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

[Les Sleeth]

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?'.

You might read up on those who've experienced sensory deprivation devices. Also, acomplished meditators withdraw from the senses and experience consciousness itself. If you have never experienced that, then you might assume consciousness requires the senses, and something "external" to be conscious of. It isn't so. The nature of consciousness itself can be experienced, and that might be all you'd have if consciousness were not in a body (i.e., self experience).

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.

No, I am not saying that it's a kind of battery. I agree with you that the body produces its own neural, metabolic, etc. energy. I am saying that consciousness is something different, or in a different condition at least, than all the physical stuff. But I am saying too that the physical aspects of the brain are set up to be easily triggered by an act of will. It's like how easy it is to push a button on an elevator and be taken to the 100th floor. The elevator has all the poteniality for power built into it, all you are required to do is trigger the right circuit to get into work for you.

 

[gptejms]

You might read up on those who've experienced sensory deprivation devices. Also, acomplished meditators withdraw from the senses and experience consciousness itself. If you have never experienced that, then you might assume consciousness requires the senses, and something "external" to be conscious of. It isn't so. The nature of consciousness itself can be experienced, and that might be all you'd have if consciousness were not in a body (i.e., self experience).

How does the meditator know that it's consciousness itself that he's experiencing and not something else?

No, I am not saying that it's a kind of battery. I agree with you that the body produces its own neural, metabolic, etc. energy. I am saying that consciousness is something different, or in a different condition at least, than all the physical stuff. But I am saying too that the physical aspects of the brain are set up to be easily triggered by an act of will. It's like how easy it is to push a button on an elevator and be taken to the 100th floor. The elevator has all the poteniality for power built into it, all you are required to do is trigger the right circuit to get into work for you.

Is an act of will not a physical process of the brain?

Are you now equating consciousness with will?

 

[Les Sleeth]

How does the meditator know that it's consciousness itself that he's experiencing and not something else?

It's the way one knows anything: repeated experience. Some people argue that we can never know if we are brains in a vat, where everything merely appears to be real, or if we are experiencing what we believe we are. Personally I just accept that things are pretty much as they appear.

In your life if you repeatedly experience, say, the results of long-established cooking techniques, then you come to "know" using those techniques can be counted on to produce certain results. Someone who has never taken the time to learn cooking techniques (like my wife just kidding sweetie) might think good results are a matter of chance.

Similarly, if one practices meditation every day for a couple of decades, one comes to "know" (as best as anything can be known) certain things. One of them is that consciousness has innate characteristics which can be experienced. You, of course, as a skeptic can always say my experience is deluded or mistaken. But then, if you haven't practiced meditation and therefore have no personal experience with it, you don't really know if your evaluation is correct or not either.

Is an act of will not a physical process of the brain?

Are you now equating consciousness with will?

I believe an act of will is not first a physical process. There must be a physical counterpart to everything consciousness does that involves the body. The question is where does will originate. I think order is, consciousness wills, the brain responds, and then it depends on what's been willed if other parts of the body become involved. I wouldn't say I'm "equating" consciousness with will, but I am attributing will to consciousness.

 

[magus niche]

another rant on consciousness.

nothing can be absolutely known. i believe we as humans love to construct elaborate stories using our intellect combined with our imagination. i believe what i am saying right here is a perfect example. this does not downplay knowledge though. knowledge gives meaning and motivation and ultimately provides one with his/her own subjective reality. of course, it can be a subjective reality that includes objects (ie. common truths/assumptions).

experiential consciousness is still dependent on analysis of memory using signs/symbols to represent the experience. ie. language, imagery, feeling etc. represent the past, even if one doesn't know what they represent. experiencing the 'now' is a worthy achievement, but one impossible without the past.

a fairly pure conscious experience is being constantly aware of ones awareness (in some forms of meditation), but one could theoretically keep adding to that: ie. aware of being aware of ones awareness etc. etc... and this could be an entrance to one form of multidimensionality, or maybe simply a loop of infinite complexity inevitably prone to madness?
anyway absolute awareness becomes useless in the physical world (not that this is a bad thing...)

each living body/vessel/vehicle is initially a unique sensing machine with memes (instinct) to help guide it (plus family/society that molds and directs it). as we develop throughout our life and experience/understand, this consciousness or awareness of our self also seems to develop in varying degrees and directions (especially with the help of certain external devices); as does the amount of choices become greater (free will). but there are always a certain amount of unknown influences governing our actions through energy fields, subconscious drives, subliminal communication etc. and so it is advantageous to become aware of them via learning and self experiment/analysis...

logic is useful but limited
imagination is infinite but useless
together the synthesis is magic
and the potential both tragic and grand

>>>>transmute the chaos into respectful (de)constructivity.

 

[Les Sleeth]

a fairly pure conscious experience is being constantly aware of ones awareness (in some forms of meditation), but one could theoretically keep adding to that: ie. aware of being aware of ones awareness etc. etc... and this could be an entrance to one form of multidimensionality, or maybe simply a loop of infinite complexity inevitably prone to madness?

My experience has been that it isn't a "loop of infinite complexity." Instead, consciusness simplifies in the sense of unifying. This unity occurs at two levels.

The first is, the multifuctionality of consciousness blends to become singular in focus. In other words, without thinking, one is still aware of what one knows and understands. It is a steady and quiet consciousness that views reality, not one incessantly chattering and thinking and imagining and worrying, etc.

The second level of unity is that not only is consciousness internally unified, it also seems to have joined with an aspect of greater reality which exists in a state of unity everywhere external to an individual consciousness.

In my opinion, the reports of enlightenment have come from the first level of unity, and the reports of God have stemmed from this second unity experience. It is also my opinion that the first level must be fully realized to fully experience the second level.

