Consciousness and Special Relativity?

[madness]

"Take the creation of a image on a TV. Now it is a result of the activity (on or off) the pixels on the screen (pixel activity = neural activity) now has the image got a physical location? I say yes, its on the screen, so according to you does the TV image have a physical location?"

Yes, but the image is just defined here as the overall pixel activity. In the same way, if you define "experience" as overall neural activity, then there are no problems with causality. However, I do believe subjective experience is more than just neural activity, but as far as we know there are no physical laws relating physical activity to subjective experience, which appears to be non-physical.
To reiterate, yes the image has a location, in the same way that neural activity has a location. Working on this level, we find no problems with causality. If you want to start distinguishing between mental (subjective) and physical you can, but we have no well defined notion of causality in this case.

 

[Dale]

I agree completely with madness on this point. If you are saying that the "thought" is the total neural activity then the thought has a well-defined location. If you are saying that the "thought" is the subjective experience as something distinct from the neural activity then the thought does not have a well-defined location.

 

[fdesilva]

Let's say the pixels on a TV screen flashed on and off in rows, such that only 1 row at a time was updated. Say row 1 was updated, then row 2, then row 3, etc... till the entire screen was updated. But let's say it only takes 1/65'th of a second for all the rows to be updated such that the entire picture was updated once every 1/65'th of a second. Once the screen updated the last row, it went back to the first row and started over. Let's say a screen was updated like that 65 times per second. Do you think it would be possible to tell without a slow motion camera or something?

Similarly, our unified experience could easily be updated in bits that are too fast for us to recognize.

Hi
The problem is this. It is the US “in the to fast for us” that is the biggest issue. Let me explain.
Let’s for a moment equate pixel activity to neural activity. The Image to “Thought or consciousness”
Problem 1
Now a given pixel will know only that it has been updated. It does not know what’s happening to the rest of the pixels. Do you agree?
Now let's say it was in the on (1 state) for 1/65th of a second, so before it goes to off( 0 state) all the other pixels have also got updated appropriately. Do you agree?
Now as far as knowing the whole image , we might say, at this point all the pixels together know or see the image. Not 1 pixel but the whole lot together simultaneously are needed to know (create) the image. Do you agree? This simultaneity makes the image a result of space-like separated events.
Now are we going to say the image is conscious? Obviously not ( Else we better not off the TV as the TV is watching itself) Yet the connectivity between neural events is no greater than that between pixels above.
I think we have a tendency to easily attribute or imagine anything and everything to be conscious, just like us, from our childhood, but imagining it to be conscious does not make it conscious.
What we need to have in mind is what exactly is the conscious experience? We need to look at each of out own consciousness and come up with a basic description. Once we have that basic description then we can see if some object has the properties to satisfy that description.
To this end I can give my basic “conscious experience” It is a follows.
There are 2 components to the conscious experience.
1. The observed ( “U“)
2. The Observer(“I“)

Thus if I am looking at a tree there is the tree (“U“) and Me (“I“) looking at it or experiencing the tree.
This is true even if I am dreaming of a tree. Thus in our brain activity, we would expect to see 2 components the “U” (tree) and the “I“.
The “U” components is straight forward. It is the “I” component that is hard. I am not sure if you have heard of the easy and hard problem of Consciousness. http://consc.net/papers/facing.html
The “U” corresponds to the easy and the “I” to the Hard.
What makes “I” even more harder in my opinion is that it has to be able to connect space-like separated events that make up U.

 

[fdesilva]

"Take the creation of a image on a TV. Now it is a result of the activity (on or off) the pixels on the screen (pixel activity = neural activity) now has the image got a physical location? I say yes, its on the screen, so according to you does the TV image have a physical location?"

Yes, but the image is just defined here as the overall pixel activity. In the same way, if you define "experience" as overall neural activity, then there are no problems with causality. However, I do believe subjective experience is more than just neural activity, but as far as we know there are no physical laws relating physical activity to subjective experience, which appears to be non-physical.
To reiterate, yes the image has a location, in the same way that neural activity has a location. Working on this level, we find no problems with causality. If you want to start distinguishing between mental (subjective) and physical you can, but we have no well defined notion of causality in this case.

