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

[Paul Martin]

I suppose I'd say that the history of our experience is what establishes knowing, and is the basis of memory of course.

You have circumscribed a lot of deep ideas in that statement in addition to the more trivial semantic choices of terms. Here's what I think you are saying: Knowledge is the information that is derived from the conscious experience of the present moment and which is accumulated over the course of time in some sort of memory. The conscious act of knowing occurs only in the present moment but it has access to this accumulation of information in addition to the present stimuli reported by the body and brain.

I think most people would agree that that describes what goes on in each human life. but here I think we are talking about what goes on in reality as a whole. The mystery we are exploring is how to explain the evident plurality of this process if it is indeed singular, as we suspect ( and as Schrödinger suspected) that it is. My time-sharing computer and your ocean of consciousness are simply analogies we are using trying to make sense of this mystery.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing but "now." It has always been now, and it will always be now.

Let me explain some of the relationships I was talking about wrt "now", "the stream of conscousness", "the flow of time", and "the physical world". In Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos", he describes our 4D space-time continuum as a loaf of bread (by reducing our three spatial dimensions to two and by considering the long axis of the loaf to be our temporal dimension). Our world lines, then, wiggle through the loaf generally in the direction of the long axis. The notion of "here and now" would be a single point on a world line as we (the person traveling that world line) experience that moment. From that person's perspective, the universe at that moment would be a slice through the loaf which intersects the world line at that "now" point.

He points out that SR says that those slices will have different angles through the loaf depending on the speed of the person (i.e. the angle his world line makes with the time axis). Even small differences in the angles make huge differences at great distances from the world line. Furthermore, GR says that the slices are not planar but have bulges and bends. These facts force us to conclude that the entire loaf must exist at all times rather than "now" (a particular rather arbitrary slice) being all there is.

So, how do we reconcile that with your statements that "...there is nothing but "now." It has always been now, and it will always be now."?

Here's my suggestion. Greene's conclusion is that the entire past history of the universe is as real, and exists in the same sense, as the universe at the present moment. Not only that, the future also exists "now" and is real. This raises a couple questions: How much of the past are we talking about and ow much of the future?

My guess is that the past part of the loaf goes all the way back to the Big Bang. (In my view, the BB was the beginning of our physical universe (the 4D one) but not of all of reality (the 11D one, or whatever the dimensionality).) But as for the future, I think the universe is a work in progress and it extends only to some finite extent beyond the time of this writing on 11/23/04. That makes the entire thing finite in extent.

If you imagine the universe as that static, finite, loaf of bread laced with the world lines of all of us who have ever lived, there doesn't seem to be any special point you could call "now". Using your approach and calling the whole thing "now" doesn't help. The question is, What's so special about this particular point here in Seattle now on 11/23/04?

Well, I think it works like this. Since our loaf of bread is static, and the time axis in the loaf looks just like the other spatial axes, it makes the whole universe a static spatial structure. But since we know there is dynamism in reality, in virtue of our certain knowledge that our thoughts change, there must be a dimension of time which accommodates this dynamism and which is separate and distinct from that long axis on the loaf.

Given that cosmic dimension of time, and given the premise that there is exactly and only one consciousness, the possibilities are obvious for the consciousness to "travel" along any and all of those world lines in any sequence, or in either direction, and for any number of repetitions it wanted. By "traveling along a world line" I mean actually experiencing the life of the organism owning that world line. It would be analogous to one of us traveling from Seattle to Atlanta. You could represent the trip by drawing a wiggly line on a map of the US that would correspond to our loaf with its world line. Or you could talk about the moment to moment experience of the actual trip itself, which is the aggregate of all the "now" moments that occurred at each point on the itinerary.

Now, about the unfinished part. If the loaf is a work-in-progress, how is it changed and extended? I think it is done in two ways: First, there are the laws of physics which inexorably determine the evolution of the gross loaf. Second, there are deliberate, conscious, willful actions performed by organisms during these various "now" points on their respective world lines. These actions don't violate the laws of physics since they are done in a manner I described earlier. They are "under the radar" limits set by the uncertainty principle and they appear to be "random" actions.

The actual sequence and pattern (in the cosmic time dimension, of course) of the single consciousness visiting and acting through these many world lines remains a huge mystery we can only guess at. One possibility is, along the Many-Worlds line, that myriad new loafs are duplicated at each point of choice each with a different choice of a "random action".

Another possibility is that the one consciousness drives one body for a while, then hops to another for a while (these "whiles" are all in cosmic time, of course, but they may have corresponding traces as segments along particular world lines.) each time making choices that push the end crust of the loaf ever further on.

If this guess is close to being right, it would seem obvious that our intermittent periods of sleep and wakefulness might mark those segments on our world lines where the one consciousness "hopped in" and drove for a while before hopping back out to drive another organism. Keep in mind that this activity is done in cosmic time and not in the time represented as the long axis of the loaf -- our familiar time dimension. I favor this guess because it would explain sleep. (In my opinion, sleep is the most baffling mystery of biology. All other biological mysteries, such as origins, specieation, development, morphology, etc. have promising theories to explain them. Sleep has none. Not only does anyone have the faintest idea why animals sleep, the fact that they do seems to me to be an extreme counter-example for evolutionary development. Any animal that developed the habit of sleeping, with its dangerous attendant risks and no known reward, would have been selected against and gone extinct long ago. We see that this has not happened..)

That's probably enough elaboration on your point.

We have plenty of time to discuss this,

Yes, I suppose we do. I don't have a lot of time each day to respond but I do intend to live a long time. So if you can bear with my slow response, we will have plenty of time. Thank you in advance for your patience.

... but I disagree that individual consciousness must be illusory.

Yes, so do I. I hope I didn't claim that they must be. I would only say that it is a common illusion for people to think that their consciousness is separate and distinct from yours or mine or the one which we all are.

I am quite certain that both whole and individual consciousness are simultaneously possible if one learns the secret of the experience.

I agree with you even though I have not learned the secret. But in spite of that, I am quite certain, especially now that I know that Schrödinger agreed, that we can logically deduce the singularity of consciousness.

Paul

 

[Paul Martin]

I don't know what real content your theory has. Often people say things exist in "other dimensions" without really addressing what that means. Are these dimensions of space, or time, or something else? What else could there be a dimension of? And what about the fact that our conscious seems to travel in one direction in time?

See my response to Les. I think it may answer your questions. If not, let me know.

Paul

 

[Canute]

I agree. What I meant to say was that familiar mechanisms which might serve as analogies (e.g. computers, multiplexors, time-sharing, virtual reality) are more abundant recently.

Yes, fair enough. You might like to search for the 'Jewel Net of Indra' for an early holographic account of the universe. The Buddhist sutras also speak of the the whole universe being contained in each grain of sand. Regarding your discussion of time and the notion of what I seem to remember is called a 'block' universe try 'the noble' Nagaruna, who long ago presented a series of logical arguments denying the possibility of past, present and future except as illusions of consciousness.

Thank you. That was very encouraging to read. I don't feel so far out in left field with my ideas after reading it. Do you have a link to the entire essay?

Schroedinger stuck to his view of consciousness throughout his life, and writes about in various places. I believe his book 'What is Life' has most of it but I haven't got around to reading yet (disgraceful really). His usual publisher refused to publish it since ES concluded, in trying to reconcile freewill with physical detirminism, that he was God.

(Can someone tell me how to insert the double dots (uhmlats?) for Scroedinger, Goedel etc - my usual method doesn't seem to work here).

 

[Les Sleeth]

Here's my suggestion. Greene's conclusion is that the entire past history of the universe is as real, and exists in the same sense, as the universe at the present moment. Not only that, the future also exists "now" and is real. This raises a couple questions: How much of the past are we talking about and ow much of the future?

Rather than bore everybody by repeating my views on time again, I will refer you to a thread in the Philosophy or Science and Mathematics area on where some of us were trading idea about what time is: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=12100&page=1

I've listened to Greene's ideas and if you read my beliefs about time, then you probably can see why I have never been able to get excited by his concept. In my humble opinion, such theories of time are physicalist exotica. I think time is actually quite ordinary, nothing more than how we keep track change in the universe, and certainly not a dimension. True, relativity tells us (and atomic clock experiments have confirmed) that the rate of change can be affected, but that's it as far as we know.

In a strictly physical sense, there is of course lots of "past" currently present in everything from fossils here on Earth to microwave background radiation which scientists believe originated from the early period of the universe's formation. But the past itself? Or the future? It doesn't make any sense to me because I see time as nothing but a measurement of the rate of change.

I, as consciousness, can only experience the present. If there are remnants of the past still around, then I can experience them in the present. If there are signs of the future, like a star showing symptoms of going supernova, then I experience those future signs now and the event itself when it happens now. If the universe disappears after entropy runs its course, then there will be no time because there will be nothing left to change.

I don't think I see how any of this helps explain what consciousness is anyway. I know right now a popular idea is that after the universe got going, consciousness emerged as a new property of matter. To such thinkers, it is important to develop a theory which shows how that can happen. Personally I think it is easier to explain consciousness if it developed before the universe was initiated, which after eons of evolution, then helped initiate the universe and evolve the biological vehicles we currently find ourselves in.

 

[Paul Martin]

What extra spacetime ?

The extra spacetime comprising those Calabi-Yau spaces.

which thread man ?..I'd be well keen to check out how you come to think that. As far as I understand it, the all encompassing 11th dimension is the only astronomically large one, a virtual field of strings or sea of energy. The quantum foam which changes to accommodate the universe as it passes over it like a ripple in a spherical pond.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=41012

 

[Pavel]

Personally I think it is easier to explain consciousness if it developed before the universe was initiated, which after eons of evolution, then helped initiate the universe and evolve the biological vehicles we currently find ourselves in.