 

[Les Sleeth]

So do you believe Les that it is an individuals responsibility to achieve union or the collective human races with the objective being to evolve to a higher state whether it be biological, physical, spiritual or whatever ?

I wouldn't say it's a responsibility. I'd classify it as an opportunity.

 

[graffix]

RingoKid:
>>...like in an omnipresent compactified Calabi-Yau dimension.

Ok, hitting spring theory... Could it be possible that our brains are sensitive to something (namely spring movements) in the higher dimensions (let's see.. we've got dimensions 5 to 10 open for the imagination). It could be possible that what seems like random triggering of neurons in the brain is actually its response to spring movements?

If so, does it listen to it or do springs listen to the brain? Maybe both. Maybe feeling the music with thousands of other fans at a rock concert could be what's like thousands of people influencing & experiencing springs (a feeback loop). A "vibe" in a room, etc.

Ok, back to describing what we know of consciousness, I would think my dog, my cat, even a rat, a bat, a lizard, even a spider probably have some type of consciousness that is closer to our own than we realize. They are able to process information, are never completely predictable, and all seem to have a place (we call consciousness) where neural events are Experienced. In this sense, psychological (our past, childhood, etc.) and biological (genetic makeup) angles to answering this question is irrelevant. Most of us can agree that things with Life probably have consciousness.

Ok, I need to repeat: all living things seem to have a place where neural events are Experienced. I say neural events because ultimately all our inputs from our senses get translated to neural activity. What is to Experience? To have a reaction. In another words, to Feel something. All living things seem to be able to feel pain, and to feel satisfied (when reproducing or eating). Is this ironic or nothing special? Now we are taught that this is an effect of evolution and that we needed a reward/punishment structure to survive, but what if these Feelings are actually higher dimensions that always existed, and because of these dimensions being part of our universe, we were allowed to have our evolution occur?
Perhaps each higher dimension is a fundamental type of Feeling that's experienced by all life forms, such as happy-sad (mentally content-noncontent), pleasure-pain (physcially content-noncontent), attentive-non attentive, etc. etc. etc.



allanpatrick: thanks for replying :)

 

[gptejms]

You, of course, as a skeptic can always say my experience is deluded or mistaken. But then, if you haven't practiced meditation and therefore have no personal experience with it, you don't really know if your evaluation is correct or not either.

I'm not a skeptic, it's just that I'm not satisfied with the kind of explanations that are provided here(or anywhere else for that matter).The simple rule that :- matter(body) + soul/conciousness/life-force = living being appears too naive to me.May be this formula is given to the common man to give a semblance of something that's too difficult to comprehend.

I believe an act of will is not first a physical process. There must be a physical counterpart to everything consciousness does that involves the body. The question is where does will originate. I think order is, consciousness wills, the brain responds, and then it depends on what's been willed if other parts of the body become involved. I wouldn't say I'm "equating" consciousness with will, but I am attributing will to consciousness.

This reminds me of a book I read:-'Quantum healing' by Deepak Chopra.If I remember right,he talks of similar things:-a thought or a feeling is at first not a physical process,but it gives rise to chemicals in our neurons which travel all around affecting each and every cell in the body and hence our state of health.This conversion of a non-physical process into a physical one(i.e. release of chemicals) can not be understood and he calls this regime 'quantum'.Looks impressive but I'm not sure.The gap from a non-physical process to a physical one is too large.Besides,it may be totally unnecessary to invoke a non-physical process here.

 

[Kerrie]

let's keep this topic clean of insults and back on track...i have had to delete several comments that are instigating arguments that have nothing to do with the subject.

 

[gptejms]

Let me add the following:-
I find the idea matter(body) + soul = living being, wrong/inadequate because of the following reason.By its very definition, the soul is non-physical which when mixed with the body produces a living entity.Ok,so this soul has to be somewhere within the body:-so it has a size less than or equal to the body.Your soul is different from mine which is different from that of another person's soul:--so souls can be counted.If anything has a size and can be counted then how can it be non-physical.So there is a contradiction.
I won't say QED here.Soul could actually be infinite which powers each and every cell in the body---bodies of all living beings.I can't prove this wrong.
In any case,I find consciousness not the right word for what is being discussed here:-consciousness is just a property of the brain.

 

[RingoKid]

I'd noticed that Kerrie

Most all major religions and eastern philosophies have consciousness extant of the body but very few will venture to state exactly where that is or how we acquire it in either the physical or non physical universe whatever you define that to be

It seems preferred to couch this oversight in mystical/ambiguous jargon while often assigning properties of personhood to this realm and state that it is everywhere and nowhere.

Though on reading a few things it seems that science/philosophy would have the solution to the domain of consciousness within the realms of physics.

I too agree and would argue that the best candidate model to date is within the compactified dimensions of string theory.

Tom Mattson on the other hand disagrees with me and rather than address the points/issues I have raised would rather attempt to belittle and insult me. A most immature means of getting one's point across

I would therefore challenge Tom to put up his best candidate model with some reasoning as to why he thinks it is or at least pull me up on issues with my model that he would like some clarification on.

cheers

 

[quantumdude]

I too agree and would argue[/color] that the best candidate model to date is within the compactified dimensions of string theory.

You "would argue[/color]" it?

So then argue it already. All you've done is state it to be the case. And when people ask you to explain yourself, you simply declare that it's right because you know it subjectively, or something to that effect. That is not acceptable argumentation.

Tom Mattson on the other hand disagrees with me

Your reading comprehension skills need work. At no point have I ever denied your metaphysical propositions. I have explained this to you repeatedly, and no matter how many times I say it you just don't seem to get it. I can explain myself to you as clearly as I can, but I can't understand for you. That takes mental effort on your part.