In this parallel that we are making.

Pixel activity + location of pixels = neural activity + location.

Now we know that Pixel activity + location of pixels will create an image.

The created image can be fully explained by the Pixel activity + location.
Do you agree?

If on the other hand we needed some other light source (If there is a light in the room that is blurring the image) or something else in addition to the pixel activity we would not be able to say the image is totally due to pixel activity + location.
Do you agree?

So from the properties of the image we can infer if it is totally explained by the pixel activity + location or if you need something else. Do you agree?
So the important point to note is that, you need to take all of the properties of the image formed, in order to decide, if it’s a result of pixel activity + location alone or has something else as well.
Do you agree?

Now in the same way, when we say that the neural activity creates the “experience” we need to see the properties of the “experience” to see if the neural activity alone can account for it.

 

[Dale]

Now in the same way, when we say that the neural activity creates the “experience” we need to see the properties of the “experience” to see if the neural activity alone can account for it.

I have no problem with this. If the neural activity alone is sufficient then the position of the "experience" is well defined (in the way you have described) and there is clearly no FTL causal connection. If the neural activity is not sufficient then the position of the "experience" is not well defined and there is no measurement of speed even possible, so no FTL causal connection can be identified in that case even in principle. Either way, there is no evidence for a violation of SR.

 

[fdesilva]

I have no problem with this. If the neural activity alone is sufficient then the position of the "experience" is well defined (in the way you have described) and there is clearly no FTL causal connection. If the neural activity is not sufficient then the position of the "experience" is not well defined and there is no measurement of speed even possible, so no FTL causal connection can be identified in that case even in principle. Either way, there is no evidence for a violation of SR.

"If the neural activity is not sufficient then the position of the "experience" is not well defined"

It does not follow that if the neural activity is not sufficient the position is not defined.
The neural activity is not sufficient but essential. Now as it is essential its position establishes the position to the "experience".

To explain this further taking the pixel example, if there is an image that is created by the pixels + another light source, then the position of the pixels establishes the position of the image, however the pixel activity alone does not explain all the properties if the image

 

[Dale]

Now as it is essential its position establishes the position to the "experience".

Not if there is more to the "experience" than the neural activity. An engine is essential to a car, but there is more to the car than the engine so the position of the engine alone does not establish the position of the whole car.

In any case, even if you say that the "experience" is more than the neural activity but arbitrarily define the position of the "experience" to coincide with the neural activity then you still have no spacelike causal connection and therefore no violation of SR.

 

[jacksonwalter]

Hm..lots of philosophising. The only person, that I've seen anyways, who seems to have some tangible insight into the workings of consciousness is the director of the Blue Brain Project, Henry Markram. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/henry_markram_supercomputing_the_brain_s_secrets.html" describing his current research.

 

[fdesilva]

Not if there is more to the "experience" than the neural activity. An engine is essential to a car, but there is more to the car than the engine so the position of the engine alone does not establish the position of the whole car.

In any case, even if you say that the "experience" is more than the neural activity but arbitrarily define the position of the "experience" to coincide with the neural activity then you still have no spacelike causal connection and therefore no violation of SR.

Not if there is more to the "experience" than the neural activity. An engine is essential to a car, but there is more to the car than the engine so the position of the engine alone does not establish the position of the whole car.

Neural activity is essential, only because it is the only activity that can be found that is directly linked to the “conscious experience”. To explain further if a person who has gone blind due to an injury to say, an optic nerve will not have any form of vision if you stimulate the eye. However if you stimulate the visual cortex, they will have some form of vision. So of all the activity in the brain, the only activity that can be found that is essential is neural activity. It is on the assumption that this is true, that I raise my question.

In any case, even if you say that the "experience" is more than the neural activity but arbitrarily define the position of the "experience" to coincide with the neural activity then you still have no space like causal connection and therefore no violation of SR.

It’s not me saying that the experience is more than the neural activity. You need to take into account what the “experience” entails and explain it in terms of neural activity, that is give the correspondence of the neural activity to the aspects of the experience. I invite you to do this, that is do this without assuming a space-like connection between neural activity.

