Is Consciousness Just the Result of Electrical Activity in Our Brains?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rothiemurchus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Consciousness
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the complex nature of consciousness, exploring its relationship with brain activity and the concept of the soul. Participants debate whether consciousness is merely a product of electrical and chemical processes in the brain or if it involves a deeper, possibly material essence, such as a soul composed of unique particles. The idea that consciousness could be linked to specific particles or fields that differ from conventional physics is proposed, but this notion faces skepticism regarding its empirical viability and the explanatory gap between physical phenomena and subjective experience.The conversation also touches on the nature of awareness, suggesting that it encompasses more than just sensory input; it involves a qualitative experience that cannot be fully captured by physical descriptions. Examples like Helen Keller's evolution of awareness highlight the complexity of consciousness, emphasizing that while awareness can expand, it does not equate to the richness of phenomenal experience. The participants express uncertainty about defining consciousness, acknowledging that it remains a significant philosophical and scientific challenge, with no consensus on its fundamental nature or origins.
  • #271
thoughts...

>>>sensing can theoretically be done with any organ including the brain.
the five senses are really a broad generalisation of the most common inputs into (sub)consciousness. other inputs can be internal. there seems to be a feedback system in our brain-body-mind that gives rise to consciousness.

***so there is consciousness, and it has infinite degrees.
it seems to be a synthesis of forms of stuff like energy and matter.
it does not have any prerequisites, as it is a universal that we cannot know.
we can know our own version that is 'self' quite well though.
can we assume that our subjective 'self' is the highest form of consciousness? :smile:

-------stuff affects consciousness-------
-------consciousness affects stuff-------

both exoteric and esoteric knowledge are useful for these matters.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #272
Les Sleeth said:
We know the brain and consciousness are entwined, but we don't know how. You'll have to stick around for awhile until humanity figures it out. :wink:

So if I am correct and accumulations of strings acquire consciousness by vibrating in an omnipresent though compactified dimension of "thought" where all is known but we aren't evolved enough to know all there is...

ie...the brain is a 4d machine that interptets only a part a transcendent 10d consciousness then projects it onto it's 4d environment but only in a way that we can interptett being that we are always locked in the 4d system

...then how would i go about proving it ?
 
  • #273
Les Sleeth:
In addition to the sensitivity of consciousness is that most internal aspect which "notices" what is detected/felt by the sensitivity aspect (you, me). The sensitivity plus the "noticer" together is defined as conscious experience.

Rothie M:

It is the noticing which separates us from machines which are merely detectors.
But the question is:can a bunch of electrical conductors be wired to notice.
Or is noticing something which goes beyond wiring.I wonder if noticing has
something to do with a unique effect the brain has on the geometry of space-time.
Perhaps noticing takes place outside space-time and somehow part of the brain does not affect the geometry of space-time.
 
  • #274
magus niche said:
so there is consciousness, and it has infinite degrees.
it seems to be a synthesis of forms of stuff like energy and matter.
it does not have any prerequisites, as it is a universal that we cannot know.

I am not sure consciousness doesn't have prerequisites, if by that you mean processes that establish it. Some people here believe consciousness is a fundamental uncreated property of existence. I haven't been able to find a way for that to make sense. I can make sense of the idea that there is some sort of raw potentiality that exits in an infinite ocean, it's always existed, it always will; and that potentiality has within it certain dynamics that can result in consciousness forming. If that is true, then consciousness is caused and has prerequisites.


magus niche said:
we can know our own version that is 'self' quite well though. can we assume that our subjective 'self' is the highest form of consciousness? :smile:

As I've argued before, we can find out what potential the subjective self has for higher consciousness. One can merely assume things about it, or one can learn to experience it and find out for sure. :wink:
 
  • #275
RingoKid said:
So if I am correct and accumulations of strings acquire consciousness by vibrating in an omnipresent though compactified dimension of "thought" where all is known but we aren't evolved enough to know all there is...

ie...the brain is a 4d machine that interptets only a part a transcendent 10d consciousness then projects it onto it's 4d environment but only in a way that we can interptett being that we are always locked in the 4d system

...then how would i go about proving it ?

I wouldn't know how you'd prove that. Strings first have to be shown to exist at all, which they haven't.

Even if you are correct, your model doesn't account for subjectivity does it?
 