Back to your claims: What I do deny is that you have any justification for holding forth your metaphysical claims. No one has ever extrapolated the most fundamental known physical entities and interactions to a model of consciousness. In fact, no one has ever given a satisfactory account of consciousness that is purely physical. And the connection between consciousness and quantum theory is something that exists only in pop science literature, and in the minds of those who only know science at the popular level.

and rather than address the points/issues I have raised

There's nothing to address. You haven't presented an argument.

would rather attempt to belittle and insult me.

A most immature means of getting one's point across

Look in the mirror.

I would therefore challenge Tom to put up his best candidate model with some reasoning as to why he thinks it is or at least pull me up on issues with my model that he would like some clarification on.

I hope you at least understand basic logic well enough to know that I do not need a competing argument to state what is wrong with your argument. In fact, to date you have not even presented an argument.

 

[juju]

Hi,

Consciousness as relates the mind/thought area, is just another element of the perceptive matrix. Just another object of another sense mechanism. It is an awareness of the thought process produced by the neurons in the brain.

It is awareness in general that is the non-physical component of all the objective senses including consciousness.

juju

 

[graffix]

Let's keep this topic clean of insults and back on track...i have had to delete several comments that are instigating arguments that have nothing to do with the subject.

I think that needs repeating.

I don't think it's that hard to be humble in here

Thanks

Humble
- Marked by meekness or modesty in behavior, attitude, or spirit; not arrogant or prideful.

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

i've been reading a lot in here about explaining consciousness with physics. certainly any sane physicist must admit that we have not discovered everything. there are forms of energy and particles that we have not observed or catalogued. i think it's possible that consciousness could be based upon some of these forms of energy or particles that we have not yet discovered. but i also agree that there is no observation or data to support such a theory. but i think that's half the point, we haven't observed the particles yet, so of course we can't observe how they interact to cause consciousness.

on another venue, consciousness seems to be one of the most enigmatic words we seek to define. and i don't think anyone has yet given a satisfactory definition of consciousness. before we can hope to discover what causes consciousness, we need to define what it is we're looking for. this is where i can express my opinion, because i believe that consciousness is by its very nature indefinable. but maybe that's just the philosopher in me :)

in any event, we can't hope to find the root of consciousness soley in physics, nor soley in physiology. yes we know about neurons and neurotransmitters, but we don't know how electromagnetic fields might affect their interaction. how might a supernova in a distant galaxy 4 million years ago affect our consciousness? it's too incomplete a picture to say that it's all in the chemical reactions. there's a relationship between chemistry and physics, especially in living organisms, that i think most chemists and most phsyicists ignore. we need to think in terms of more than one science if we hope to explain some of the most complex events in the universe, such as consciousness.

and that's my rant on that :)

 

[gather]

What is Consciousness? or What _Does_ Consciousness?

Pardon me for being at a complete loss when it comes to describing, in scientific terms, the nature of consciousness.

As some who have read my posts here from time to time know, I keep a small record of what I and many others believe that consciousness does.

I have remarked often about Prof. Kaku's Levels of Civilization, too. In the archives.

Please come by for a visit when you have the time. (Not a long visit—only one page—oh yes, there is a small opinion poll going on now, too).

I appreciate your interest and thank you in advance for checking this out:

http://project-global-consciousness.org/

Ken
(gather)

?

 

[Hellburner]

Haven't read the whole thread, I'll work my way through it. Hope I'm not repeating anything or stepping on toes.

Consciousness is an emergent property of matter/energy of sufficient organizational complexity.

The entirety of the universe's computational potential in insufficient to completely model a single consciousness. A basic combinatorial explosion not to mention likely quantum effects. This leads to de facto free will.

Artificial intelligence/consciousness will likely emerge. If it's independently emergent it may be very alien, if it results from intelligence amplification it may share something of humanity...

 

[Les Sleeth]

Haven't read the whole thread, I'll work my way through it. Hope I'm not repeating anything or stepping on toes.

Welcome to PF Hellburner.

Consciousness is an emergent property of matter/energy of sufficient organizational complexity.

A theory. You cannot demonstrate consciousness is emergent, and you cannot show it results from complexity. Until is proven, when you state it as a fact you are not being accurate in your communication.

The entirety of the universe's computational potential in insufficient to completely model a single consciousness. A basic combinatorial explosion not to mention likely quantum effects. This leads to de facto free will.

More theory. You might consider preceding such statements with "in my opinion . . ."

Artificial intelligence/consciousness will likely emerge. If it's independently emergent it may be very alien, if it results from intelligence amplification it may share something of humanity...

Well maybe. All the AI enthusiansts and programmers make big claims. As for me, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Hellburner]

Re: subjective experience.

I really have to turn it around and ask, how can you NOT have subjective experience?

Lets say each consciousness is a black box. Each box has a random seed from an effectively infinite set. Hence no consciousness can have the exact same experience.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Re: subjective experience.

I really have to turn it around and ask, how can you NOT have subjective experience?

Lets say each consciousness is a black box. Each box has a random seed from an effectively infinite set. Hence no consciousness can have the exact same experience.

You are correct. But that's not the point (accepting your confidence that mechanics/physicalness can explain it all). What set of physical circumstances can you put together which proves physicalness creates subjective conscious experience to begin with?

 

[Hellburner]

A theory. You cannot demonstrate consciousness is emergent, and you cannot show it results from complexity. Until is proven, when you state it as a fact you are not being accurate in your communication.

Yes, a theory with some rather compelling foundational basis. Look at the animal kingdom, in general the more complex the brain structure the higher the consciousness. In the realm of artificial neural nets, more complex structures yield emergent properties generally related to the level of complexity.

More theory. You might consider preceding such statements with "in my opinion . . ."