 

[madness]

"You need to take into account what the “experience” entails and explain it in terms of neural activity, that is give the correspondence of the neural activity to the aspects of the experience. I invite you to do this, that is do this without assuming a space-like connection between neural activity."

Finding the correspondence between neural activity and the aspects of experience is the "easy problem" of consciousness, and is certainly not expected to involve any violation of SR. The "hard problem" is explaining how and why the interactions of matter in the brain give rise to any experience at all.

 

[Dale]

I invite you to do this, that is do this without assuming a space-like connection between neural activity.

For the umpteenth time, the spacelike connection is perfectly compatible with SR as it is non-causal.

This discussion has become repetitive and boring. If you say something new (e.g. addressing the issue of causality), then I will be glad to continue the discussion. If (as I suspect) you insist on repeating yourself once again, then I will be glad to let you have the last word.

 

[fdesilva]

"You need to take into account what the “experience” entails and explain it in terms of neural activity, that is give the correspondence of the neural activity to the aspects of the experience. I invite you to do this, that is do this without assuming a space-like connection between neural activity."

Finding the correspondence between neural activity and the aspects of experience is the "easy problem" of consciousness, and is certainly not expected to involve any violation of SR. The "hard problem" is explaining how and why the interactions of matter in the brain give rise to any experience at all.

Yes as I stated previously in this same thread it is in the Hard problem that space-like connections are needed.

From Before

To this end I can give my basic “conscious experience” It is a follows.
There are 2 components to the conscious experience.
1. The observed ( “U“)
2. The Observer(“I“)

Thus if I am looking at a tree there is the tree (“U“) and Me (“I“) looking at it or experiencing the tree.
This is true even if I am dreaming of a tree. Thus in our brain activity, we would expect to see 2 components the “U” (tree) and the “I“.
The “U” components is straight forward. It is the “I” component that is hard. I am not sure if you have heard of the easy and hard problem of Consciousness. http://consc.net/papers/facing.html
The “U” corresponds to the easy and the “I” to the Hard.
What makes “I” even more harder in my opinion is that it has to be able to connect space-like separated events that make up U.

 

[fdesilva]

For the umpteenth time, the spacelike connection is perfectly compatible with SR as it is non-causal.

This discussion has become repetitive and boring. If you say something new (e.g. addressing the issue of causality), then I will be glad to continue the discussion. If (as I suspect) you insist on repeating yourself once again, then I will be glad to let you have the last word.

You need to take the nature of the spacelike connections into account before you can say if it is causal or non causal. This is what I keep asking you to do by taking into account you own "experiance".

However I will take my own “experience” and show how it may be influencing a causal chain of events . Obviously I am going to be taking some short cuts in explaining myself.
I will start at the very beginning . This is the story

Assumption 1. Consciousness is a result of the activity that takes place in the brain at nerve synapses and nerve impulses.

Consider the distribution of Nerve impulses and activity at nerve synapses in the brain. Let all of these regions at any given time be enclosed in the smallest possible virtual spherical globes.
Then over any length of time these Globes will never intersect.
Thus they are separate in space and time. These globes will form an ever changing pattern. We know that the activity within these globes together gives rise to a single phenomenon namely consciousness. However we know that distinct space and time cannot have any form of connections (special relativity). Yet Consciousness makes exactly such a connection as it is a singular result of all this activity.

My conscious experience

There is 2 components to my conscious experience.
1.The observed “U”
2. The Observer “I” (Subjectively a Single Entity)
Taking the experience of observing a Tree
“U” is the Tree Observed. In terms of neural activity “U” is a set of space-like separated events in the brain.
So far all is good.
Now let’s take the properties of “I”.
Property 1
Now we bring “I” which subjectively is a single entity. What ever “I” is, one thing it does do is able to experience (See) the space-like separate events forming “U” .
Property 2
Free will
This singular entity "I" has a notion, that given a chain of events. A->B->C it can change it to be A->E->F.
Free-will can be truly so and not a illusion, only if consciousness can alter a causal chain of events.
Now here is how I think property 1 and 2 come about.
Firstly let me introduce a simple concept which I will call concept A
Concept A – Definition.
A change of shape of an object.
Example 1
Take a 3 dimensional object like a balloon and change its shape using a force. This would be concept A as applied to a 3 Dimensional object.
Now the important question with the above example is this.
In what dimension did the change in shape of the balloon take place?
The answer is over Time or the 4th Dimension of Time.

