How Do We Study Consciousness and Why Is It Important?

[Jason Calvert]

Hello I am new to this forum and was not sure where to post some thoughts I have. First of all let me compose why I even care to consider the question of consciousness. I want to first stress I do not have an education in Mathematics or physics. Also am not a good typer. Thank you ahead time for baring with me and I appreciated your thoughts.

I attend to go back to school to study physics. As I believe it is essential for understanding what Consciousness may be. About two years ago I started meditating and exploring the idea of self through my subjective practice of meditation. From my experience I have a few question i would like to pose. By having a better understanding of these questions it will help me better approach a educational path to understanding what consciousness is and how to go about formulating ideas.

If we do not understand consciousness how reliable is the scientific method? I believe the scientific method is the best approach for understanding the universe that we have. However in any experiment ever done if the instrument used for taking measurements was not well understood would those measurement be valid. If we look up at the sky throw a telescope but did have a complete understanding of how the telescope was able to make objects seems larger would the observation be accepted as is. Or would we want to first understand how the telescope worked in order to make the observation valid? It seems many branches of science have ignored the instrument of making the observations us. That why I feel it is important subject for me.

I ask since science is based on observation and we do not understand completely the mechanism (the observer) for that observation. Can we take all that we know as the Fact?

If the answer is no? Must we understand the mechanism or consciousness to make observation valid? How can we claim to have a truly valid theory without this consideration? In Physics is there any evidence the consciousness has an effect on matter? If so which is real?

How do we do consider consciousness in the scientific process?

Like take a simply observation of looking at a color say red.

Their are many ways we could explain us seeing red, physics, psychology, sociology, chemistry, neuroscience, on and on.

If we explained what it meant to see red in all the fields of knowledge and found that it was the same for ever human would that mean we understand the subjective experience of seeing red? The consciousness of red? When can we say the mechanism of consciousness is consciousness. Another words what is the standard for forming a definition. does anyone even know? Can we map out what is needed to define it without have an answer on what it is. We can agree on what a fact is without having a fact?

Or is reductionism not an approach at all because we have to consider holistic systems and interrelationships to understand how something functions. Another words what is the best approach: looking at a simply phenomena and piecing together to from a whole, finding simple formula to repeated so we can build complexity (Atoms, DNA), or looking at a holistic / system approach. Perhaps non of the above. Any ideas, Thanks so much

 

[James A. Putnam]

"...If we do not understand consciousness how reliable is the scientific method? ..."

Theoretical physics has to do with offering ideas about possible mechanical causes for mechanical type effects. Causes are theoretical because we do not know what cause is.

Effects are measured in terms of increments of changes of distance with respect to an incremental measurement of duration of time. Incremental changes of distance with respect to that incremental measurement of duration of time are important for contributing to consciousness; but, there is much more to the fundamental properties of the universe than mechanics.

In other words, change of velocity is important for all effects in the universe; but, the same carriers of information about change of velocity, photons, must be contributing to understanding in ways that theoretical physics does not even touch.

Mechanics is a very complex derivation of a very low level of interpretation about the nature of the universe. There is no connection between theoretical physics and consciousness. And, no connection between theoretical physics and free will. It would be a scientific master stroke just to explain the origin of a proposed mechanical cause such as electric charge.

I am not a physicist, but, that is what I think,

James

 

[wuliheron]

Personally I would say a pragmatic approach is the best. Whether the universe is actually made of lime jello or consciousness is merely an illusion doesn't really matter. What matters is what produces results.

No doubt it might help to have a well developed theory of consciousness and I'm certain we will one day, but that doesn't mean we can't develop extremely useful theories in the meantime. Knowing something about physics can certainly help to understand consciousness, but so can philosophy, psychology, spirituality, etc. The real question, if you are really interested in consciousness, is what approaches appeal to you personally. If you really don't like a particular discipline I don't think you can really do well in it.

 

[bobc2]

I'm not much of a philosopher. However, it seems that physics should be a significant tool for doing philosophy. Natural philosophy was certainly impacted significantly by Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. And early on, Einstein was regarded by European philosophers as a prominent philosopher.

One observation you might make about consciousness from the standpoint of Special Relativity is that our consciosness seems to be operating in the context of three dimensions, while the universe upon which conciousness operates could be a static 4-dimensional structure. The 4-dimensional structure is implied by the circumstance of two observers moving at high speed relative to each other. They evidently do not "live" in the same instantaneous 3-D universe. In Special Relativity each "observer" is moving along his own 4th dimension at the speed of light, c, experiencing a continuous sequence of 3-D cross-section views of the static 4-dimensional structure. So, it is quite significant from the philosophical view that observers moving at different speeds experience different instantaneous 3-D cross-sections of the 4-D universe. Physicist apply this aspect of Special Relativity routinely -- for the most part unconcerned about the philosophical implications.

A philosopher might consider this situation and pose questions such as:

1) If the universe (including all physical objects in the universe, i.e., planets, rocks, molecules, human bodies, brain 4-D neuron filiment bundles...) is a fixed static 4-D structure with no motion, then what is this "observer" that is moving along its 4th dimension at the speed of light? It can't be a physical 3-D body, because that body is a fixed frozen 4-D body. Is this some fundamental aspect of Consciousness -- that it moves along the 4th dimension?

2) Is Consciousness a 3-dimensional entity? If so that implies lots of zombies. That's because when Observer A perceives the presence of Observer B (moving away at high speed) at some instant, he sees a 3-D cross section of B's 4-D body at some earlier time (as displayed to him by B's wristwatch). But B's Consciousness (if it is a 3-D entity) has already left that position along B's 4th dimension, leaving a 3-D cross-section of B's body absent any consiousness--thus, a zombie. Likewise, B sees A's 3-D cross-section body at a much earlier time than his own (Special Relativity "time dilation").

3) Is Consciousness 4-dimensional? If so, all persons are living simultaneously all along their 4-dimensional bodies, in which case there are no zombies. I think this may have been Kurt Godel's thinking with his "Block Universe", but I'm not sure (please let us know if any of you have a Godel reference you could point us to). I think Godel had deep discussions with Einstein about philosophical implications of Special Relativity.

4) If Consciousness is 4-dimensional, then is it really necessary to have the Special Relativity "Observer" actually move along the 4th dimension? The flow of time could be just a stubborn illusion in this model.

I just wanted to indicate by example that physics can bring interesting thoughts into a discussion of consciousness.