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0110/0110141.pdf

The universe can have performed no more than 10^120 ops on 10^90 bits.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/CNS.html

It is estimated that the human brain contains 100 billion (10^11) neurons averaging 10,000 synapses on each; that is, some 10^15 connections.

Assuming a purely binary synapse (most assuredly not the case), there would be what? 2^(10^15) states? How does that compare to the computational capacity of the universe?

 

[Hellburner]

What set of physical circumstances can you put together which proves physicalness creates subjective conscious experience to begin with?

It's basically a biochemical cascade largely predicated by various environmental inputs and the synaptic weightings imparted by prior life experiences.

 

[loseyourname]

Assuming a purely binary synapse (most assuredly not the case), there would be what? 2^(10^15) states? How does that compare to the computational capacity of the universe?

Human neural synapses are likely capable of receiving at least 10 different neurotransmitters, each of which produces a unique signal transduction cascade, which itself will vary according to the internal structure of each neuron (which is not standard for all neurons).

 

[satya]

How my consciousness depicts "consciousness"

I don't know if there is anything absolute - realization might vary.
What I am writing here is all truth to me.
I practiced meditation from 1987 - I have a weird experience once - It was december 2000 Austin, Seton centre pkwy.. at my apt.. I was meditating on the floor and no drug effect the time was 12:20AM - Its all about isolation - I was concentrating on a concept that:: "something that changes is not my soul - anything that changes is part of nature surrounding me" - I do not exist on the skin, neither on flesh or blood nor even Na+ ion movement across synapses communicating electrical pulses in my brain - I am beyond - I was trying to focus my mind little above my head - as if i am outside the body and just there 2 inches above my head - maybe couple of hours passed - and all what I got is a point of light - that gradually got enlarged and was all around me - then "consciousness" regained slowly - I still felt I have the body - I am sorry to say, for this was the first time I got scared - for I was unable to open my eyes - I was unable to move any of my limb - though I was wishing strongly I that I am breathing - but I was not sure that I was breathing or not - there was nobody else at the house - I was willing I have a hand a leg - LOL - slowly enough I got back myself as a breathing human being - but by that time it was already morning 6:30AM and I have my -dead-cold legs - you know, I felt like due to something I had no blood circulation on my legs and arms.
I concluded that consciousness is all about being in this space time.

 

[Esnas]

Additionally, the human level of consciousness is determined in precisely the same manner... stimuli impinge upon our various sensory receptors. It is from these myriad of "collisions" from solid molecules triggering olfaction and taste, photons striking our retina for sight, touching or being touched, hearing sound waves, speech from air molecules passing over our vocal chords. ...What IS consciousness must first be answered. I have yet to arrive at a conclusion that I find entirely satisfactory.

This brings me to the connection between consciousness and observation. I cannot imagine consciousness without some form of observation. Quantum physics makes the connection between quantum reality and the method of observation or measuring. This puts a totally different spin on things. (No pun intended) The existence of an electron depends on how and if it is observed. Besides the intriguing question "What is consciousness?" there is also the following question. Does consciousness exist because of some interaction in the material world or does the material world exist because of consciousness?

 

[sid_galt]

The existence of an electron depends on how and if it is observed. Besides the intriguing question "What is consciousness?" there is also the following question. Does consciousness exist because of some interaction in the material world or does the material world exist because of consciousness?

According to quantum physics, the properties of an electron depend on observation not the existence itself.

Consciousness is not a primary. Existence is is. Without existence, consciousness is not possible.

 

[loseyourname]

The existence of an electron depends on how and if it is observed. Besides the intriguing question "What is consciousness?" there is also the following question. Does consciousness exist because of some interaction in the material world or does the material world exist because of consciousness?

You shouldn't state your interpretation here as if it is not contentious. By "observation," many researchers only mean the physical interaction of photon and electron. The relevance of conscious experience of the observation is not known and not even investigated as far as I know. You're relying on interpretation of data that are far from standard.

 

[Fliption]

You shouldn't state your interpretation here as if it is not contentious. By "observation," many researchers only mean the physical interaction of photon and electron. The relevance of conscious experience of the observation is not known and not even investigated as far as I know. You're relying on interpretation of data that are far from standard.

Loseyourname is right that it is contentious. But only in this forum. It seems that some in this forum still seem to want to cling to the billiard ball physics of subatomic particles. Everything else I have ever read doesn't do this. I even saw a science program on television the other day ( I know, I know this is "pop science" blah! ) and they explicitly claimed in this program that "measurement" was more than just interaction of sub-atomic particles. Here is a link to a long thread on this very topic.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2971&page=1&pp=15

Note the original posters attitude toward anything other than "particle from measuring device interacts with particle to be measured and changes it." This is the uncertainty principle to him. But as I said, there is a lot of information out there claiming that uncertainty runs much deeper than this and this information isn't sponsored by the 'Mystics of America' as some would have you think.

 

[RingoKid]

No one has ever extrapolated the most fundamental known physical entities and interactions to a model of consciousness. In fact, no one has ever given a satisfactory account of consciousness that is purely physical. And the connection between consciousness and quantum theory is something that exists only in pop science literature, and in the minds of those who only know science at the popular level.

So am I the first then ?

BTW I think you mean brains instead of minds. Connections have always been there but you probably wouldn't recognize them if science is your God ...

It takes 2 to argue and no one seems to be arguing with me on my speculation of a repository for consciousness in a compactified dimension of string theory. The only argument I'm getting is from you on the method in which I invite argument by stating what I believe to be true as a statement of fact.

I don't have to prove I'm right to anybody, however you seem to have to prove I'm wrong to everybody so just keep pissing in the wind Tom.

time will tell...

 

[loseyourname]

Why not ask the people that actually know?