Now consider a Concept A in relation to a 4 Dimensional object.
It would change its shape as shown below

What is important to note in the above case is that it changes the past as well as the future when changing shape.
Here are more example of Concept A acting on 4D object.

Now what is interesting about Concept A type changes to 4 Dimensional objects is that it is across Space and Time and as such will alter the causal chain of events, yet this alteration will not be detectable from within the 4 Dimensions but only via a 5TH Dimension.
So my hypothesis is that “I” is a result of an entity that has access to all 4Dimensions of the brain and is thus able to do concept A type changes to it.
Any evidence?
Please have a read of the following published papers. In it is observed situation in which observations change the “past”
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pdfs/presentiment.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2254746

 

[madness]

"Yes as I stated previously in this same thread it is in the Hard problem that space-like connections are needed."

Yes but the in the quote you claimed the easy problem would require space-like connections. The hard problem doesn't involve space-like connections since experiences aren't located in space.

 

[Dale]

The earlier parts of your post are just repetition of the same things that have been addressed multiple times already, but this at least is new:

Concept A – Definition.
A change of shape of an object.
Example 1
Take a 3 dimensional object like a balloon and change its shape using a force. This would be concept A as applied to a 3 Dimensional object.
Now the important question with the above example is this.
In what dimension did the change in shape of the balloon take place?
The answer is over Time or the 4th Dimension of Time.

Now consider a Concept A in relation to a 4 Dimensional object.
It would change its shape as shown below
...
What is important to note in the above case is that it changes the past as well as the future when changing shape.
Here are more example of Concept A acting on 4D object.
...
Now what is interesting about Concept A type changes to 4 Dimensional objects is that it is across Space and Time and as such will alter the causal chain of events, yet this alteration will not be detectable from within the 4 Dimensions but only via a 5TH Dimension.
So my hypothesis is that “I” is a result of an entity that has access to all 4Dimensions of the brain and is thus able to do concept A type changes to it.

Let me ask for some clarification. Are you seriously proposing that a person's thoughts can change the past? So, now you are asserting, not just a spacelike connection, but a reversed timelike causal connection where a future thought can cause a past physical event simply by virtue of thinking. That has to be one of the most absurd proposals that I have ever heard, but at least you have finally found something that would be incompatible with SR.

If you honestly believe that you can change the past simply by thinking about it then why don't you do something about Hitler?

 

[fdesilva]

The earlier parts of your post are just repetition of the same things that have been addressed multiple times already, but this at least is new:Let me ask for some clarification. Are you seriously proposing that a person's thoughts can change the past? So, now you are asserting, not just a spacelike connection, but a reversed timelike causal connection where a future thought can cause a past physical event simply by virtue of thinking. That has to be one of the most absurd proposals that I have ever heard, but at least you have finally found something that would be incompatible with SR.

If you honestly believe that you can change the past simply by thinking about it then why don't you do something about Hitler?

Hi DaleSpam
Firstly thanks for taking an interest in my thread.

That has to be one of the most absurd proposals that I have ever heard, but at least you have finally found something that would be incompatible with SR.

Actually I have not. I guess my use of the word contradiction etc make it sound like I am saying SR is not valid. That is not what I am saying at all.

Let us speak pure mathematics for a while.

Mathematically speaking SR deals with changes in shape to 3D "object" over a 4th Dimension. So the constrains from SR apply only to such changes. (Do you agree?)

Now from a mathematical point of view would you agree that a change in shape of a 4D object will take place over a 5th Dimension?

(I am not saying that you should agree that such changes exist, but rather the mathematical concept of changing a shape of a 4D object.)

 

[Dale]

First, can you clarify what you are saying? Are you, in fact, claiming that a thought can not only directly cause a change, but can actually cause a change in the past? I do not want to misrepresent or misunderstand your position.