Hehe, oh noooo, that would imply there’s something beyond the physical world, maybe even God

Thank you for the time it took you to explain your model to me once again. What can I say, it sounds good. What I like about it is it’s real. When I contemplate about it or try to look inward, I can see what you’re talking about, it makes sense; as opposed to going off on a deep end and proposing some rather bizarre abstract nebula that sounds thought provoking and everything, but has as much appeal to me as a sci-fi movie. No offense to those who do philosophy for its artistic and creative aspect, I respect that, but I personally find more appeal in the analytical function of it, and you seem to be pretty darn good at both. Now, I will need more time to look “deeper” as you suggested, because I still haven’t quite sensed how the singularizing aspect of integration gives rise to a facility capable of conceptually transcending its own existence or being able to generalize. I can understand the functional account for consciousness, but when it comes to the “driver” and its volition, I’m just not there yet. Your analogy with the sun makes sense to me, but I get a feeling it makes consciousness some kind of side effect, epiphenomenon (?) or an emergent property, a result, if you will, rather than the cause of the experience which will be integrated. (consciousness is necessary for experience, is it?) In case I didn’t get what you were driving at again, my apologies, please don’t waste your time any longer. I’m reading Chalmer’s paper, which I’m loving, and having more time to think about what you had to say might open up a whole new view on the issue.

Meanwhile, I’d really appreciate your thoughts on some of the related points. If you think I’m absolutely making no sense and you don’t want to waste your time, please say so, it won’t bother me a bit. Otherwise, thanks in advance

1. I mentioned that I think there’s a modal aspect to the intent when we view in the context of a human mind. When I say “I intend to graduate from college”, I’m not merely saying my objective is to graduate. I’m expressing an attitude and possibility. It’s not the same type of possibility that I would use in a computer simulation model by invoking a random number generator. I’m not expressing that I’ll flip a coin, I’m expressing that I might change my mind. If I can clearly define this modality aspect of my consciousness, which I believe exists, I want to see if it can be explained in functional terms, and ultimately simulated, or is this another metaphysical phenomenon. Do I have a case here?

2. I also mentioned that I’m suspicious there is a logical fallacy every time when the facility that does the analysys is reduced to the facility that is analyzed. In other words, when you reduce consciousness to the same abstract level as its constituents, you’re committing a fallacy in an attempt to explain the former in terms of the latter. Just like you can’t prove certain statements in a consistent system by means of its own axioms (Godel’s incompleteness theorem), you can’t explain the phenomenon of consciousness in terms of its parts. As I mentioned before, a deterministic fallacy would be another example. What do you think?

3. Finally, this idea of consciousness as an emergent property. I have no problem seeing that there’s a fair analogy between the solidity of a metal and consciousness of the neurons. I can also overlook the fact that it’s a convenient way to explain anything, even though we have no clue HOW it becomes emergent, we can’t demonstrate it. I have a conceptual problem, most likely misunderstanding, with this explanation.

I suspect that while there are certain physical values associated with the solidity, it’s still an abstraction, or interpretation of the human mind. I see the metal as one chunk because of how I sense it, which is a function of my physical size, context, and sense perception facility. I interpret a collection of metal pieces to be something else than, in reality, it’s just that – a collection of metal atoms. One of the unique aspects of consciousness is to generalize and create new entities on different levels of abstractions. When we talk about countries, the countries don’t really exist, it’s a level of abstraction which we find convenient to operate on when we manipulate groups of people. These groups have certain attributes nevertheless, but we're the ones who assign them! It’s ultimately our perception and the ability to generalize that creates these physical characteristics. To take it even further, beyond the physical property of a metal chunk, take number Pi. Where does it exist? If I have a circle, I can measure it and see there’s a relationship between its diameter and circumference. But guess what, I don’t measure the next circle, I generalize. The question is then, is Pi purely the interpretation of our consciousness or does it exist on some level of reality. If the latter, it’s definitely not physical reality simply because I don’t see any Pi's running around, I see a circles only…… makes any sense?

Happy Holidays!

Pavel.

 

[Paul Martin]

I've listened to Greene's ideas and if you read my beliefs about time, then you probably can see why I have never been able to get excited by his concept

I read your post on time and I think I understand your lack of excitement. But I have to disagree with you.

In my humble opinion, such theories of time are physicalist exotica.

I agree. But I don't think we should dismiss such exotica out of hand. Not that I think you should spend any time or energy investigating questions of time, but I think it is important that someone does. Such exotica are the stuff of science, and the progress of science has produced much that has made our lives better. Even though they study mere physicality, that physicality has allowed you and me to communicate, for example.

But the past itself? Or the future? It doesn't make any sense to me because I see time as nothing but a measurement of the rate of change.

On the question of the real existence of the past, I think your quarrel is with Einstein and not with Greene. Greene simply used the loaf of bread to illustrate the inescapable conclusion of SR that there is no way of consistently defining the concept of "now" in physics. Any reasonable definition of the concept from the perspective of one observer will be inconsistent with that of another observer who is not in the former's inertial frame. So if "now" is the only thing that exists, who's "now" is it? And what makes that observer and his inertial frame special? The logical conclusion is that there is no physical distinction between past, present, or future. They all exist at once.

The answer to this question makes a huge difference in ontology. If we ask, "What exists?", and we answer "The (physical) universe now", as big as the universe is, it is tiny compared to the alternative answer, "The entire past, present, and future of the (physical) universe". I parenthetically qualified the term 'universe' to be consistent with contemporary science. I think that in the view of most physicists, the qualification is redundant. But In my view, the physical universe (the 4D one we seem to live in) is a subspace, or manifold, in a larger space.

Then if we ask, "What do we mean by existence itself?" we introduce another complication. The commonsense answer is that to exist is to be, just like all these physical things we can see and touch. That's a useful answer, but it leaves open the question about things that might "be" but which are not just like familiar physical things. These might be things like gods, or platonic ideals, or the complete number pi, or extra dimensions, or the past states of the physical universe, or consciousness itself.

I think that if dismiss these latter candidates out of hand, we just might start down the wrong path and lose the very thing we are looking for. Therefore, I think we should open our minds to the possibility of some non-physical things existing, and then try to make a sensible explanation for what we experience.

In my personal view, I reject the existence of the physical universe (I agree with Berkeley) and claim that the only thing that exists, or has ever existed, is a single consciousness. Everything else that seems to exist is nothing more than patterns of thought (i.e. ideas or information) of that consciousness.

I went into all that so that I could explain how and why I agree with you that time does not exist. I agree that time does not exist as a dimension as we think spatial dimensions exist. But I also claim that spatial dimensions do not exist as we think they do either. All of the typical things that people think exist, like space-time, gravity, EM fields, strings, quarks, etc. essentially turn out to be nothing but sets of numbers. Fundamental particles are simply sets of quantum numbers associated with coordinates (numbers again) in space-time. Fields are simply vast arrays of numbers specifying the strength of the field at various coordinates in space-time.

And numbers are nothing but a special type of mental concept. So the things in the physical universe turn out to be nothing but mental concepts.

Some would argue that there are other, more fundamental "things" that exist that account for everything else. These might by principles, or symmetry, or rules, or laws, or "the word". But, here again, all of those things are mental concepts and they can't exist outside a consciousness.

It seems to make consistent sense to me to consider that consciousness is essential and primordial and in fact, sufficient to explain everything.

Now, back to our disagreement: I say that neither the universe's past, nor its present, exists in the fundamental ontological sense. I say that they exist as structures of concepts in the primordial consciousness. Or, looking at it more commonly, if those structures which make up what seem to be our universe are said to exist, then SR compels us to admit that the universe's past, and some of its future, exist in the same sense as the universe does right "now".

I don't think I see how any of this helps explain what consciousness is anyway.

Maybe this will help. In my view, consciousness is fundamental, primordial, and the only thing that exists. That of course does not explain what consciousness is but there are three silver linings:

First, in this view, everything else does have a sensible explanation. It is clearly understandable how a consciousness can imagine sets of numbers and rules for how those numbers can interact so that the sets evolve. Modern physics has almost shown how our universe (with the exception of conscious experience) can be explained on that basis.

Second, our experience of consciousness has a reasonable explanation if we consider that it is that single primordial consciousness that is operating in each of us.

Third, even though none of this explains what consciousness is, it doesn't matter. We know exactly what consciousness is because we experience it directly.

It's great talking to you, Les. Have a happy Thanksgiving.

 

[Canute]

Personally I think it is easier to explain consciousness if it developed before the universe was initiated, which after eons of evolution, then helped initiate the universe and evolve the biological vehicles we currently find ourselves in.

Is this a slip of the pen Les? Can here have been aeons of time before spacetime existed?

2. I also mentioned that I’m suspicious there is a logical fallacy every time when the facility that does the analysys is reduced to the facility that is analyzed. In other words, when you reduce consciousness to the same abstract level as its constituents, you’re committing a fallacy in an attempt to explain the former in terms of the latter. Just like you can’t prove certain statements in a consistent system by means of its own axioms (Godel’s incompleteness theorem), you can’t explain the phenomenon of consciousness in terms of its parts. As I mentioned before, a deterministic fallacy would be another example. What do you think?

I agree that self-reference and the incompleteness theorem are relevant to the topic. (Related also is set-theory, and the paradoxical question of how consciousness can be the contents of consciousness and the container that holds them at the same time, reminiscent of the paradoxes relating to the empty set and the set of all sets). But I come at it from a slightly different angle.

If the physical universe can be described mathematically, as is widely assumed, then it seems to follow that any such description will contain contradictions in the form of undecidable questions - which is what I take 'metaphysical' questions to be - and also that the phenomenal universe has a meta-system. All metaphysical questions are about this meta-system, and none can be answered without contradicting formal reasoning. I include the 'hard problem' amongst these questions.

The only way to address these question is from the metasystem, just as we answer other G-sentences from the metasystem. From this perspective, from outside the system, metaphysical questions can be seen to be predicated on false assumptions, namely dual thinking, the assumption that what is ultimate can be 'idolised', and described using concepts and terms from within the system, (like 'exist', 'eternal', 'infinite', 'extended', 'caused', undifferentiated and so on). Such terms assume that this ultimate state or ultimate 'thing' has external properties of the same kind as terms/objects/concepts within the system, and that is it must be one thing or the other rather than transcending such distinctions, and questions predicated on this assumption have only logically incoherent answers.