  • #276
Rothiemurchus said:
It is the noticing which separates us from machines which are merely detectors. But the question is:can a bunch of electrical conductors be wired to notice. Or is noticing something which goes beyond wiring.

I am guilty of describing the "noticer" simplistically. I don't see why electrical conductors couldn't be wired to merely notice. But the noticer of conscious learns, develops an identity, acquires desires, and exerts its will to get or do what it wants.


Rothiemurchus said:
I wonder if noticing has something to do with a unique effect the brain has on the geometry of space-time. Perhaps noticing takes place outside space-time and somehow part of the brain does not affect the geometry of space-time.

A very interesting theory, one that I wonder about myself. But if the "self" of consciousness is outside space-time, then I don't see how it can be an effect of the brain (since the brain is a product of space-time). But possibly a much larger consciousness (outside space-time) has found a way to connect a "point" of itself to biology via the central nervous system. This remote self theory has the central core of consciousness always in the same place (abiding in the larger originating consciousnessj), and the point's peripheral operations like thinking and using the body taking place here on Earth through the brain.
 
  • #277
Les Sleeth:
But if the "self" of consciousness is outside space-time, then I don't see how it can be an effect of the brain

Rothie M:
We do not know the brain exists in space-time.Its atoms may do so,but do all
its fields:in quantum mechanics there are virtual particles which can travel
at speeds greater than light between protons and electrons.Most physicists say they are calculational aids with no basis in reality but who knows...

Thinking of time in general:

we can define "now" as the moment between the immediate past and the immediate future.if I don't remember the moment from the immediate past "now" is no longer defined and since "now" becomes the past of the next moment,that should no longer be defined.However we still consciously observe a passage into the future.This means that the absolute passage of time is not affected by the part of our brain that stores memories.However, the relative passage of time is:as we age,we remember fewer
instants of time and time seems to have passed more quickly.
 
Last edited:
  • #278
Les Sleeth said:
I wouldn't know how you'd prove that. Strings first have to be shown to exist at all, which they haven't.

Even if you are correct, your model doesn't account for subjectivity does it?

actually strategic dependence on initial conditions at the time of an individual's conception would allow for different subjective perceptions. No two people are born in the same place at the same time by the same parents while the planets and universe are still in the same position so the fundamental strings would have changed to accommodate all such variations allowing for diffrering subjective interpretations of physical experience and that's not even taking into account genetics/hereditary streams of consciousness...

...besides God hasn't shown to be empirically proven either but that doesn't stop most people believing in a divine creator/intelligent designer
 
  • #279
RingoKid said:
so the fundamental strings would have changed to accommodate all such variations allowing for diffrering subjective interpretations of physical experience and that's not even taking into account genetics/hereditary streams of consciousness...

All you're doing here is attempting to explain something you don't know (consciousness) in terms of something else you don't know (strings). That could never qualify as an explanation.

Also, assuming for the sake of argument that strings are known, how would you derive subjective experience from them?
 
  • #280
Hi,

It appears that what you are calling consciousness is just a progression of attractor states of neuronal (and glial) path self-organization,

Verbal thought itself can be seen as a self-organization arising from the speech and hearing areas of the brain. Likewise visual thought from the visual processing areas.

The true self of being is not physical. It may become aware through a medium of physical experience but it exists essentially beyond the physical medium.

I arrived at this conclusion from experience, not from anything else.

juju
 
  • #281
juju said:
Hi,

It appears that what you are calling consciousness is just a progression of attractor states of neuronal (and glial) path self-organization,

Verbal thought itself can be seen as a self-organization arising from the speech and hearing areas of the brain. Likewise visual thought from the visual processing areas.

The true self of being is not physical. It may become aware through a medium of physical experience but it exists essentially beyond the physical medium.

I arrived at this conclusion from experience, not from anything else.

juju

I personally agree with the last part of your post. But I don't think most of us are defining consciousness as "a progression of attractor states of neuronal (and glial) path self-organization." You might want to reread the discussions about subjectivity.
 
  • #282
Les Sleeth said:
I personally agree with the last part of your post. But I don't think most of us are defining consciousness as "a progression of attractor states of neuronal (and glial) path self-organization." You might want to reread the discussions about subjectivity.

I didn't mean to imply that you were defining consciousness this way,

What I meant was that I see the physical aspects of what you are considering as being this way.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

juju
 
  • #283
"...When we are asleep and unconscious we are not aware of space or time."