 

[fdesilva]

"Yes as I stated previously in this same thread it is in the Hard problem that space-like connections are needed."

Yes but the in the quote you claimed the easy problem would require space-like connections. The hard problem doesn't involve space-like connections since experiences aren't located in space.

I don’t agree with you for the following reasons.
To start with there is only one big problem.
The problem is there is the “Conscious experience” that needs to be explained in terms of neural activity.
Now this problem can be divided into two problems, the Hard and the easy. Solution of both will lead to the solution of the whole.
Note that the Hard and easy both relate to neural activity

 

[fdesilva]

First, can you clarify what you are saying? Are you, in fact, claiming that a thought can not only directly cause a change, but can actually cause a change in the past? I do not want to misrepresent or misunderstand your position.

Hello DaleSpam
I am embarrassed to say this but the short answer is yes. However before you give up on this as a total waste of time, I would like to say that I have gone through every possibility and come to this conclusion. It very well could be that my reasoning ability is not much more than a donkey, yet from my perspective the rational is clear as day. I was able to publish all of my thoughts on consciousness in 1996. It is a fairly prestigious publication (IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology May/June 1996.) It was an article about 10 pages long, it was published under the point of view section. However even though it got published, it very much has not been noticed at all. To be honest nobody has been interested as on first impressions, it seems like a waste of time. I did ask the Editor, what made him decide to publish it, he said my question, which is the one I raised in this thread intrigued him.
If you think this is a waste of time I fully appreciate that. However if you can find the time to go into this further, I would be truly grateful.

 

[Dale]

I am embarrassed to say this but the short answer is yes. However before you give up on this as a total waste of time, I would like to say that I have gone through every possibility and come to this conclusion.

OK, you are welcome to your opinion. The problem is that as you said above "this alteration will not be detectable from within the 4 Dimensions". That means that yours is a non-falsifiable premise and therefore it is outside of the realm of science (e.g. like intelligent design). I have long since decided that it is pointless to argue about non-falsifiable theories. Believe this one if you choose, no evidence will contradict it.

 

[Nuno Amiar]

My question to you is as follows?
1. Are you conscious? (Conscious as defined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness)
2. If yes to 1 then in what component of your body does this consciousness take place?
3. If the answer to the above is the brain then what activity in the brain is responsible for it?
4. How is that activity distributed over space and time and what's its relationship to consciousness?

I would believe the answers of a Physicist would be along the lines:

1. Consciousness is not well defined. From a physical point of view, it is hard to describe reality as we experience as a consequence of moving structureless objects. I believe the understanding and the proper definition of consciousness is more on the realm of neuroscience, logic and computing than physics, at least, at this point in time.

2. The act of thought comes from your brain. Radiomagnetic imaging can be used to explore and proove the connection of our mind and the brain activity.

3. The activity responsible for the emergence of consciousness is most likely the result of a complex chain of quimical and electrical reactions that happen in our brain.

 

[fdesilva]

OK, you are welcome to your opinion. The problem is that as you said above "this alteration will not be detectable from within the 4 Dimensions". That means that yours is a non-falsifiable premise and therefore it is outside of the realm of science (e.g. like intelligent design). I have long since decided that it is pointless to argue about non-falsifiable theories. Believe this one if you choose, no evidence will contradict it.

It is falsifiable. Further it is not detectable, however it can be inferred. Just as the expansion of the universe is inferred and not detectable. Let me explain with regards to the universe first. How do we infer that the universe is expanding? By the fact that distant galaxies are moving away from each other. However, can we detect new space-time getting created? No. In fact the expansion takes place at every point in the universe uniformly, so it is taking place around each of us, yet this cannot be detected directly but only inferred. Do you agree?
In this same way, It can be inferred and experiments done, that either falsify or prove these ideas. With regards to these experiments, that is the link I gave before and here it is again.
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pdfs/presentiment.pdf
Have you heard of Libet’s experiments? Anyway here is one experiment that I specifically designed based on the above that will falsify what I am saying . Think about it carefully.
This is the experiments it is simple.
1. A red light is flashed at random
2. An independent observer who has no idea when the light is going to flash is asked to press a button, when the light flashes. He/She is wired to an EKG devise as in the above experiments
3. Expected results according to me. There will be a change in his/her neural activity prior to the light flash.
Now how could his/her brain know prior to the light that it is going to flash? Please note that this change is only prior to the random light flashes and not at any other time, so you cannot put it to anticipation.