This seems to to me to be the explanation for the existence of all the many questions about reality which we know we can ask, but which we know cannot have an answer according to reason.

This is related also to Paul point, with which I also agree, that most of what we call the phenomenal world is, on analysis, just a construct of human consciousness. (Countries, baseball, cepheids, democracy, money, etc., and everyday human consciousness or 'self')

But this view runs into logical difficulties unless one entirely drops dual thinking and accepts that it is not possible to represent or characterise the meta-system - which is what I take 'the Tao', 'emptiness' or the 'Unicity' of Advaita to be - from within the system unless one misrepresents or mischaracterises it. Thus 'the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao', for to name it is to inevitably misrepresent it as having dual properties. It is this metasystem from which the universe arises, so that, as Lao-Tsu says, "Knowing the ancient beginnings is the essence of Tao."

Thus also this wonderful teaching tale from Sufism:

"A certain caliph, wanting to test an idea on an unsophisticated person, asked his guards to range into the desert and bring him a bedouin Arab. They surrounded the first one whom they met, who happened to be a Sufi. ‘The Commander of the Faithful requires your presence,’ said the captain of the guard. ‘Who are the faithful, and how do they come to have a Commander?’ he asked. The soldiers concluded that this was indeed an unsophisticated man, and they brought him before the Caliph.
‘I have been told,’ said the ruler, ‘that bedouins are so ignorant that they do not know the simplest things.’
‘Who has told you?’
‘It was during a discussion with my intellectual advisers’.
‘If it is intellect you want, the problem is easy enough. Ask me anything.’
The Caliph ordered a dish of porridge to be brought. The Arab sniffed it and began to eat. ‘What is that?’ asked the Caliph.
‘Something that can be safely eaten,’ said the bedouin.
‘Yes, but what is its name?’
‘Adopting the methods of formal logic, applied to the knowledge available to me, I say that this is pomegranates.’
There was a laugh from the assembled scholastics who had told the Caliph that the bedouins were fools.
‘And how, pray, do you come to that conclusion?’
‘By the same methods that your scholastics use. I have heard the phrase "Dates and pomegranates" used to describe tasty foods. Now I know what dates are, as I live on them. This is not dates. Therefore it must be pomegranates.’

From ‘Esoteric Research’ (Tahqiq-I-Batini).
Reputedly written by Sir-Dan (Knower of Secrets) Daud Waraqi.
From Idries Shah - 'Caravan of Dreams'

 

[Les Sleeth]

Is this a slip of the pen Les? Can here have been aeons of time before spacetime existed?

If we define "time" as that change which leads to the disappearance of something (entropic change), then it no. But the sort of change we see here in our universe doesn't necessarily define all change in all situations.

For example, what if there is some primordial "stuff" which is dynamic (i.e., moves around) , and if those chaotic dynamics have the potential to accidentally shape the primordial stuff into some self sustaining orderly dynamic whose change, rather than being entropic, is evolutive. Now, although the evolutive "entity" had a beginning, it doesn't necessarily have an end because the sort of change that characterizes it is one that makes it evolve. So when I used the term "eon," I was trying to get around the idea of disintegrative change that we in this universe call "time." Such the nature of change of an evolutive dynamic would be integrative.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Hehe, oh noooo, that would imply there’s something beyond the physical world, maybe even God

Who me? I usually think that people who believe in God, or “something more,” or whatever they choose to call it, do so because they feel it. Some of us trust our feeling nature, while others need for things to make sense first and foremost. Trying to make sense of what one feels isn’t always so easy! Personally I keep the two realms separate. I do agree that if “something more” is going to be talked about in philosophy, whatever we say should fit the facts as we know them. That’s why I like the philosophy at PF . . . because there are a lot of people here who demand facts. It really helps me think more carefully.

I still haven’t quite sensed how the singularizing aspect of integration gives rise to a facility capable of conceptually transcending its own existence or being able to generalize. I can understand the functional account for consciousness, but when it comes to the “driver” and its volition, I’m just not there yet. . . . In case I didn’t get what you were driving at again, my apologies, please don’t waste your time any longer. I’m reading Chalmer’s paper, which I’m loving, and having more time to think about what you had to say might open up a whole new view on the issue.

I probably have been too enamored with my own way of making sense lately. Just when I decided I was going to be more humble, you get me all excited again! Anyway, I hope I haven’t taken up too much of your brain. Just a couple of final points about the model I’ve been presenting, and the “introspective” method of formulating, it before leaving you to Chalmers. It will take a bit of explaining, but what I am going to attempt to do is account for what you call “a facility capable of conceptually transcending its own existence or being able to generalize.”

First, let me explain that a big part of my view is shaped by the fact that I meditate every day, and have for decades. Now, my success with that practice has been directly proportional to my increasing awareness of the “center” of my consciousness. When I started practicing, the center of my being is most definitely not where I maintained my “me.” Instead of the center, I was caught up in what I can now recognize as peripheral operations of my consciousness.

I am going to ask you to look at your own consciousness again, the same thing I pointed to before, except this time to notice something new. Before I pointed to how consciousness seems surrounded by a field of sensitivity. Next I asked you to notice how the more you concentrate on information detected by the sensitivity aspect, the more it was “retained.” If you look at what happens, detection will stay mostly in the outer sensitivity realm until you do concentrate on it, and then that info is pulled in deeper into your consciousness.

Okay, here is what I am getting at. Just looking at it now, doesn’t it seem that sensing is outward-oriented, and that concentrating is inward-oriented? And isn’t that the basis for some type of polarity? What if, for instance, we tentatively model our sensitivity and concentrative aspects as entwined in a counterbalanced relationship? Would it help to explain behaviors of consciousness we observe?

It would explain thinking, and why the left and right brain function as they do. The inside border of where sensitivity and concentration meet would allow a two-phased oscillatory dynamic, just like a computer relies on with 1 and 0. The extreme outer part of the sensitivity-concentration team is still dedicated to sensing, and the extreme inner part of the sensitivity-concentration team would still be dedicated to concentrating. But now we have a polar synthesisizing process possible between them, an “interpolar area,” that might be capable of developing complicated oscillatory operations which characterize thinking. I’ve revised my little “disembodied consciousness” diagram to reflect the idea of a polar process built into the structure of consciousness:

See Diagram.

If the brain is set up to accommodate that “back and forth” dynamic, the right side is working with sensitivity, and the left side is working with concentration (ever notice how someone’s eyes move left and right while they are thinking?).

So what does this have to do with a transcending facility, as you call it, and my opening comments about the “center” of one’s being? Well, I am suggesting that thinking goes on relatively peripheral to the center. Most people live in their thought world, so that tends to center them there. When they look at consciousness, what they see is where they themselves are, so their models reflect that. But if one is also aware of something that is more central to consciousness, then a model will reflect that too.

I say, your idea of a transcending faculty that generalizes cannot be explained without both peripheral operations of consciousness and the central integrating aspect. A computer will not leap on its own (i.e., without being programmed to) to generalizing types of mental operations because a computer can’t “integrate.” If you think about it, a generalization is an integrative function, as is understanding. If fact, those qualities are exactly what made me start wondering if there wasn’t an integrative aspect to consciousness.

I pointed to the center concept because of your use of the word “transcending.” I meant to say, maybe generalizing (and subjectivity) are rising above the operations of consciousness, maybe they are moving more central to consciousness. Then, what will we find at the absolute most central point, where it’s so integrated its “one”? I have suggested that is where we will find the true self which is absorbing all that the peripheral parts are feeding it.

Meanwhile, I’d really appreciate your thoughts on some of the related points . . . I mentioned that I think there’s a modal aspect to the intent when we view in the context of a human mind. When I say “I intend to graduate from college”, I’m not merely saying my objective is to graduate. I’m expressing an attitude and possibility. It’s not the same type of possibility that I would use in a computer simulation model by invoking a random number generator. I’m not expressing that I’ll flip a coin, I’m expressing that I might change my mind. If I can clearly define this modality aspect of my consciousness, which I believe exists, I want to see if it can be explained in functional terms, and ultimately simulated, or is this another metaphysical phenomenon. Do I have a case here?

I can’t help but explain this in terms of how I’ve been modeling consciousness since I claim that all functions of consciousness can be explained as sensitivity, concentration, retention, integration or a combination of any of the four. The central self has intentions, it knows what it wants, or it can decide to change its intent. And then that central subjectivity relies on the concentrative aspect of itself for the “will” to manifest those intentions as actions. The will is an act of concentration.

I also mentioned that I’m suspicious there is a logical fallacy every time when the facility that does the analysis is reduced to the facility that is analyzed.

I think you are correct. In fact, I cited a similar fallacy somewhere (earlier in this thread I think), and referred to it as a “fallacy of composition.” I wrote:

“An example one of my philosophy dictionaries gives of the fallacy of composition would be to conclude that because all members of a baseball team are married, the baseball team as a whole therefore must have a wife. I’ve used an artist’s painting in the past to describe the fallacy. It goes something like this:

Say a research probe arrives here from another planet and finds Leonardo da Vinci’s painting of Mona Lisa. The probe takes samples of the paint and analyzes its chemistry; it takes samples of the canvas and records its composition; the probe analyzes the wavelengths of light reflected by the paint; it weighs the painting; it describes how all these factors are interconnected. Finally when every possible measurable factor is listed, it sends a report back to its home planet.

Question: do the planet’s inhabitants fully understand that painting? Has the painting been completely described by its list of components, its chemistry, its physics, and the interrelationships involved in all that? Is it logical to conclude that the whole is solely defined by the parts? This is what physicalist theory is. No more and no less. It is a description of the parts, their relationships, and their functions. That’s why physicalists now say they’ve explained life (ha!), and why they say they will eventually explain consciousness.