I don't think we are EVER unconscious. In sleep labs, theyve awakened subjects during periods of the deepest sleep, to find that the people reported having had very nebulous dreams; but seconds later, those memories vanished. Also, I had an operation as a child, and had very vivid dreams while under the anesthesia. I think we're conscious at all times, but we often FORGET that we were conscious.

"So consciousness involves awareness of space and time, or perhaps
just the existence of space and time, relative to me."

One need not be aware of anything to be conscious.

"What do I mean by 'me' ? By 'me' I mean some entity,quantity,quality that is different from everything else in the world.A soul perhaps."

Or a "consciousness."...a sense of "I am," without necessarily an awareness of anything else.
 
  • #284
Consciousness or being aware can be attributed to your brain’s central processing unit being on. As for having a soul, it’s like hitting your funny-bone! Once you do you know you have it.
Bob Rollins
:rolleyes:
 
  • #285
I have quickly read thru some of the discussions here.Is there a thing like consciousness without matter--i.e. a consciousness that does not need supporting matter?
 
  • #286
gptejms said:
I have quickly read thru some of the discussions here.Is there a thing like consciousness without matter--i.e. a consciousness that does not need supporting matter?

That is what one of the theories is -- that possibly consciousness is something that developed before the universe, or at least before biology. One so-called "panpsychic" theory, for instance, is that consciousness is an omnipresent quality that coexists with the universe, as a property that developed with the universe; in that model, the central nervous system of biology could be seen as something which helps evolve an individual being in the general consciousness pool.

Another theory which I like is that consciousness developed before the universe and assisted with its development.

But of course, it's all theory. Right now nobody's got a disembodied consciousness they can study. :wink:
 
  • #287
Bobby R said:
Consciousness or being aware can be attributed to your brain’s central processing unit being on. As for having a soul, it’s like hitting your funny-bone! Once you do you know you have it.

Well, that's what we've been debating. At least one aspect of consciousness, subjectivity, doesn't seem explained by brain physiology. (I liked your soul and humor point. :smile: )
 
  • #288
gptejms said:
I have quickly read thru some of the discussions here.Is there a thing like consciousness without matter--i.e. a consciousness that does not need supporting matter?
I believe there is. But getting into the reasons would require a whole new, and very extensive, discussion topic.
 
  • #289
This is strictly an idea, but thinking about consciousness forces you to be creative, since it's really really hard to prove much of anything. Here goes:

Since no two persons (two consciousnesses) share the same 3d space at the same time, why do we necessarily assume that our consciousnesses should all share the same 4th dimensional space (time). In philosophy class I remember learning that you really can't prove anything other than your own existence (I think therefore I am). I can't prove that inside the body of you (that's reading my post) lies the same type of consciousness that I am experiencing. Would it be possible that you, (that's reading my post) is actually more like an NPC (like in computer or roleplaying games), and that I am allowed to see your reactions to my post (if we're in the same room), but there is not the EXPERIENCING of reading my post WHILE I have a consciousness? Your reaction that I would be able to see, if we were in the same room, is either 1) one of the probable reactions you will have or 2) a reaction that you experienced previously/will experience in the future? If you can imagine that, can you imagine that maybe, sometime in the future or in the past, I will eventually get to be you, the reader?
 
  • #290
Les Sleeth said:
That is what one of the theories is -- that possibly consciousness is something that developed before the universe, or at least before biology. One so-called "panpsychic" theory, for instance, is that consciousness is an omnipresent quality that coexists with the universe, as a property that developed with the universe; in that model, the central nervous system of biology could be seen as something which helps evolve an individual being in the general consciousness pool.

Without the body, what would the consciousness be conscious of?With no sense organs,is there any role for consciousness?
I have not understood your last statement--'the C.N.S. of biology could be seen as...'.Please elaborate.

Les Sleeth said:
Another theory which I like is that consciousness developed before the universe and assisted with its development.

If we assume that consciousness is non-physical(no supporting matter),then how can it develop or help develop the physical universe?
 
Last edited:
  • #291
Les Sleeth said:
That is what one of the theories is -- that possibly consciousness is something that developed before the universe, or at least before biology.
I think I agree with gpgejms here. The idea that something could develop outside of spacetime seems to embody a contradiction.