 

[Nuno Amiar]

I'm sorry but our eyes cannot detect a photon before it hits the optic nerves.

 

[Dale]

This is the experiments it is simple.
1. A red light is flashed at random
2. An independent observer who has no idea when the light is going to flash is asked to press a button, when the light flashes. He/She is wired to an EKG devise as in the above experiments
3. Expected results according to me. There will be a change in his/her neural activity prior to the light flash.

How would that be even remotely construed as evidence that a "thought" has changed the past?

 

[fdesilva]

How would that be even remotely construed as evidence that a "thought" has changed the past?

Let me relate this to what I said in the start of the thread.
Statement 1. In our conscious experience we observe a 4 Dimensional object.

Reason for statement 1. When we listen to music or sound we must be aware across time as sound or music will not make sense over 0 seconds.

Question
Now given that we can observe 4 Dimensionally, could it well be, that all actions including observation change the events in the brain in a 4 Dimensional way?

(What is changing something in a 4 Dimensional way mean? It would mean that it would change something not only at a given instant t=0 but also for t< 0 and t> 0 that is to the past and the future around the point of interest)

Read this paper.
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pdfs/presentiment.pdf

In it you will find that you have this random photos shown to a subject, the brain changes prior to the photo differs. How could it as the person has no idea what the photo is going to be?
So what I am saying is when he sees the photo it changes his past brain activity, which is detectable.

 

[Dale]

So what I am saying is when he sees the photo it changes his past brain activity, which is detectable.

That is exactly the opposite of what you were claiming above that a thought can not only directly cause a change, but can actually cause a change in the past.

Also, I read the article and it seemed pretty sketchy to me. The source is not peer-reviewed, and the references were largely from known crank journals. Without independent corroboration I would strongly suspect experimental error.

 

[ValenceE]

Hello all,

I also started reading the article, but stopped at ;

' The anomaly consists therein that the anticipatory physiological signal is larger for subsequent emotional stimuli than for subsequent neutral stimuli. These stimuli were randomized with replacement so that each trial is completely independent of the previous ones and the subject has no way to ‘foresee’ what the future stimulus will be. '

Here's my take on it;

I think that this could be explained by QM…

if you project yourself into the QM realm, everything becomes of an order of magnitude that allows for a different means of information gathering (however it may work) that could very well include the fact that you could, at a glance, envision the entirety of the experiment, including subject, apparatus and of course the different pictures to be presented.

And, as the ‘randomized choosing process’ is happening, this information could then already be available to the ‘not yet aware’ macro mind thus, some time later, generating a response which would in fact just truly be a normal response but represented as a so called anomaly in the macro world… not related to any of this business about changing the past.

Regards,

VE

 

[petm1]

2 An independent observer who has no idea when the light is going to flash is asked to press a button, when the light flashes. He/She is wired to an EKG devise as in the above experiments

Why wired to an "EKG devise" ?

 

[fdesilva]

That is exactly the opposite of what you were claiming above that a thought can not only directly cause a change, but can actually cause a change in the past.

Also, I read the article and it seemed pretty sketchy to me. The source is not peer-reviewed, and the references were largely from known crank journals. Without independent corroboration I would strongly suspect experimental error.

Also, I read the article and it seemed pretty sketchy to me. The source is not peer-reviewed, and the references were largely from known crank journals. Without independent corroboration I would strongly suspect experimental error.

I agree it needs to be verified. I did do a search a long time back, and did find further papers. Will try and find more links as time permits.

That is exactly the opposite of what you were claiming above that a thought can not only directly cause a change, but can actually cause a change in the past.
.

why is this not the same as

So what I am saying is when he sees the photo it changes his past brain activity, which is detectable

 

[Nuno Amiar]

fdesilva, how confortable are you with Special and General Relativity?