But just like that type of description of Leonardo da Vinci’s painting didn’t account for the creative organization present there, so too does physicalist descriptions of consciousness fail to account for why consciousness behaves in creatively organizing ways that are not observed in any non-living physical situation.

Finally, this idea of consciousness as an emergent property. I have a conceptual problem . . . with this explanation. . . . One of the unique aspects of consciousness is to generalize and create new entities on different levels of abstractions.

I don’t think I see how you are relating emergence to the ability to generalize.

 

[Les Sleeth]

On the question of the real existence of the past, I think your quarrel is with Einstein and not with Greene. Greene simply used the loaf of bread to illustrate the inescapable conclusion of SR that there is no way of consistently defining the concept of "now" in physics. Any reasonable definition of the concept from the perspective of one observer will be inconsistent with that of another observer who is not in the former's inertial frame. So if "now" is the only thing that exists, who's "now" is it? And what makes that observer and his inertial frame special? The logical conclusion is that there is no physical distinction between past, present, or future. They all exist at once.

Paul, I don’t have the slightest problem with SR; it’s theorizing too far from any observed properties of time that I have a problem with. Also, reading ahead to the end of your post, I think I can see why you want to link up past, present and future, but to me it undermines your argument. Let me try to explain.

I understand that time in any frame of reference is locally determined by the conditions of that frame. But what is time? Do you think it is some kind of ineffable presence that is altered by physical conditions? Or is it, as I have suggested, simply a mental construct humans have devised to keep track of the rate of physical change? In the twins paradox, after leaving Earth acceleration and movement alter the traveling twin’s physical frame of reference, but does it alter the nature of his consciousness?

I started a thread in the old PF asking if the traveling twin, after spending 30 years on Earth at its rate of time, zipping along for 5 years in a spaceship near light speed, then returning to discover 100 years had passed on Earth, if the twin might not think that was the longest 5 years he’d ever lived.

The physicalists argued unrelentinly there would be no way he could tell because not just his clocks, but every aspect of his frame of reference, including his own body and brain, would be aging at the same rate. True I said, but the question I am really posing is if consciousness is physical, because if it isn’t, and if instead it is something not subject to aging (even if the brain is), then it would not necessarily be altered by relativity effects (keep in mind, the twin did have his first 30 years of life to compare his last five to).

Similarly, the fact that you are in conditions which are entropically changing faster than I am doesn’t alter the fact that we are both in the present, because that’s where existence always is. Physical change happens at different rates, it is true, but if you assign existential factors to that, then you are also saying there is nothing enduring behind all that change. Isn’t part of your idea that there is an uncreated “something” which endures behind what’s mutable? So I say, if we were those twins, even though our clocks will read differently, and our bodies are aging at different rates, in the realm of consciousness you and I would be fully one.

Now, my take from your overall concept is that this is what you are trying to get at. That is, the real reality is something conscious behind all the change. As I said, I think it could undermine your argument, and here is why:

In my personal view, I reject the existence of the physical universe (I agree with Berkeley) and claim that the only thing that exists, or has ever existed, is a single consciousness. Everything else that seems to exist is nothing more than patterns of thought (i.e. ideas or information) of that consciousness. . . . Now, back to our disagreement: I say that neither the universe's past, nor its present, exists in the fundamental ontological sense. I say that they exist as structures of concepts in the primordial consciousness. Or, looking at it more commonly, if those structures which make up what seem to be our universe are said to exist, then SR compels us to admit that the universe's past, and some of its future, exist in the same sense as the universe does right "now".

You might guess that Berkeley’s idealistic perspective isn’t too popular around here. In fact, a long-time and rather prolific poster was expelled from here because he didn’t give enough credit to the reality of physicalness (not that I’m implying you are doing that). Because of some of the epic battles we’ve had, I for one am quite gun shy about messing with physical explanations that work just fine without say, “primordial consciousness.” Those areas not explained by physical principles alone, of course, are up for grabs (debating that has been one my favorite pastimes). Otherwise, I have found it works better here at PF, communication-wise, to treat the physical realm as having its own unique place in reality.

It seems to make consistent sense to me to consider that consciousness is essential and primordial and in fact, sufficient to explain everything. . . . Maybe this will help. In my view, consciousness is fundamental, primordial, and the only thing that exists.

I used to think that way until I tried to model the origin of creation. I do believe it is easier to explain aspects of creation, especially life and consciousness, if some kind of greater consciousness developed before the universe. The problem I had when modeling was having that earlier consciousness be fully primordial. From what you’ve written, it seems you are saying that primordial consciousness is infinitely and eternally existent, which is also a popular concept of God with most religions.

However, if the primordial consciousness has always existed, then shouldn’t it know everything? Yet looking at creation, it appears to me to have been somewhat experimental. I mean, what’s the deal with viruses? Talk about something we can all do without! But even if you can make the case that creation isn’t experimental, I still have to look at my own consciousness, which you claim is part of that greater realm. I know at least I am learning, and that I don’t know everything. To me, that right there negates the possibility that the primordial consciousness knows everything because it grows in knowledge as I do.

If the primordial consciousness knows more now than it did last week, then tracing that back we can see it knows less and less the further back we go, until we reach that point where it doesn’t know anything. To me this suggests it had a beginning (though not necessarily an end), and that it is finite in size. I think that it implies there is something more fundamental than consciousness which is eternal and infinitely extended. Some sort of primordial existential ocean of “stuff” (I like to call it “illumination”) which wasn’t created, cannot not exist, and which has the dynamics present in it with the potential to accidentally evolve consciousness. With such a theory we can explain first cause as potential that has always existed, and thereby escape the problem of infinite regress and the contradiction of a learning creator who didn’t have a beginning.

 

[RingoKid]

The extra spacetime comprising those Calabi-Yau spaces.

I don't think you can apply the term spacetime to an object/entity that isn't governed by 4d laws of physics. Calabi-Yau manifolds are supposedly one dimensional constructs touching 4d spacetime at right angles so there is no extra space or time.

Spacetime is only relative to our 4d percievable universe beyond that all bets are off.

Les...

I believe the "primordial consciousness" is all knowledge...ie the sum total of all there is to know and we only tap into as much as our personal intellects will allow given our current evolutionary state.

Evolution is just change over time. Nothing is perfect. Our goal then is to evolve towards perfection such that we become nothing again as it was in the beginning. Nothing being consciousness without form.

A dimension of pure thought.

 

[Paul Martin]

Paul, I don't have the slightest problem with SR; it's theorizing too far from any observed properties of time that I have a problem with.

I don't understand. Do you mean you are not concerned with, or interested in, SR because its predictions are too remote from your experience? Or do you mean that you agree with the conclusions of SR?

Also, reading ahead to the end of your post, I think I can see why you want to link up past, present and future,

If you are really interested in my motives, check out http://www.paulandellen.com/essays/essays.htm

I understand that time in any frame of reference is locally determined by the conditions of that frame.

I don't understand what you mean here, Les. If you mean the rate at which, and the direction in which, it seems to move, then no, those appear to be constant regardless of the frame. Time always appears to move ahead one second per second. It is only from the point of view of another frame that these characteristics are different. But the important idea here is that of locality. You said that "...time is...locally determined..." If all you are concerned about is time in your locality, then it is natural to assume a frame such as the surface of the Earth where you happen to be, and all clocks in that locality will register time in a sensible way.

But if you ask about time as it relates to your local time, in remote non-local regions of space, then SR says you get into trouble.

Extending your local notion of time to some galaxy, say Andromeda, will produce a different notion of time than that of someone in a different frame. The question is, what do you mean by "now" (in terms of your local time reckoning) in Andromeda? Do you mean the state of the galaxy as you see it "now"? Or do you mean the state of the galaxy some number of years beyond the state in which you see it "now" where those years make up for the travel time of the light?

Either definition of "now" in Andromeda from your perspective will be different from those of an observer in another frame. Or is there a third definition of "now" that you have in mind?

This feature of SR is what logically implies the real existence of the past universe. So my motives in "want[ing] to link up past, present, and future" are simply that I want to accept SR and I want to accept only ideas that are consistent with SR.

But what is time?

Time is a variable quantity which is one of the necessary components for locating or identifying an event. (This happens to be consistent with the mathematical definition of 'dimension'.)

Do you think it is some kind of ineffable presence that is altered by physical conditions?

I can't answer with a "yes" or "no" because I don't understand the question. It contains too many vague expressions.

Or is it, as I have suggested, simply a mental construct humans have devised to keep track of the rate of physical change?

I would agree completely if you replaced "humans have" with "the one-and-only consciousness has". If you agree with me that all of our putatively individual consiousnesses are identically one and the same, you should have no problem with this substitution.

In the twins paradox, after leaving Earth acceleration and movement alter the traveling twin's physical frame of reference, but does it alter the nature of his consciousness?

I don't know but I would guess that it might. Simply traveling to the moon seemed to have altered the nature of at least one of our astronaut's consciousness.

Similarly, the fact that you are in conditions which are entropically changing faster than I am doesn't alter the fact that we are both in the present, because that's where existence always is.

No, I don't agree with your presumption of "the fact". There is no such thing as "the present" in the physical world.

Physical change happens at different rates, it is true, but if you assign existential factors to that, then you are also saying there is nothing enduring behind all that change. Isn't part of your idea that there is an uncreated "something" which endures behind what's mutable?

I don't know what you mean by "assign[ing] existential factors", but I say that the only enduring thing behind all that change is the one-and-only consciousness. So, yes, that consciousness is the uncreated "something" which endures behind everything else.

So I say, if we were those twins, even though our clocks will read differently, and our bodies are aging at different rates, in the realm of consciousness you and I would be fully one.

I say you and I are fully one regardless of what our bodies do.

You might guess that Berkeley's idealistic perspective isn't too popular around here.