But of course, it's all theory. Right now nobody's got a disembodied consciousness they can study. :wink:
Ah, I was about to disagree - then I spotted the wink.
 
  • #292
gptejms said:
If we assume that consciousness is non-physical(no supporting matter),then how can it develop or help develop the physical universe?

A way out of your dilemma is to consider consciousness, information. No physical system can function or evolve without information and energy.
 
  • #293
Consciousness is awareness and comprehension of ideas and concepts that are readily at hand or within our circle of influence. Comprehension of ideas and concepts may include minute analysis of everyday mundane life processes like the simple awareness that one breathes. Consciousness is the mind absorbing the vast horizon of understanding that is reachable within the reality of a finite, physical nature. It is something physical because it is ultimately human; there is no other way of communicating consciousness but only through the bodies we have.
 
  • #294
I once asked a teacher in Philosophy this question: if a tree falls in the forest and nobody heard it crash down, can anybody even say it made any noise? The answer is of course no. We would have no way of knowing; human consciousness is limited by the finite physical nature of our bodies. There is no such thing as being aware or conscious of the noise you have never heard. Consciousness moves within the realm of what human understanding permits.
 
  • #295
Rader said:
A way out of your dilemma is to consider consciousness, information.

What would this information be---information about what?
 
  • #296
Regarding the post of graffix on being sure only of one's own existence, Rene Descartes created that problem out of not regarding the body as the kernel of existence. Descartes' problem concerns finding a link between the cogito (literally, a cloud of thought) and the rest of the universe. Descartes deals with mind-body duality when in fact our we can only exist through our bodies and our bodies can only go about its normal function with the help of the mind. Yes graffix, you will always be another person (with emphasis on "another"). There is no means by which you can grasp my consciousness (we haven't developed the technology for that and even if we did, sharing the consciousness of another does not reduce us to that person---we cannot become completely like the other). To be completely like the other and to consider consciousness as something that can be shared is equating our body and consciousness to a list of genes that when combined properly to produce the exact same persons who think in the exact same way. A case in point would be identical twins; indentical twins can't even think perfectly alike! My consciousness which I enrich by what I experience with my body is ultimately something that will always be a mystery to another---to you. My awareness is something beyond what your body allows your mind to comprehend.
 
Last edited:
  • #297
Just going to throw in what I do know, and leave it to those that wish to draw a distinction between humans and all other animals, to debate.

The driving force behind the continual redefinition of consciousness are the discoveries that we make, every few years, about the mental capabilities of apes and chimps.

From the point of view of Psychology, when looking back the past 40 or more years, consciousness is continually redefined by psychologists and behaviorists... which reminds me of what B.F. Skinner would have to say about the subject... I'll leave that for those that are interested to lookup.

We leave behind a trail of inadequate definitions of conciousness, beginning with tool making/planning, and ranging far and wide to self-awareness/self-consiousness (as in recognition of what one is seeing in a mirror), advancing to conceptualization & linguistic understanding, and even the ability to understand the concept of Zero (i.e. beyond the Greeks) and perform simple mathamatics.

All such definitions have fallen short of what chimps and apes are capable of. (Yes. It was shown (about 10 years ago) that chimps not only understand the concept of zero, they can also understand that a number can represent any object(s) they can manipulate, as well as, act as a conceptual representation of such objects).

Now, for some fool to jump in and define it as fear of one's own death! Hah! That's a joke!

I leave it to those that are interested to investigate the most recent definition of conciousness by psychologists and animal behaviorists, to research, if interested. I am not, anymore.

The definition of conciousness by such professionals has been advanced to an absurdity that is adequately unclear for most people to comprehend. That's an achievement, and should keep us safe from admitting to being as primative as an ape or a chimp.

I leave it to you all to debate such tactics. I lost the desire to do so, several decades ago.

Here's a site for starters on the subject:

assc.caltech.edu Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness (ASSC) at:

http://assc.caltech.edu/index.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #298
gptejms said:
Without the body, what would the consciousness be conscious of?With no sense organs,is there any role for consciousness?
I have not understood your last statement--'the C.N.S. of biology could be seen as...'.Please elaborate.


This is a difficult problem if you've not thought about it before. If you believe consciousness is the result of neural processes, and basically that boils down to electro-chemical complexity, then what I said won't make sense.