I think the Copenhagen doctrine is correct if we just say that the interaction "could" be known. QM does appear to be controlled by information or knowledge. For example, just knowing the location of a photon at one slit of the double slit experiment eliminates the interference fringe pattern, no matter how slight the photon is perturbed in the experiment. The location of the photon in this case is actually known, even if removed from the human observer by several layers of instruments and processing time. The interesting thing is that the waves know to collapse long before the human knows what they have done. It seems to happen instantly. Some try to argue that a cosmic consciousness is involved. But it is sufficient for scientific purposes to just extent the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM to 'could' observe.

In experiments the human often perturbs the environment by making a measurement of where the photon is. But in natural processes, very strong perturbations revealing the locations of the photons happen all the time, like at the detector screen, which usually absorbs the photon. But photons are constantly being absorbed by various surfaces and the interaction locates the photon. Sometimes humans get to know this, but almost all the time there is no human intervention, yet the Extended Copenhagen Interpretition would work.

That answer was given in the quantum physics forum, which would be the proper place to ask this question. Those of us here in the metaphysics forum really don't know what we're talking about. All uncertainty is to me is this:

Dp Dq > h / 4p

DE Dt > h / 4p

• Let's say you measure the position of a moving electron with such great accuracy that Dq is very small. What happens to the precision of the momentum Dp, which you measure at the same instant? From the first relation, we have
  
  Dp > h / 4 p Dq
  
  You can see that the uncertainty in the momentum measurement, Dp is very large, since Dq in the denominator is very small. In fact, if the precision of the position measurement gets so great that the uncertainty Dq gets so small that it approaches zero, then Dp gets so large that it approaches infinity or becomes completely undefined.

From http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08a.htm

I guess I don't see too much metaphysical relevance in this fact alone. In fact, there are literally thousands of measurements that can be made of quantities other than momentum, position, energy, and time that are not subject to these relations. Furthermore, the relations do not apply to macroscopic entities. Even if the subatomic particles that constitute all matter are subject to probabilistic modeling, when put together into human-size objects, the statistical aberrations cancel out and we get certainty. I can definitely know my own position and momentum, or Fliption's energy and time. Which brings me to the only metaphysical question I've ever had about the uncertainty principle: Why would a conscious observer be relevant if we've only been able to consciously observe entities subject to uncertainty for less than several decades?

Then again, by my own admission, I really have no idea what I'm talking about with respect to this matter. For that reason, I've linked Fliption's post to a thread in the Quantum Physics forum and, with any luck, someone who does know what she is talking about can help us out.

Here is the thread.

 

[RingoKid]

strategic dependence on initial conditions allows for differing subjective experience by the observer...

...given that no two observers occupy the same space at the same time.

No two people have the same frame of reference...

 

[graffix]

For example, just knowing the location of a photon at one slit of the double slit experiment eliminates the interference fringe pattern, no matter how slight the photon is perturbed in the experiment. The location of the photon in this case is actually known, even if removed from the human observer by several layers of instruments and processing time. The interesting thing is that the waves know to collapse long before the human knows what they have done. It seems to happen instantly. Some try to argue that a cosmic consciousness is involved. But it is sufficient for scientific purposes to just extent the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM to 'could' observe.

I'm not sure if this is accurate or maybe I'm not interpreting this correctly. If what I read about double slit experiments is true, you can do interesting things like:

Set up the experiment with 2 slits (=wave pattern) with light detectors (=particle pattern), shoot the particles, and afterwards do not look at the results for the light detectors (=?) and without examining the pattern on the wall, go take a lunch.

Once back from lunch, delete the light detector results (w/o looking at it) and when you examine the wall, you will get a wave pattern!

Of course if you read the detector results when you come back, you will have the particle pattern... But how does it know what you're going to do, or have you changed the past?

The main reason for debate with the double slit experiment is what exactly happens when we try to scale up the interpretations from particles to day to day objects. And the answer to that is really the answer to what exactly is reality. According to quantum theory all particles are in state of superpositions until a collapse in its wave function (by observation).. And scientiests can send protons, carbon atoms, helium atoms, etc. through the double slit with same results.

A way to describe the quantum collapse of superpositions (wave functions) by observors is to say that reality and our free will are different sides of the same coin. The closeness of the two is one such that no amount of space or time can separate their one-ness. I say no amount of space since we can already send information faster than speed of light (instantaneous) using quantum methods. In other words, their connection is above space time.

BTW I appreciated someone's post on meditation. I believe scientists, skeptics and everyone on this form can spend a life time trying to 'describe' and 'map-out' what this one-ness is when the actual Feeling of one-ness is actually very accessbile.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Don't mean to sidetrack this thread but here's my "answer" to the question, "what is consciousness?" Please carry on with your discussion.

I think consciousness is one of those terms that either can't be well defined and/or not everyone will agree on a definiton.

But, then again, what is consciousness is not necessarily a question of definitons.

Continuing to interpret the question as of definiton, here's what I propose:

consciousness is that of a being which can process, can perceive, can react and can be 'silent'.

You'll prove my first statement right if you disagree with this definiton. I know Tom loves "proofs"... But we all know you can't prove a definiton; definitons are either useful or useless not right nor wrong.

Now interpreting the consciousness question as not about definiton... what isconsciousness? Well, the stupid answer is that consciousness is.

Consciousness is the quintessence of being.

There are different forms of consiousness; each person presumably has a different consciousness although they may be linked somehow or all different facets of one consiousness. In addition to the variation of consciousness among you humans there is the consciousness possessed by other beings (cats, computers, ETs, etc), which are all presumably different.

This definiton of consciousness does not (to my knowledge) imply that it is necessarily physically based/originated/propogated or necessarily non-physically based/originated/propogated. Agruments for the physicality (or nonphysicality) of consciousness that depend on the definiton of consciousness leading to that conclusion, and the two sides using different definitions to suit their desires, have no meaning for me.