I understand that there has been a lot of objection to Berkeley's ideas ever since he wrote them down. However, I agree with him that the physical universe exists only as a set of thoughts in a conscious mind. I disagree with him, however, in his attribution of this mind to a God which is infinite, immutable, complete, perfect, omnipotent, or omniscient. I deny all those attributes to the one-and-only consciousness.

In fact, a long-time and rather prolific poster was expelled from here because he didn't give enough credit to the reality of physicalness (not that I'm implying you are doing that).

If that's a threat, and if I am expelled, then I will be sorry. I am delighted to have found you (and Canute, Pavel, and the others) and I would deeply regret losing you now. If I did, my only consolation would be that I didn't get burned at the stake like I might have not too long ago for the same infraction.

Because of some of the epic battles we've had, I for one am quite gun shy about messing with physical explanations that work just fine without say, "primordial consciousness." Those areas not explained by physical principles alone, of course, are up for grabs (debating that has been one my favorite pastimes). Otherwise, I have found it works better here at PF, communication-wise, to treat the physical realm as having its own unique place in reality.

I hope I can fit in here. I think consciousness is an area "not explained by physical principles alone" and it seems that many of you agree with Chalmers on this issue as well. If we dare to ask about first causes or ontological essence, then I don't see why it would be offensive or unacceptable to hypothesize that consciousness is primordial. Would that be an unpardonable sin at PF?

[Paul:] In my view, consciousness is fundamental, primordial, and the only thing that exists.

[Les:] I used to think that way until I tried to model the origin of creation. I do believe it is easier to explain aspects of creation, especially life and consciousness, if some kind of greater consciousness developed before the universe.

I don't see the difference. By "primordial consciousness" I mean a consciousness which developed before the universe started. The question of whether the universe "exists" is purely semantic. In my view it exists as a set of ideas, but not in the fundamental sense that consciousness exists.

The problem I had when modeling was having that earlier consciousness be fully primordial. From what you've written, it seems you are saying that primordial consciousness is infinitely and eternally existent, which is also a popular concept of God with most religions.

I can't imagine what I've written that gave you that impression. I consistently and adamantly deny anything infinite or eternal. Most religious people would call me an atheist for that, and I am sure that many of their forebears would have burned me at the stake for saying so.

However, if the primordial consciousness has always existed, then shouldn't it know everything?

Absolutely not. What would suggest this non sequitur anyway? I think the primordial consciousness is continually surprised and amazed at the consequences of the evolution of the universe, as well as at many other emergent ideas which may have nothing to do with our universe.

Yet looking at creation, it appears to me to have been somewhat experimental.

In spades! I couldn't agree more.

...I don't know everything. To me, that right there negates the possibility that the primordial consciousness knows everything because it grows in knowledge as I do.

To me there is much overwhelming evidence that the primordial consciousness doesn't know everything. But since you apparently agree with me, I won't go into them.

If the primordial consciousness knows more now than it did last week, then tracing that back we can see it knows less and less the further back we go, until we reach that point where it doesn't know anything.

I agree.

To me this suggests it had a beginning (though not necessarily an end), and that it is finite in size.

I agree.

I think that it implies there is something more fundamental than consciousness which is eternal and infinitely extended.

Why?? for Heaven's sake? I think it implies nothing of the sort.

Some sort of primordial existential ocean of "stuff" (I like to call it "illumination") which wasn't created, cannot not exist, and which has the dynamics present in it with the potential to accidentally evolve consciousness.

Doesn't this run afoul of Occam? He admonished us to assume the minimum. This sounds like a very complex starting point.

With such a theory we can explain first cause as potential that has always existed, and thereby escape the problem of infinite regress and the contradiction of a learning creator who didn't have a beginning.

What problem of infinite regress??!

What contradiction is there in positing a learning creator who didn't have a beginning??

I am happy finally to be discussing these very issues that I have longed to discuss with someone for 60 years. I hope I don't get expelled from this forum for my ideas or for my manners. If you think that is a risk for me, please give me another warning and some clues to the appeal or forgiveness process.

Thanks for all your thoughts.

Paul

 

[Paul Martin]

Hi Ringo,

I don't think you can apply the term spacetime to an object/entity that isn't governed by 4d laws of physics.

I'm not familiar with that prohibition. In mathematics, it is fair game to assign any symbol to, or define any term to mean, any concept you like. You just need to be clear about your usage up front and then remain consistent in your usage. In science, there is a little less freedom. There, and even to a great extent even in mathematics, people are obliged to use the official terminology. If there is an official connotation of 'spacetime' meaning the 4D space-time continuum of Einstein and DeSitter, then I am unaware of it. On the other hand, I don't think I ever used the term 'spacetime' in any of my posts.

But clearly, string theorists posit the existence of additional dimensions of space, beyond the three of what you call "spacetime". Those are spatial dimensions, so it only seems reasonable to call the continuum spanned by them 'space'.

Calabi-Yau manifolds are supposedly one dimensional constructs touching 4d spacetime at right angles so there is no extra space or time.

I am glad you called them "manifolds" because in my opinion, that is exactly what they should be considered to be. It dismays me when writers like Brian Greene call them "Calabi-Yau spaces". I think a great deal could be gained if we viewed what you call "spacetime" to be a 4D manifold in a higher dimensional space-time continuum. If you checked out the thread you asked me to reference, you might have seen some of my arguments for this view.

Oh, and by the way, the Calabi-Yau "spaces" contain many more dimensions than one.

Spacetime is only relative to our 4d percievable universe beyond that all bets are off.

I'm not sure what you are insisting here, Ringo. If it is a specific connotation of 'spacetime' then I will be careful not to use that term in any other way. If you mean that we can't draw any conclusions from the supposition that there might be extra, astronomically large, nearly flat dimensions of space comprising a continuum in which spacetime (in your sense of the term) is embedded as a manifold, then I disagree. I think that by using mathematics, we can deduce many characteristics and features of this system. I think that is what the string theorists should be hard at work doing right now.

Thanks for writing,

Paul

 

[Rader]

Simply traveling to the moon seemed to have altered the nature of at least one of our astronaut's conscious.

How?

I think the primordial consciousness is continually surprised and amazed at the consequences of the evolution of the universe, as well as at many other emergent ideas which may have nothing to do with our universe.

Why, do you have an example?

To me there is much overwhelming evidence that the primordial consciousness doesn't know everything.

Like what?

Why what evidence? You are implying that consciousness is learning, as it goes, it seems the other way around, physical entities seem to be doing the evolving, with a unending source of knowledge.

What contradiction is there in positing a learning creator who didn't have a beginning??

Only one this implies a child who had no parents. Or do you have another?

 

[Paul Martin]

How?

I was referring to one of the Apollo astronauts who reported that after his experience, he felt that he related to the cosmos in some more profound way. I don't remember the details or even who it was, but he claimed that it was some sort of spiritual experience. Now, How you ask? I don't know that either, but it doesn't surprise me. I think it probably happened in the same way as any other profoundly religious experience, such as OBE, NDE, successful meditation, etc. I am convinced by some of my own experiences and by a lot of anecdotal evidence that we can under some circumstances become consciously aware of a greater reality than the physical one we share here on earth.

Why, do you have an example?

I'll give you two examples. First, since I believe there is only one consciousness, that means that the consciousness of any individual human is the same as the primordial consciousness. So any time a human is surprised at some new discovery, that would constitute an example. For example, I am sure Benoit Mandelbrot was surprised at the intricate complexity of the Mandelbrot set that was a consequence of his relatively simple algorithm.

The second example is for people who disagree with me about the primordial consciousness but who believe in the God of the Bible. Here God as much as says that He was surprised that the universe turned out to be "good". Then, later on, he seemed surprised to find that it wasn't so good after all and he took drastic measures to try to start over, at least with the fauna.

Like what?

Why what evidence?

The fossil record is replete with such evidence. The slow, halting, triial and error pattern of the development of the various life forms on Earth seems like blind stumbling rather than a design produced by a designer who knows everything.

You are implying that consciousness is learning, as it goes, it seems the other way around, physical entities seem to be doing the evolving, with a unending source of knowledge.

You are mixing up a couple of things here, Rader. You are talking about consciousness and about physical entities. Of those two, I think you would agree that it is consciousness that can learn and know and not physical entities. Yes, a physical entity like a thermostat can "learn" or "know" what the temperature is, but surely you would agree that that is learning or knowing in a different sense than the way you learn or know things. The difference is that you are conscious and the thermostat is not.

In any case, learning is not the same thing as evolving. I agree with you that physical entities are what evolve. We could say that consciousness "evolves" in some sense, such as becoming aware of more and more, or of learning more and more, but surely you would agree that that is evolving in a different sense than the way in which a galaxy or a species of organisms evolve. Evolution is nothing more than a history of change.

So I would say that consciousness learns as it goes and physical entities evolve as they go.

Only one this implies a child who had no parents. Or do you have another?

Well if that's the only contradiction there is in positing a learning creator who didn't have a beginning, we can polish that one off right here and now. We don't have that problem as long as we don't claim that the learning creator started out as a child. I make no such claim.

Good talking to you, Rader,

Paul

 

[Canute]

If consciousness is not causal then it does not evolve, and being conscious bestows no evolutionary advantage on an entity. This is not my view, and I mention it just to draw attention to the counter-intuitiveness of physicalism is in this respect. At present consciousness is thought by those who hold a 'scientific' view of it to be the only attribute of biological species that has not evolved but has just sort of appeared for no good reason. Darwin was cautious about consciousness, but Neo-Darwinists are clear on this. The human species would have evolved just the same if we had all been zombies. How they reconcile this with their common sense I don't know, but this seems to be the way things are.

 

[Rader]

I was referring to one of the Apollo astronauts who reported that after his experience, he felt that he related to the cosmos in some more profound way. I don't remember the details or even who it was, but he claimed that it was some sort of spiritual experience. Now, How you ask? I don't know that either, but it doesn't surprise me. I think it probably happened in the same way as any other profoundly religious experience, such as OBE, NDE, successful meditation, etc. I am convinced by some of my own experiences and by a lot of anecdotal evidence that we can under some circumstances become consciously aware of a greater reality than the physical one we share here on earth.

