Information from each modality is continuously fractionated into distinct features, processed locally by different brain regions relatively specialized for extracting these disparate components and globally by interactions among these regions. Information is represented by levels of synchronization within neuronal populations and of coherence among multiple brain regions that deviate from random fluctuations. Significant deviations constitute local and global negative entropy, or information. Local field potentials reflect the degree of synchronization among the neurons of the local ensembles. Large-scale integration, or ‘binding’, is proposed to involve oscillations of local field potentials that play an important role in facilitating synchronization and coherence, assessed by neuronal coincidence detectors, and parsed into perceptual frames by cortico-thalamo-cortical loops. The most probable baseline levels of local synchrony, coherent interactions among brain regions, and frame durations have been quantitatively described in large studies of their age-appropriate normative distributions and are considered as an approximation to a conscious ‘ground state’. The level of consciousness during anesthesia can be accurately predicted by the magnitude and direction of reversible multivariate deviations from this ground state. An invariant set of changes takes place during anesthesia, independent of the particular anesthetic agent. Evidence from a variety of neuroscience areas supporting these propositions, together with the invariant reversible electrophysiological changes observed with loss and return of consciousness, are used to provide a foundation for this theory of consciousness. This paper illustrates the increasingly recognized need to consider global as well as local processes in the search for better explanations of how the brain accomplishes the transformation from synchronous and distributed neuronal discharges to seamless global subjective awareness.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6SYS-45DFF15-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cbc2e0860ce4c64e3bf80eac6bdec788

A theory of neurophysics and quantum neuroscience: implications for brain function and the limits of consciousness.

Persinger MA, Koren SA.
Behavioral Neuroscience Program, Biophysics Section, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. mpersinger@laurentian.ca
The authors have assumed there are specific temporal patterns of complex electromagnetic fields that can access and affect all levels of brain space. The article presents formulae and results that might reveal the required field configurations to obtain this access and to represent these levels in human consciousness. The frequency for the transition from an imaginary to real solution for the four-dimensional human brain was the wavelength of hydrogen whereas the optimal distance in space was the width of a proton or electron. The time required to expand one Planck's length as inferred by Hubble's constant for the proton was about 1 to 3 ms, the optimal resonant "point duration" of our most bioeffective magnetic fields. Calculations indicated the volume of a proton is equivalent to a tube or string with the radius of Planck's length and the longitudinal length of m (the width of the universe). Solutions from this approach predicted the characteristics of many biological phenomena, seven more "dimensions" of space between Planck's length and the level of the proton, and an inflection point between increments of space and time that corresponded to the distances occupied by chemical bonds. The multiple congruencies of the solutions suggest that brain space could contain inordinately large amounts of information reflecting the nature of extraordinarily large increments of space and time.

These papers were found on Google out of 5,480 sites answering to "the neurophysics of consciousness".

 

[Math Is Hard]

Well, heck we can all go put terms into google and pull back miscellaneous research studies and websites (some of them questionable) that might have something to do with what we're looking for. Unless you can distill these into something meaningful and relevant to the topic, we're not going to get very far. You're just going to shoot arrows in the dark and hope that you hit on something helpful, and hope that someone will come by and explain it to you.

And as important as understanding neurophysiology is to understanding consciousness, working on small puzzle pieces of the problem is where the science is at right now. If you find someone who can give you a complete and integrated answer, be careful, you are likely talking to a crackpot.

 

[baywax]

Well, heck we can all go put terms into google and pull back miscellaneous research studies and websites (some of them questionable) that might have something to do with what we're looking for. Unless you can distill these into something meaningful and relevant to the topic, we're not going to get very far. You're just going to shoot arrows in the dark and hope that you hit on something helpful, and hope that someone will come by and explain it to you.

And as important as understanding neurophysiology is to understanding consciousness, working on small puzzle pieces of the problem is where the science is at right now. If you find someone who can give you a complete and integrated answer, be careful, you are likely talking to a crackpot.

You're right about that. I'm merely advocating that a definition of consciousness will help this thread progress. And some of the results of the study of the neurophysics of consciousness may help toward that end.

We can certainly start with the fact that consciousness is a wishy washy word from the start and that neurophysicists prefer the word "awareness" in its place.

So... what we are actually talking about here is the state of "awareness transending space-time".

Superficially I'd say of course it can. You are aware that you are traveling in a jet therefore your awareness is transcending space. When you are aware of the passage of time, say watching an ice cube melt... then you are transcending the changes time measures.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We have some nice related references in posts 10 and 11 of this thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=58374