 

[quantumdude]

So am I the first then ?

No, because you haven't done it.

BTW I think you mean brains instead of minds. Connections have always been there but you probably wouldn't recognize them if science is your God ...

No, I meant "minds".

It takes 2 to argue and no one seems to be arguing with me on my speculation of a repository for consciousness in a compactified dimension of string theory.

It only takes one person to present an argument: the claimant.

The only argument I'm getting is from you on the method in which I invite argument by stating what I believe to be true as a statement of fact.

The argument you're getting from me is that you present no reason whatsoever to believe that your statements are indeed factual.

I don't have to prove I'm right to anybody,

You have to argue your case if you want it to remain at Physics Forums.

however you seem to have to prove I'm wrong to everybody so just keep pissing in the wind Tom.

I can't believe you still don't get it.

I repeat:

Your reading comprehension skills need work. At no point have I ever denied your metaphysical propositions. I have explained this to you repeatedly, and no matter how many times I say it you just don't seem to get it. I can explain myself to you as clearly as I can, but I can't understand for you. That takes mental effort on your part.

Back to your claims: What I do deny is that you have any justification for holding forth your metaphysical claims.

 

[Paul Martin]

No one has ever extrapolated the most fundamental known physical entities and interactions to a model of consciousness. In fact, no one has ever given a satisfactory account of consciousness that is purely physical. And the connection between consciousness and quantum theory is something that exists only in pop science literature, and in the minds of those who only know science at the popular level.

I would appreciate any comments you might have on a hypothesis which makes sense to me. I think it has some similarities to Ringo's, and it has some similarities to Berkeley's, although I don't ascribe any of the attributes to God that Berkeley does. Here is my hypothesis along with definitions for some of the terms I will use.

Definition: 'Consciousness' is the personal experience that I (the author of this post) have of perceiving, conceiving, remembering and willing, along with the experience of knowing that I have the capability to experience those four things. To the extent that there may be others (in particular, you, Tom and other readers of this post) who might experience consciousness, it seems reasonable and acceptable to me for them to define 'consciousness' from their own personal points of view rather than from mine. I think it is safe to assume that the different experiences of consciousness we share are similar enough to consider them to be the same type of thing.

Definition: 'Thought' is any and all information available to consciousness and which is associated with perception, conception, recall, or intent.

Hypothesis: The only thing that exists in reality is a single finite consciousness with its thoughts.

Extrapolation to physical entities: We can account for the existence of physical reality as patterns in the thoughts of the single finite consciousness. The basic strategy for this extrapolation is given by John Wheeler's "It from bit". That is, the trend in the identification of the fundamental constituents of matter and energy seems to point in the direction of those constituents being nothing more than information, i.e. vector spaces with the characteristics of fields, and sets of numbers (coordinates within the vector spaces along with quantum numbers) with the characteristics of particles. Therefore, since thoughts are information, and since these constituents are information, it is no stretch to suppose that physical reality in total is nothing but thoughts in that consciousness.

Connection between consciousness and quantum theory: Being one who knows science only at the popular level, I will look to you to straighten me out on this, Tom.

From what I understand, the outcome of certain physical interactions is indeterminate within some range of uncertainty, and that the actual outcome of any such event is "random", meaning unpredictable by human minds or instruments.

If you assume my hypothesis, then what we call physical interactions actually take place in the single consciousness as transformations of certain information which is associated with the particles and fields involved in the particular interactions. The range of uncertainty of the outcome of a particular quantum interaction allows the possibility for at least two mechanisms: 1. The single consciousness may use some type of randomizing algorithm to determine the outcome (God playing dice, in Einstein's terms), and 2. The single consciousness may exercise some amount of deliberate choice in determining the outcome of a particular interaction. Both of these make sense to me.

The explanation of the appearance of consciousness in association with brains is fairly straightforward. In the direction of brain to consciousness, as required for perception of physical phenomena, the only required mechanism would be for consciousness to be able to access, or attend to, certain of the patterns of information (thought) already present. That would seem to be a given.

In the other direction, i.e. from consciousness to brain, as in the initiation and execution of willful acts, some cause for some physical actions must be induced by conscious thought. Those initial actions, then, could cause a cascade of further actions eventually resulting in a pattern of firing of certain neurons, thus causing muscle action and all the consequences of that. The only mystery is how deliberate thoughts could cause the initial actions without breaking the laws of physics. With my admittedly naive understanding of quantum mechanics, I would like to humbly suggest that those initial actions might be putative "random" quantum events, which in reality would not be random but instead deliberately and consciously chosen. Given my hypothesis, this mechanism would also be straightforward.

As for the specific initial physical actions which might precipitate the chain of events culminating in a free-will-induced action, I think Penrose and Hammeroff have suggested a good possibility: the "flipping" of bi-stable dimers which are the fundamental molecular constituents of the microtubules in the neurons. I will leave it to them to elaborate on the details of how this might work.

I would appreciate anyone who will point out errors in my discussion or who will show how the problems raised by this hypothesis are any more difficult than the "hard problems" of explaining how consciousness can emerge from physical structures or how any physical structures might come into existence in the first place.

Happy New Year to all,

Paul

 

[graffix]

That is, the trend in the identification of the fundamental constituents of matter and energy seems to point in the direction of those constituents being nothing more than information, i.e. vector spaces with the characteristics of fields, and sets of numbers (coordinates within the vector spaces along with quantum numbers) with the characteristics of particles.Therefore, since thoughts are information, and since these constituents are information, it is no stretch to suppose that physical reality in total is nothing but thoughts in that consciousness.