Yes I see what you mean now, that’s what I thought you meant. CEOTTK seems to do that also.

I'll give you two examples. First, since I believe there is only one consciousness, that means that the consciousness of any individual human is the same as the primordial consciousness. So any time a human is surprised at some new discovery, that would constitute an example. For example, I am sure Benoit Mandelbrot was surprised at the intricate complexity of the Mandelbrot set that was a consequence of his relatively simple algorithm.

Individual human consciousness seems to be a part of primordial consciousness, for the following reason, I have thoughts and know certain things before I know and are fully aware of them. So all knowledge would have to be somewhere and I, somehow tune in on it, for reasons that are not fully understood.

The second example is for people who disagree with me about the primordial consciousness but who believe in the God of the Bible. Here God as much as says that He was surprised that the universe turned out to be "good". Then, later on, he seemed surprised to find that it wasn't so good after all and he took drastic measures to try to start over, at least with the fauna.

Now you are making an assumption that primordial consciousness is not, that three letter word that you seem to dislike. Well whether we are in a Matrix or not I perceive the world as evolving in > this direction, that is natural perfection. I consider an increase in knowledge of what I know and awareness of good that I do, sufficient evidence that it is so. Well whether you use the word primordial consciousness or God, from what we know of the design of the world, neither are fools.

The fossil record is replete with such evidence. The slow, halting, trial and error pattern of the development of the various life forms on Earth seems like blind stumbling rather than a design produced by a designer who knows everything.

You consider humans to then be an error in the wrong directions? You must examine your I, only it know how far along the chain of evolution it has gone. The design in the universe shows fine tuning to a set of unchangeable laws, that are governed by free will. I through my decisions can make changes to my life in a spiritual mental or physical way, that can be passed on to future generations. I know this when I look to the past or future generations on each side of me. If I observe this, then it is in everything.

You are mixing up a couple of things here, Rader. You are talking about consciousness and about physical entities. Of those two, I think you would agree that it is consciousness that can learn and know and not physical entities.

No I do not, physical things might be progressively more conscious but that’s only possible if primordial consciousness knows everything. That’s not to say that consciousness might not be able to know things without a body and that my body sure could not know anything if it had no consciousness. An individual self knows the world through the eyes of it consciousness. This knowing is only partial of all that is known. I think that the I, knows its conscious because it has a physical body but when it no longer has it, it might still know but in a way we know nothing of.

Yes, a physical entity like a thermostat can "learn" or "know" what the temperature is, but surely you would agree that that is learning or knowing in a different sense than the way you learn or know things. The difference is that you are conscious and the thermostat is not.

There most certainly is a difference between a light bulb and a human but there’s no way for you to know what that difference is. The only thing that you can assume is that, it is conscious on a level quite a bit lower than yourself. If brains do not produce consciousness and I am conscious there is no reason to assume anything else is not also conscious since we are all made of the same atoms, just arranged slightly different.

In any case, learning is not the same thing as evolving. I agree with you that physical entities are what evolve. We could say that consciousness "evolves" in some sense, such as becoming aware of more and more, or of learning more and more, but surely you would agree that that is evolving in a different sense than the way in which a galaxy or a species of organisms evolve. Evolution is nothing more than a history of change.
So I would say that consciousness learns as it goes and physical entities evolve as they go.

Learning is not the same as evolving but surely without out it there would be no evolving. There has to be awareness in order to make a change. To make that change, there must be decisions. What observes and makes the decision, is ultimately what experiences that action.
Physical entities learn and evolve within a given set of laws, if you rearrange the order of there atoms, they no longer evolve nor are they conscious of what thy were, that’s not to say arrangement of atoms makes something conscious. Its the use of the arrangement that makes the consciousness.

What I would say is, the last words typed on the program were seek >>> and you could only know what that means is if you understood the whole program.
Consciousness uses physical things to follow its programs progress. Did you ever notice that when you mess up the arrangement of human body it can no longer follow the program.

Well if that's the only contradiction there is in positing a learning creator who didn't have a beginning, we can polish that one off right here and now. We don't have that problem as long as we don't claim that the learning creator started out as a child. I make no such claim.

You said: What contradiction is there in positing a learning creator who didn't have a beginning??

Thats my interpretation, what are you getting at? Could you give me your explanation?

 

[Rothiemurchus]

Since being conscious requires energy to be expended, I should think that consciousness is an integral part of evolution - expend too much energy and you die.

 

[Les Sleeth]

If that's a threat, and if I am expelled, then I will be sorry. I am delighted to have found you (and Canute, Pavel, and the others) and I would deeply regret losing you now. If I did, my only consolation would be that I didn't get burned at the stake like I might have not too long ago for the same infraction.

Let’s clear this up first while I am working on answering the rest of your post. What I said wasn’t a threat! I am in no position to threaten anyway. I am just an ordinary member here like you. It might have been a “heads up” to be careful about mixing idealism with established physical principles. So far you seem to be pretty conservative in theorizing. Even though we are disagreeing about a couple of things, personally I am glad to have another person around who is open to consciousness being part of creation (two in fact . . . Pavel seems a thinker too). :!)

 

[Rader]

If consciousness is not causal then it does not evolve, and being conscious bestows no evolutionary advantage on an entity. This is not my view, and I mention it just to draw attention to the counter-intuitiveness of physicalism is in this respect. At present consciousness is thought by those who hold a 'scientific' view of it to be the only attribute of biological species that has not evolved but has just sort of appeared for no good reason. Darwin was cautious about consciousness, but Neo-Darwinists are clear on this. The human species would have evolved just the same if we had all been zombies. How they reconcile this with their common sense I don't know, but this seems to be the way things are.

If I am conscious and perceive the world evolving and it does not contradict the laws that I also perceive as not evolving, consciousness could be causal.
This would not contradict the scientific view, only that there is no way of knowing first cause, since consciousness is not physical. Hence there would be no way of measuring it or knowing if it evolves.

 

[Les Sleeth]

This would not contradict the scientific view, only that there is no way of knowing first cause, since consciousness is not physical. Hence there would be no way of measuring it or knowing if it evolves.

I cannot see how you come to this conclusion. Can't you observe your own consciousness evolving? Are you sure something has to be measurable to be evolutive?

 

[Paul Martin]

Hi Rader,

So all knowledge would have to be somewhere and I, somehow tune in on it, for reasons that are not fully understood.

Just as Socrates said.

that three letter word that you seem to dislike

To use Les Sleeth's words, I am gun shy about using that three letter word. In polite scientific company, I get raised eyebrows and several points shaved off my credibility score. In polite religious company, I get lowered eyebrows and scorn for using their word in an offensive way. I think it is only suitable for use in impolite company, and there I'd rather not mingle.

Well whether you use the word primordial consciousness or God, from what we know of the design of the world, neither are fools.

I agree completely. Either way, it is awesome beyond comprehension.

You consider humans to then be an error in the wrong directions?

Not at all. The exact opposite.

You must examine your I, only it know how far along the chain of evolution it has gone.

I have done that and I am impressed beyond words.

[Paul:] You are mixing up a couple of things here, Rader.

[Rader:] No I do not,?

After reading what you wrote, I agree. You are not mixing up anything. It's just that when discussing such deep subjects, the words we use can be interpreted many ways. You stated your position well; I just misinterpreted it.

You said: What contradiction is there in positing a learning creator who didn't have a beginning?

Thats my interpretation, what are you getting at? Could you give me your explanation?

Actually, I think Les started this by saying that there is a contradiction in positing a learning creator who didn't have a beginning (or some such wording). I responded by asking him what contradiction he was talking about. Then you came along with what I thought was an answer to my question. You said that the only contradiction you could think of was that you can't have a child without a parent. I responded that I didn't think that applied since I didn't consider the primordial consciousness to be a child.

Here's the way I see the primordial question:
As Leibniz pointed out, there is something and not nothing. (He wondered why.)
We notice that this "something" changes.
As Les (and many others) suggested, we can imagine tracing those changes backwards and ask ourself, (my word processor just flagged 'ourself' as misspelled. It evidently doesn't know yet that indeed while 'our' is plural, 'self' is singular.) what was that "something" at the very beginning?
Since we see progress in evolution, as you suggested, Rader, it seems to make sense that the "something" gets simpler as you go back toward its ultimate origin.
This, together with Occam's Razor, suggests that we look for the simplest thing possible as a guess for what that primordial "something" might be.
My guess is that is the simplest possible form of consciousness, since more complex and capable consciousness could have evolved from it simply by trying things and learning from the surprising results, and the physical world is completely explainable from this sort of starting point along the lines of John Wheeler's "It from bit". That is, physical things might be made of nothing but information, and information is nothing but thought or mental concepts.
So my guess for the nature of the simplest consciousness is simply the ability to know, but with nothing to know at the very beginning.

Good talking with you, Rader. BTW, what is CEOTTK?

Paul

 

[Les Sleeth]

Paul, since your last post addressed to major points, I've split my answer into two posts.

I don't understand. Do you mean you are not concerned with, or interested in, SR because its predictions are too remote from your experience? Or do you mean that you agree with the conclusions of SR?

I do not question special relativity, but I don’t think Greene’s little model is to be treated as a fact either. It is one thing to accept SR, and another thing to extend an unsubstantiated theory from it and then treat that theory as an assumption in yet another theory. I used the term “experience” because that, in science, is what verifies a hypothesis. So when I say someone is “extending too far from experience,” I mean their theory’s assumptions are not adequately supported by experiential confirmation.

I don't understand what you mean here, Les. If you mean the rate at which, and the direction in which, it seems to move, then no, those appear to be constant regardless of the frame. . . . You said that "...time is...locally determined..." If all you are concerned about is time in your locality, then it is natural to assume a frame such as the surface of the Earth where you happen to be, and all clocks in that locality will register time in a sensible way.

