Is consciousness at all mathematically describable?

  1. Does consciousness essentially embody structure, process, entity, logic or other physico-mathematical properties?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. hypnagogue

    hypnagogue 2,265
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What do you mean by 'essentially embody'?
     
  4. "essentially embody" - require for its wholeness; sine qua non
     
  5. hypnagogue

    hypnagogue 2,265
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm still unclear on the question... in any case, it may be that these things are necessary for consciousness, but they do not appear to be sufficient.
     
  6. ICF

    ICF 3

  7. That is really interesting. The whole "aura" thing may be scientific after all. hmm, i'll have to ponder this more.
     
  8. ICF,
    This Global Consciousness Project shows that the statistics of retrospect justify would-be predictions - to think that this is a Princeton project! If a person were totally isolated from communication and given this realtime data alone, would they be able to "sense" significant world events? I doubt it.

    In some ways it's actually a worthwhile test but prone to unconscious manipulation. How would they distinguish whether the analysis itself is due to telepathy or purely physical phenomena? The number of physical events is myriad compared to, and also imbue, "significant" human circumstances. The former will also yield different deviations than if those events were deemed (after the fact) significant.
     
  9. selfAdjoint

    selfAdjoint 8,147
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    (Feeling a bit like Ivan Seeking) Criticising it because you can't find the cause is irrelavant. You notice they don't try to assert the cause. The data exists. If you assert manipulation you should be specific, to my understanding the analysis is real time and automated.
     
  10. How are the events selected, and whose society determines their value? Are human events assumed more "telepathic" than those of other life? My guess is the GCP spend the majority of their time "establishing" worldly correlations to their subtle order, much like a "mind reader" fishes for clues.

    Do they address arguments against their method? The data that's hidden, thus what counts as statistically random, worries me. Too obvious; they need to work out the human bugs. It seems a worthy attempt, on the right track nevertheless.

    I stand by my previous post.
     
  11. Additionally, we must trust that the data is accurate and not fabricated.

    Is there a double-blind built into their system?

    Just think of the countless microelectronic and other quantum experiments ever performed that rely on randomness or a relationship thereto, and how their results have never been shown affected by such "consciousness."
     
  12. selfAdjoint

    selfAdjoint 8,147
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    The "events" aren't selected. The input runs all the time, on a voluntary basis. Then they look at the record preceding strong events like 9/11 and compare the response then to normal responses.
     
  13. Why do other frequently reproduced experiments (e. g., EPR) behave exactly according to quantum randomness (e. g., violation of Bell inequality), rather than represent the effects from past events of human conscience?

    What would be the cumulative effect of these extreme (even moderate) telepathic deviations to uncertainty on established quantum mechanics?
     
  14. selfAdjoint

    selfAdjoint 8,147
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    It is not asserted that the participents in the experiment affected the subsequent events, but that there was some statistical, emergent, or collective awareness not of the paritcularity of event (9/11 or whatever) but that there would be an event. The only explanation I have ever seen was in terms of the quantum interpretation by consistent histories, where the reasonableness of anything doesn't appear until it's all over.
     
  15. dlgoff

    dlgoff 3,044
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2014 Award

    Do you have any links where I could study this interpretation?

    Thanks
     
  16. selfAdjoint

    selfAdjoint 8,147
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I used to. I'll try to find them again. Consistent histories is quite a respectable interpretation of quantum mechanics (alternative to Copenhagen, multiple worlds, etc.).

    Added in edit: Try this site. In the FAQ, one of the questions is "Hasn't consistent Histories been proved inconsistent?". The work I found before, allowing mysterious correlations after the fact, was part of that effort to show inconsistence. I haven't found that stuff yet.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2004
  17. dlgoff

    dlgoff 3,044
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2014 Award

    Thanks. I did. Now I need to study some of R. B. Griffiths work.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?