But what if consciousness is not created by the brain, but is made of some kind of primordial substance which associates with the brain. In previous threads I've proposed this primordial substance as a sort of vibrant "illumination" since people who've become skilled at meditation report that consciousness seems composed of something like that. There is an idea coined "neutral monism" by Bertrand Russell, which explains the most fundamental existence as just some kind of absolute stuff. The idea is that this fundamental existence stuff is uncreated and indestructible, and it exists in a infinite "ocean" or continuum. Everything from matter and energy to consciousness would be a "form" of the fundamental existence stuff. Now, say there are dynamics in the fundamental existence continuum that can cause some of this "stuff" to become conscious. Since its indestructible, maybe it evolves for an unimaginable period and develops abilities, including the ability to give its own fundamental existence stuff, now conscious, shapes. One of those shapes is matter, and a few billion years of development down the road is biology, then a central nervous system that can sort of "draw" in the raw conscious energy from the originating pool to be become an individual.

Even after explaining everything is one substance, some people still see the rough model I gave you as dualistic. I will explain about that when I answer your next question since you seem to see physical and non-physical as meaning dualism.


gptejms said:
If we assume that consciousness is non-physical(no supporting matter),then how can it develop or help develop the physical universe?

In another thread where I've been debating, I attempted to explain why if there is some one most fundamental existent stuff, then it solves the problem of dualism. Here's how I answered there using water vapor as an analogy for the fundamental existent stuff, water for energy, and ice for matter (i.e., they are analogous in that they all three are "forms" of the same H20 "stuff"):


I’ll rely on the analogy of gas, liquid, and solid forms of water to elucidate. Let’s say water vapor is the fundamental existent; that is, water vapor is extended infinitely in every direction, so we’ll call it the vapor continuum. It was never created, it can never be destroyed, it can only change form. How might it change form? Part of the dynamics of the vapor continuum are temperature fluctuations. Every great once in while a spot in the continuum cools enough for the vapor to turn to liquid water. Let’s say in even a greater once in a while, cooling and warming happens over and over again at one exact spot, so that that spot becomes conditioned, acquires traits, and actually “learns” to change itself back and forth between vapor and liquid; and then later it learns to cool itself even more and create solid ice.

The “knowledge” of this is most realized in the vapor condition, because that is what defines fundamental existence. Interestingly, because “knowing” is present in the vapor, when it uses itself to form water, that water has a bit of “knowing” built into it too, though dulled by density; the same is true of the solid condition, except the knowing is even more dulled (because it’s more dense). Now, if a being were made up of vapor (consciousness) water (energy) and ice (matter), they all share a existential relationship (i.e., they are all made up of the same substance), and all share the “knowledge” that is built into them, but at different levels of knowing.

Because in this case “physical” is defined as when the fundamental stuff acquires structure, we call ice (matter) physical, and we also call water (energy) physical because (viewing from our physical perspective) it appears to be derived from ice (matter) as it “melts”; and because the vapor (spirit?) has no structure, we call it non-physical. Now, as for how vapor (as conscious fundamental existent stuff) could trigger energy to move matter, since the vapor naturally and always exists at a higher temp, when it “touches” ice, that causes a release of water. The vapor itself doesn’t give up water (energy) because that’s not the condition vapor is in. But the natural “warm” way it is will cause energy to flow. Since (returning to the reality of biology) there are huge neural networks set up to channel the flow of energy, all the “warm” consciousness has to do is touch the stored energy spots in the right place to trigger release and action.

The bigger point is, there is really no essential difference in all the absolute essence and its forms, there are just different conditions determining how they are experienced from our perspective living here in the “frozen” universe. If that’s the case, then you cannot classify the fundamental existent as physical. All that’s physical are forms of the fundamental existent, the fundamental existent is not a form of the physical.


I hope that was helpful. :smile:
 
  • #299
Hi,

The real self is (or has) a body-like vehicle which contains its own capabilities for awareness and perception.

This is from my own experience.

juju
 
  • #300
Les Sleeth said:
This is a difficult problem if you've not thought about it before. If you believe consciousness is the result of neural processes, and basically that boils down to electro-chemical complexity, then what I said won't make sense.