No I don’t mean that. I understand SR well enough to know how a frame of reference works. I was saying that every single spot in the universe where you might place yourself will be a new frame of reference, and the time (rate of change . . . explained more below) of that spot will be locally determined by the conditions present. If one of the twins instantly warps from Earth to a neutron star, time would pass more slowly for him there than his twin back on Earth because of the difference in gravity. If the neutron star suddenly blows up and he is still floating in the exact same spot where he was before it blew up, time in his frame of reference will now be faster than it was when the star was there. So time is totally determined by the local conditions of a frame of reference.

Extending your local notion of time to some galaxy, say Andromeda, will produce a different notion of time than that of someone in a different frame. The question is, what do you mean by "now" (in terms of your local time reckoning) in Andromeda? Do you mean the state of the galaxy as you see it "now"? Or do you mean the state of the galaxy some number of years beyond the state in which you see it "now" where those years make up for the travel time of the light?

Now is exactly the same in every single place in this universe for consciousness. It is always now. The same now you are experiencing is the same exact now someone living in Andromeda is experiencing. The physical aspects of their frame of reference might be changing at a different rate than yours, but that has nothing to do with the fact that conscious experience itself can never escape the present moment.

If I now see a supernova that happened in Andromeda 2.2 million years ago (i.e., before my “now”), what I am seeing is light record that still exists. I am not experiencing the past, and the past is not there.

Either definition of "now" in Andromeda from your perspective will be different from those of an observer in another frame. Or is there a third definition of "now" that you have in mind?

(I am not sure I get the meaning of your question, so if my answer doesn’t make sense, that’s why.) Every frame of reference has unique aspects that define the frame, even if it is only the fact that two consciousnesses cannot occupy the same place (i.e., position uniqueness). So everyone’s experience of their position is always unique. However, I think I might have a “third definition of now,” which I will explain shortly.

This feature of SR is what logically implies the real existence of the past universe. So my motives in "want[ing] to link up past, present, and future" are simply that I want to accept SR and I want to accept only ideas that are consistent with SR.

I do not believe I am saying anything inconsistent with SR. I just don’t think we are going to agree about this because of our different concepts of time. You say, “Time is a variable quantity which is one of the necessary components for locating or identifying an event. (This happens to be consistent with the mathematical definition of 'dimension'.)” You are talking about time like it is “something” because to me there is no possible way for the past or future to exist unless time is something. But I say time is absolutely nothing but an observation humans make about the changing universe. Time is a mental construct, it is a perspective some people project onto reality as though it is really “out there” somewhere, when actually it’s all in their heads!

How is the universe changing? It is flying apart, at ever greater speeds. It is radiating EM, and that radiation’s oscillation rate slows down with the expansion of universe. If the universe keeps going this way, maybe where it used to be will be one huge wave of light. (That’s just my little guess.) Anyway, we call this change direction from being more ordered and compact to less ordered and extended entropy, as I am sure you know (okay, I know I added “compact/extended” to the definition).

So one way to speak of time is to say the universe has so many entropic events left. How many it has is how much “time” the universe has before it’s time is up. Now if I compare the rate of entropy at two different spots it turns out the rates of disintegration can be different and the rates can even be affected (e.g., by acceleration) -- that’s what SR predicts.

I, as consciousness, am now present in the midst of the physical universe. Personally speaking, I’ve found something inside myself that doesn’t seem to change entropically, and experiencing that is what has made me more aware of how what disappears contrasts what continues to evolve. So here I am, temporarily in entwined in biology, which is situated in a disappearing universe. My “time” is one huge moment, the universe’s time is zillions of changes before it is gone.

There is nothing special about time, it is utterly ordinary. In my opinion, trying to make time a dimension someone can move around in is just a physicalist attempt to make materiality more interesting.

I don't know but I would guess that it might. Simply traveling to the moon seemed to have altered the nature of at least one of our astronaut's consciousness.

I was talking about the underlying, most fundamental nature of consciousness, not what someone learns or opens up to. Whether that astronaut went to the moon or not, he was still consciousness, and going to the moon didn’t change his basic nature one bit. What it did was simply make him conscious of things he wasn’t before.

Don’t you think that consciousness is “something” first before all the things it learns and does? What is the composition of consciousness? What makes me conscious as opposed to say, an electric field?

No, I don't agree with your presumption of "the fact". There is no such thing as "the present" in the physical world.

LOL! We are finally agreeing (I think :tongue2:). You, as consciousness, are the only thing “present.” It is the constancy and anti-entropic nature of consciousness juxtaposed against the insanely disorganizing universe that gives us the sense of “time.” We are always now, the universe never holds steady long enough to qualify.

I understand that there has been a lot of objection to Berkeley's ideas ever since he wrote them down. However, I agree with him that the physical universe exists only as a set of thoughts in a conscious mind.

Well, that’s your theory, and obviously there is no way to prove it wrong. That’s one of the big objections to idealism. We can see how well any theory explains what we observe to be true, which you’ve been doing pretty well. However, unless you are speaking metaphorically I don’t think saying the “physical universe exists only as a set of thoughts” is very useful. It doesn’t explain anything better than it can be explained now, and it doesn’t give us any means to test the theory. The physicalist can come back and say “I can explain a star with physical principles alone, so show me the ‘thought’ part of a star and what role it plays in the star’s existence.”

My own opinion is that to make any creator consciousness points around here one has to show where physicalist theory fails to account for something; or, if one is going to propose an alternative theory, then also build on some kind of evidence so the theory has an anchor to reality.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I don't see the difference. By "primordial consciousness" I mean a consciousness which developed before the universe started.

1. I consistently and adamantly deny anything infinite or eternal.

2. What contradiction is there in positing a learning creator who didn't have a beginning??

3. What problem of infinite regress??!

4. Doesn't this run afoul of Occam? He admonished us to assume the minimum. This sounds like a very complex starting point.

I grouped those quotes of yours together so I could try to explain why I don’t think part of your theory makes sense. Statement 1 and 2 at least appear contradictory. If the creator didn’t have a beginning, it always existed, and therefore is eternal.

Infinite regress is implied because we have a learning creator, but no explanation of what started it learning. What was it before it learned? If you say it has always existed, and always learned, then that should make the creator infinitely learned. Yet we can go backward and see a creator less learned. So if the creator is becoming more learned, there has to be a starting point. What was it?

Finally, your call for Occam’s razor is inapt since it’s only used to be rid of what’s superfluous. But not only do we not have a cause for a creator’s learning, we don’t have any essence property to explain what creator consciousness is made out of. Let’s use hydraulic fluid as a analogy. In a hydraulic device, we can see the fluid assists in exerting force on an object. While the fluid can “do” things, it has properties of its own too that are its constitution. In fact, you have to understand the properties of a fluid to help explain why it “works” to create hydraulics.

Similarly, right now you are proposing consciousness as the “doer” of everything that exists, yet do you think it has no essential properties? Are we going to say consciousness is nothing and it can do things? If it is something, then what? And where did that something come from, what is it like?

A solution to the problem is to have something more basic -- something like the “neutral monism” Bertrand Russell proposed -- a sort of “absolute essence,” which was never created and exists in an infinite continuum. If that most basic existential stuff has dynamics (for instance, compression-decompression dynamics, or wave dynamics, or vortex dynamics, etc.), then it could contain the potential to accidentally evolve into consciousness at some spot within the infinite continuum, and so could be the “first cause” of a creationary principle. Now we’ve explained where the creator resides, what it is made of, why it doesn’t seem infinitely big or knowledgeable or powerful, and what caused it (or at least that some set of continuum dynamics spontaneously manifested it).

Since I’ve said one should try to build a model on evidence, is there any to support the “absolute essence” concept? It so happens that one of the most consistent reports of people who have become adept at meditation is that consciousness appears bright and vibrant. Is the absolute essence some sort of vibrant luminescence? If creator consciousness is an evolved “form” of this stuff, is all else found in creation also a form of it shaped by creator consciousness? Of course, if the absolute essence is too subtle to be detected by equipment, then the only test we have for the concept is to study creation and see if literally everything (since everything must be a form or manifestation of the absolute essence) can be explained in terms of it.

 

[Rader]

I cannot see how you come to this conclusion. Can't you observe your own consciousness evolving?

I could but would have no way of proving it to you, only by measure of physical things you observed in the world can you make that conclusion.

Are you sure something has to be measurable to be evolutive?

For all practical purposes if its physical yes, if its not, the question seems to be open for debate.

 

[Paul Martin]

Hi Les,

It is sobering and humbling for me to discover what a poor communicator I have been in my posting here. I hope you did not take anything I wrote as an insult. I was only trying to be clear and I apologize if anything I said sounded insulting. That goes for anything I might say here too.

It still seems to me that there is an inconsistency in your thinking: On the one hand, you say that you do not question special relativity. On the other hand, you don't seem to accept, or at least acknowledge, what I think is a fundamental consequence of SR. That is that there is not, and cannot be, a consistent definition or notion of the concept of "now" in the physical universe. In other words, there is no such thing as simultaneity in the physical universe.

You said you "don't think we are going to agree about this because of our different concepts of time." I say that if we can't agree on this it will have nothing to do with our respective concepts of time. My concept of time plays no part in this particular issue (I'll talk about my concept a little later on.) As I see it, if we can't agree it will be because you won't accept the impossibility of simultaneity.

This impossibility was discovered by Einstein and was not something Brian Greene came up with. Greene only presented his "little model" in an attempt to show how one can visualize and convince oneself of the truth of this consequence.

Since you brought up the effects of the gravity of a neutron star, "position uniqueness", increasing entropy, the twins paradox, the question of whether time is a dimension, and the conscious experience of the present moment, -- none of which has anything to do with the question of simultaneity, -- and since you didn't comment on the effects of the difference between two different inertial frames, I can only conclude that you missed the point. Let me try to present it more clearly.