I'm not sure about this explanation. We give them coordinates and numbers to describe what they are so information can be used to describe anything. I would think our thoughts on the other hand are memories stored inside neurons that reside in the physical world (our brain). Our thoughts about say a book on my desk is a very very rough approximations of what actually lies there. There is an endless amount of detail (information) that can extrapolated from what's inside this book and what's on my desk, ie the actual particles in it, etc. and i think it's a stretch to say 'since these constituents are information'. I realize as I write this I'm not in total disagreement =), but rather interested in finding out how you want go about filling some gaps. I do agree that reality probably resemble more close to what we think of information versus what we think of things existing physically.

1. The single consciousness may use some type of randomizing algorithm to determine the outcome (God playing dice, in Einstein's terms),

The only mystery is how deliberate thoughts could cause the initial actions without breaking the laws of physics.

It could be possible, as I've posted previously, that the unpredictable firing of neurons in our brains could be attributed by springs. Springs move in 10 dimensions so that's 6 more dimensions left to our imagination. They also have quantum jitters that's unpredictable (it seems that small things all got the jitters.. sit still damnit!). It's possible that our brains are sensitive to what goes on with very very tiny constituents of our universe.

But even if this was the case, I'm not sure if it explains why is it that I get to experience what I'm experiencing right now. I was just thinking isn't there a simpler answer to "What is Consciousness?" Someone should of just said, "what your experiencing right now" and closed this damn forum. jk jk jk

 

[Esnas]

properties of matter and existence

According to quantum physics, the properties of an electron depend on observation not the existence itself.

Can something exist and not have any properties? Existence implies properties. In order to make an observation something must have at least a quantitative property even if the qualitative property cannot be given. If the properties of the electron depend on observation, then it's existence depends also on observation (including measurement and methods of measuremnet). Heisenberg uses the term "potentia" for the electron before it exhibits a property. (Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy: The Evolution in Modern Science.)

 

[Esnas]

You shouldn't state your interpretation here as if it is not contentious. By "observation," many researchers only mean the physical interaction of photon and electron. The relevance of conscious experience of the observation is not known and not even investigated as far as I know. You're relying on interpretation of data that are far from standard.

Perhaps the interpretations that I made are a bit contentious but have certainly been talked about. This is especially true of those who have not simply accepted the Copenhagen interpretation (Neils Bohr). Some physicist see a need for a comprehensive theory which includes an understanding of consciousness if there is going to be a unified field theory which brings together quantum theory, relativity, quantum gravity, etc.(Roger Penrose). For some scientist who have a philosophical bent, we have come full circle if we try to use quantum reality to describe consciousness because consciousness ends up as a rather primitive component.

 

[sid_galt]

According to quantum physics, the properties of an electron depend on observation not the existence itself.

Can something exist and not have any properties? Existence implies properties. In order to make an observation something must have at least a quantitative property even if the qualitative property cannot be given. If the properties of the electron depend on observation, then it's existence depends also on observation (including measurement and methods of measuremnet). Heisenberg uses the term "potentia" for the electron before it exhibits a property. (Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy: The Evolution in Modern Science.)

Sorry, I meant value of properties, not properties themselves. For e.g. in an atom, we may not be knowing the properties of an electron in the atom but the existence of that electron is not in question.
That is what I meant when I said that existence does not depend on observation or that the fact that we have observed an electron or not has no effect on whether it exists.

Note that I do not know a lot of quantum physics so I may be way of the mark here.

 

[Fliption]

Why not ask the people that actually know?

Then again, by my own admission, I really have no idea what I'm talking about with respect to this matter. For that reason, I've linked Fliption's post to a thread in the Quantum Physics forum and, with any luck, someone who does know what she is talking about can help us out.

Here is the thread.

I hope you realize that I've already thought of this. I do understand that the philosophy forum isn't the place to get an understanding of Quantum Physics. I think what you'll find from your thread in the QM forum is more disagreement and no real consensus as it relates to what the word "observation" means. Even if a small consensus develops, it will not address results of various experiments. I've already been down this road. But I'll gladly follow along, in case I'm wrong.

Here's the latest link where I've had this conversation.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=24534

 

[freep2]

Did Moses violate physics when he parted the Red Sea? Or is it that non Earth based reality governs all? Was the big bang just an accident? If what we call God actually
Infinite Energy? Is it possible for a brain operating at the alpha frequency/voltage to perceive any of the higher vibrations/realities. A clue: Delta>Theta brain wave state
will lead you to these other realities. That is the interface. peace.

 

[Astronuc]

This seems to be the most appropriate thread for this link:

Toward a Science of Consciousness

Mathematics: The Bridge to an Integral Science of Experience

by Thomas J. McFarlane

 

[loseyourname]

I think what you'll find from your thread in the QM forum is more disagreement and no real consensus as it relates to what the word "observation" means.

Oh, I know. That was exactly my point about people drawing metaphysical conclusions from physics experiments. The metaphysical hypotheses formed are not themselves testable and so we end up with nothing but opinions being thrown back and forth, sometimes with relatively well-constructed arguments to back them up. What we don't get is any real knowledge.

 

[armrecon123]

~ Thinking is a Form of Feeling ~

I don't know if there is anything absolute - realization might vary.
What I am writing here is all truth to me.
I practiced meditation from 1987 - I have a weird experience once - It was december 2000 Austin, Seton centre pkwy.. at my apt.. I was meditating on the floor and no drug effect the time was 12:20AM - Its all about isolation - I was concentrating on a concept that:: "something that changes is not my soul - anything that changes is part of nature surrounding me" - I do not exist on the skin, neither on flesh or blood nor even Na+ ion movement across synapses communicating electrical pulses in my brain - I am beyond - I was trying to focus my mind little above my head - as if i am outside the body and just there 2 inches above my head - maybe couple of hours passed - and all what I got is a point of light - that gradually got enlarged and was all around me - then "consciousness" regained slowly - I still felt I have the body - I am sorry to say, for this was the first time I got scared - for I was unable to open my eyes - I was unable to move any of my limb - though I was wishing strongly I that I am breathing - but I was not sure that I was breathing or not - there was nobody else at the house - I was willing I have a hand a leg - LOL - slowly enough I got back myself as a breathing human being - but by that time it was already morning 6:30AM and I have my -dead-cold legs - you know, I felt like due to something I had no blood circulation on my legs and arms.
I concluded that consciousness is all about being in this space time.