But what if consciousness is not created by the brain, but is made of some kind of primordial substance which associates with the brain. In previous threads I've proposed this primordial substance as a sort of vibrant "illumination" since people who've become skilled at meditation report that consciousness seems composed of something like that. There is an idea coined "neutral monism" by Bertrand Russell, which explains the most fundamental existence as just some kind of absolute stuff. The idea is that this fundamental existence stuff is uncreated and indestructible, and it exists in a infinite "ocean" or continuum. Everything from matter and energy to consciousness would be a "form" of the fundamental existence stuff. Now, say there are dynamics in the fundamental existence continuum that can cause some of this "stuff" to become conscious. Since its indestructible, maybe it evolves for an unimaginable period and develops abilities, including the ability to give its own fundamental existence stuff, now conscious, shapes. One of those shapes is matter, and a few billion years of development down the road is biology, then a central nervous system that can sort of "draw" in the raw conscious energy from the originating pool to be become an individual.

Even after explaining everything is one substance, some people still see the rough model I gave you as dualistic. I will explain about that when I answer your next question since you seem to see physical and non-physical as meaning dualism.




In another thread where I've been debating, I attempted to explain why if there is some one most fundamental existent stuff, then it solves the problem of dualism. Here's how I answered there using water vapor as an analogy for the fundamental existent stuff, water for energy, and ice for matter (i.e., they are analogous in that they all three are "forms" of the same H20 "stuff"):


I’ll rely on the analogy of gas, liquid, and solid forms of water to elucidate. Let’s say water vapor is the fundamental existent; that is, water vapor is extended infinitely in every direction, so we’ll call it the vapor continuum. It was never created, it can never be destroyed, it can only change form. How might it change form? Part of the dynamics of the vapor continuum are temperature fluctuations. Every great once in while a spot in the continuum cools enough for the vapor to turn to liquid water. Let’s say in even a greater once in a while, cooling and warming happens over and over again at one exact spot, so that that spot becomes conditioned, acquires traits, and actually “learns” to change itself back and forth between vapor and liquid; and then later it learns to cool itself even more and create solid ice.

The “knowledge” of this is most realized in the vapor condition, because that is what defines fundamental existence. Interestingly, because “knowing” is present in the vapor, when it uses itself to form water, that water has a bit of “knowing” built into it too, though dulled by density; the same is true of the solid condition, except the knowing is even more dulled (because it’s more dense). Now, if a being were made up of vapor (consciousness) water (energy) and ice (matter), they all share a existential relationship (i.e., they are all made up of the same substance), and all share the “knowledge” that is built into them, but at different levels of knowing.

Because in this case “physical” is defined as when the fundamental stuff acquires structure, we call ice (matter) physical, and we also call water (energy) physical because (viewing from our physical perspective) it appears to be derived from ice (matter) as it “melts”; and because the vapor (spirit?) has no structure, we call it non-physical. Now, as for how vapor (as conscious fundamental existent stuff) could trigger energy to move matter, since the vapor naturally and always exists at a higher temp, when it “touches” ice, that causes a release of water. The vapor itself doesn’t give up water (energy) because that’s not the condition vapor is in. But the natural “warm” way it is will cause energy to flow. Since (returning to the reality of biology) there are huge neural networks set up to channel the flow of energy, all the “warm” consciousness has to do is touch the stored energy spots in the right place to trigger release and action.

The bigger point is, there is really no essential difference in all the absolute essence and its forms, there are just different conditions determining how they are experienced from our perspective living here in the “frozen” universe. If that’s the case, then you cannot classify the fundamental existent as physical. All that’s physical are forms of the fundamental existent, the fundamental existent is not a form of the physical.


I hope that was helpful. :smile:

My objection is to the use of word 'consciousness' for something that's without the body or outside the body--because then you have to answer
the awkward question:-'what's consciousness without a body conscious of?'.
May be you can use the word life force in place of 'warm consciousness' that as you propose touches some energy spots in your body to activate the neural networks.You seem to assume that it's some kind of a battery which when connected to the body produces currents in our neural pathways.I don't agree with this.It's perfectly physical processes that are responsible for currents and potential differences within our body.
Having said the above,I am not proposing that the human body is just an organic matter machine.The kind of things a human being or even protozoa can do is not achievable by present day machines.Plus it's hard to imagine a computer or any other machine with consciousness in the forseeable future.But what really distinguishes a living machine from a machine is difficult to point out---very very difficult.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
10K
  • · Replies 135 ·
5
Replies
135
Views
23K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • · Replies 212 ·
8
Replies
212
Views
44K