~ Feeling is a Form of Thinking ~

 

[graffix]

armrecon123 wrote

~ Feeling is a Form of Thinking ~

Is it though? This would seem to depend on our definitions. I would draw the line that a potential A.I. can think but would never be able to feel.

 

[Indraevyn]

Amir, when you stated"
"“The Soul” you are talking about does not exist, consciousness / awareness “is” the chemical reaction going on / in your biological brain hardware." did you ever take into consideration what might motivate the chemical reactions that are consciousness and awaerness which are essentially judgement. Without any internal motivation we simply would not judge and would be listless organisms. Our "Soul" is what motivates us to do right and wrong, if our judgement was simply based on chemical reactions taking place in the brain then there would be no point for a punishment system, we would just chemically alter the thoughts of a convict to cease doing wrong and to begin doing right. We cannot do that though, that is what our soul is, internal motivation to react to the rest of the world through judgement, consciousness and awareness.

 

[juju]

Hi,

I pretty much know the source of my existence is not physical and has multi-demensional extent. Experience has provided the data for me. Although the experiences can be doubted and other explanantions provided, I am sure enough to state this as more than just a belief.

juju

 

[Jeebus]

I pretty much know the source of my existence is not physical and has multi-demensional extent. Experience has provided the data for me. Although the experiences can be doubted and other explanantions provided, I am sure enough to state this as more than just a belief.

Eh. I do not believe there can be any absolute proof, as each person's experiences are subjective. The fact that you are aware of your own existence is enough proof for you to logically state "I exist". However, that is not proof that others that you interact with exist, or that the world with which you interact is real.

The point is, we cannot absolutely prove the reality of our own experiences. Not to ourselves, because we are by nature subjective, and therefore prejudiced towards our own viewpoint; nor to others because the experience itself is subjective, and further we have no absolute proof of the existence of anyone else. For more on this theme, read "The Mysterious Stranger" by Mark Twain.

A good example of subjective experience is color. How do we know that what we have been told is "red" and what we see is the same as the "red" that others see? They may choose the same crayon from the box, but only because that is what their experience has taught them to do. But is it truly "red" in an absolute sense? Do I know that the other person is not seeing what I perceive to be green? They could be daltonic, who knows. We cannot prove the reality of our experience of "red". That's that.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Eh. I do not believe there can be any absolute proof, as each person's experiences are subjective. The fact that you are aware of your own existence is enough proof for you to logically state "I exist". However, that is not proof that others that you interact with exist, or that the world with which you interact is real.

I think you've created a strawman there. He didn't say anything about creating an absolute proof for you or others. He said nothing about others existing, or if the world is real. He said he was certain, for himself, that the "source of my existence is not physical and has multi-demensional extent."

The point is, we cannot absolutely prove the reality of our own experiences. Not to ourselves, because we are by nature subjective, and therefore prejudiced towards our own viewpoint; nor to others because the experience itself is subjective, and further we have no absolute proof of the existence of anyone else.

I am sure you know this, but even an "objective" proof is 100% subjective-dependent. It's just that we can compare notes when it comes to external reality, and we can't for what's internal to us.

The problem of prejudice never seems to go away, even in the science-minded. People tend to filter out things that don't support their world view. And if their world view happens to be physicalism, you can bet your bottom dollar plenty of them are being "subjective" as you are describing.

Yet you cannot assume everyone must be prejudiced. Most people are, but there are some who work hard to eliminate it. Your general assumptions about the "norm" have to be applied carefully when considering the claims of an individual.

A good example of subjective experience is color. How do we know that what we have been told is "red" and what we see is the same as the "red" that others see? They may choose the same crayon from the box, but only because that is what their experience has taught them to do. But is it truly "red" in an absolute sense? Do I know that the other person is not seeing what I perceive to be green? They could be daltonic, who knows.

Yes, but so what? He isn't talking about the accuracy of sense perception, or the distorted interpretations that can come from senses perceiving only part of the picture. He's talking about his experience of his own consciousness.

We cannot prove the reality of our experience of "red". That's that.

It doesn't matter about color, and it doesn't matter what he can "objectively" prove, for his statement to be credible. He is saying his experience, the same exact experiential ability which is the foundation of empiricism, has convinced him of something. Why does he need to be concerned if he can prove it to anyone else? I know I don't care one bit about proving my personal experience to others. I am content to experience and know for myself.

If I say turning my attention inward tells me something, I cannot possibly prove that. But you can try it yourself and investigate that way. You just can't investigate ME.

Of course, if I decide to communicate, then I do have an obligation, but it isn't to prove something that cannot be objectively proven. I believe it is to make sense and to support my statements with as much experience and evidence as possible.

 

[juju]

Eh. I do not believe there can be any absolute proof

I didn't say anything about absolute proof. Just that what I have is more than just a belief.

There are no absolute proofs of anything. There is only experiential data that points in one direction or another. If the pointers are strong enough in one direction then the conclusion is more than just a belief.

On many questions the pointers can point in more than one direction at the same time. These cases require further data.

Absolute proof, for me at least, will have to wait until the death of my present physical body occurs, or I leave it permanently.

juju