It is clear that, as an observer of the physical universe, I experience the present moment which I call "now". Let's suppose that you and I are in the same inertial frame, say we happen to be sitting on benches in a railroad station. If we compare notes, e.g. if we ask one another what time the clock on the station wall is displaying "now", we can reasonably conclude that our respective experiences of the present moment, or what we call "now", are the same.

Let's say that while sitting on those benches, we get into a discussion about astronomy and I tell you that I had just come from an observatory and had seen the start of a supernova in a galaxy 10 billion light years away. You are amazed at the coincidence and say that you had also been to the observatory and seen the same thing. Then one of us asks "What do you suppose is going on in that galaxy "now"?" We don't really know, but it seems for sure that it will be whatever goes on in that galaxy exactly 10 billion years after that supernova occurred.

Now let's say that our wives are on a train that happens to be moving past the station at 10 mph. We call them on our cell phones and tell them about our discussion. They are both experts in SR and know how to do the calculations. They tell us that from their point of view, what is going on "now" in that galaxy is exactly 10,000,000,150 years after that supernova. It is 150 years off from our "now" out there in that galaxy. (I took these numbers from Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" p136. They assume that the galaxy is just setting in the west and the train is moving due east.)

The point is that by simply moving at 10mph, the moment experienced as "now" when extended out 10 billion light years changes by 150 years! So to claim that "Now is exactly the same in every single place in this universe..." is not consistent with SR.

I realize that I didn't quote you exactly here. What you said was, "Now is exactly the same in every single place in this universe for consciousness." What I hope I have pointed out is that your statement could be true for your consciousness and mine, provided we are in the same inertial frame. Bit it doesn't hold true if we include other consciousnesses in other frames, e.g. our wives on the train.

Now, in the circumstance of discussing ideas here at PF, I think that both of us want to accept all of the conclusions and current theories of modern science. I see no problem here. I think we can agree with SR that there is no such thing as simultaneity and still maintain our notion that consciousness is always in the present moment. I think we agree on that because that is what we experience. That doesn't contradict SR because SR says nothing at all about either the concept of "consciousness" or the concept of "now".

It is one thing to accept SR, and another thing to extend an unsubstantiated theory from it and then treat that theory as an assumption in yet another theory. I used the term "experience" because that, in science, is what verifies a hypothesis. So when I say someone is "extending too far from experience," I mean their theory's assumptions are not adequately supported by experiential confirmation.

What "unsubstantiated theory"? What are you referring to as "yet another theory"?

You say, "Time is a variable quantity which is one of the necessary components for locating or identifying an event. (This happens to be consistent with the mathematical definition of 'dimension'.)" You are talking about time like it is "something" because to me there is no possible way for the past or future to exist unless time is something. But I say time is absolutely nothing but an observation humans make about the changing universe. Time is a mental construct, it is a perspective some people project onto reality as though it is really "out there" somewhere, when actually it's all in their heads!

Isn't an observation something? I tried to be very careful with my answer to your question, "What is time?" I think my answer is consistent with science and I think that it is also consistent with your notion of time as well. Keep in mind that in my view, when you say "humans" I interpret that to mean human consciousness which I claim is identical with the one-and-only consciousness. I would, however, disagree when you say "it's all in their heads". In my view consciousness is not seated in human heads. That is a prevalent illusion that makes it easier to talk about a lot of things. I think consciousness is seated not only outside of our heads but outside of the entire 4D physical universe.

But I think you and I and science all agree in principle as to the nature of time. I say it is simply a mental concept in the mind (of the one consciousness). That concept happens to be consistent with the concept of a dimension in mathematics and it is the same as the concept of time as used in physics. I think we are all in agreement on the notion of time although we might have different views as to the essential ontological nature of reality.

In my opinion, trying to make time a dimension someone can move around in is just a physicalist attempt to make materiality more interesting.

Neither science nor I define a dimension as something one can move around in. A spatial dimension, yes, but not a dimension in general. Just like a length is not something you can cut with a saw, but a length of board is.

Don't you think that consciousness is "something" first before all the things it learns and does?

Yes. That's what I mean by "primordial".

What is the composition of consciousness?

It is the essence of being. It is ontologically fundamental. It has no finer constituent parts.

In any speculation about the constituents of reality, any guess can be challenged by the follow-up question, "Yes, but what is that made of?" We have seen science follow that pattern of questioning, first guessing there were atoms, then protons, then quarks, then strings, etc. The search, of course, is for what lies at the very bottom. I think John Wheeler's guess ("It from bit.") that at bottom there is nothing but information as the fundamental constituent is getting closer. But I would press it even further. I have a quarrel with Shannon's commonly accepted definition of 'information'. What I think Shannon overlooked, or dodged, is the necessary involvement of consciousness in his definition.

If you look carefully at what is required in order to have information as Shannon (or anyone else IMHO) defined it, you must first have a conscious mind. Ergo, I say that in guessing what might be the most fundamental of all constituents of being, or reality, if we choose consciousness then everything else falls out naturally.

Since we must stop somewhere in this progression of guesses, to ask "What is the composition of consciousness?" is, in my view, to ask an unanswerable question. I suppose the best one could do would be to wink and say, "It's consciousness all the way down!".

What makes me conscious as opposed to say, an electric field?

That is similar to the question, "Why can I get TV programs on my TV set and not on my refrigerator?" The answer is that because of its specific physical structure the TV set is able to convert patterns in EM radiation to images and sounds. The refrigerator does not have such a structure. In a similar way, your brain is constructed in such a way as to be able to communicate directly with the one-and-only consciousness. The electric field is not.

LOL! We are finally agreeing (I think ). You, as consciousness, are the only thing "present." It is the constancy and anti-entropic nature of consciousness juxtaposed against the insanely disorganizing universe that gives us the sense of "time." We are always now, the universe never holds steady long enough to qualify.

Well, you might be right that we are finally agreeing (except for your references to entropy which we can discuss sometime). But as you must know by now, in order for me to agree with your paragraph I must insist that what you refer to with the words 'We', 'I', 'You', and 'us' are all identically one and the same thing: the one-and-only consciousness. The universe, on the other hand, is a set of thoughts (i.e. ideas, concepts or information) in that consciousness.

...unless you are speaking metaphorically I don't think saying the "physical universe exists only as a set of thoughts" is very useful. It doesn't explain anything better than it can be explained now, and it doesn't give us any means to test the theory. The physicalist can come back and say "I can explain a star with physical principles alone, so show me the ‘thought' part of a star and what role it plays in the star's existence."

I am not speaking metaphorically. To the physicalist I would ask, just what are "physical principles" anyway? Are principles not mental concepts or mental constructs? And are they, in turn, not "thoughts"? And do thoughts exist apart from a conscious mind?

So the role thought plays in a star's existence is that the thought causes the star to exist.

My own opinion is that to make any creator consciousness points around here one has to show where physicalist theory fails to account for something; or, if one is going to propose an alternative theory, then also build on some kind of evidence so the theory has an anchor to reality.

In my opinion physicalist theory fails to account for the experience of consciousness. The rest of their theory is fine. I would simply adjoin consciousness to the bottom of their theory rather than find it emerging somehow at the top.

Good talking to you Les. I'll respond to the second part of your post later.

Paul

 

[Les Sleeth]

It is sobering and humbling for me to discover what a poor communicator I have been in my posting here. I hope you did not take anything I wrote as an insult. I was only trying to be clear and I apologize if anything I said sounded insulting. That goes for anything I might say here too.

I don't feel anything negative about this discussion, I think you have been communicating just fine. I believe it is me who has not made himself clear because you think I don't understand the consequences of SR, and that I am arguing in favor of physical simultaneity (which I am not).

You yourself have designated consciousness as the bottom line. I believe there is something even more basic, and that is what consciousness is made of, but let's say for now consciousness is the base substance of all existence.

To me that means consciousness is the steady thing in and amongst all the physical happenings. My point is, wherever there is a human consciousness in this universe, that consciousness can only experience now. True, there is no universal physical now, but I've already admitted that. I said consciousness is always now, and that is all I am talking about. Every place and moment for consciousness is "now." If you say there is a past somewhere, I'll say take me to it. Once we get there guess when it will be . . . now.

If you and I observe a supernova, we will report we saw it now. When your wife sees it, she will report that she saw it now. Of course, when either of us experience the supernova has nothing to do with when the supernova actually happened; it has to do with when and how we receive information. The receipt of information is just another change factor affected by SR, it has no profound consequences to reality of consciousness.

In physical situations there is change, there are different rates of change, there are conditions that can affect when we receive information . . . but consciousness is always waiting in the now (that's why I believe anyone who suggests time travel is possible doesn't really understand the nature of consciousness). As far as I can see, physics does just fine without a creator when it comes to explaining time and relativity, so I continue to see no advantage in trying to bring in creationary consciousness to an explanation except where reality isn't explained by physical principles.

 

[siliconhype]

First off, welcome to PF Paul. Yours was a thoughtful post.

In terms of my description of "experience" and "awareness," I was trying to explain how Chalmers seemed to define them in the article StatusX referenced. He appears to make awareness synonomous with simple detection. I admit I use the term "awareness" the same way myself.

However, I am not sure I can agree that experience is "history" (unless you are talking about being "experienced"). The actual present moment of conscious experience is what we have been debating about.




I meant, awareness that knows it is aware (as opposed to awareness that doesn't, like a motion detector). You have to admit, the idea of subjectivity is VERY difficult to translate into concepts.




I suspect that is true myself, but I don't believe anyone can demostrate it is true. Until someone can, I am not sure you can make that statement any other way than as an opinion.




Again, I suspect something like that myself. Let's assume there is ONE consciousness behind all the individual consciousnesses. Don't you think that the human body seems to be individuating, let's say, Points within that greater consciousness? If not, then I'd have to see my own conscious realization as illusory, and I don't believe that for a second. Isn't it possible for there to be both singularly conscious Points and for them to exist within a greater consciousness whole?

It seems like i did misunderstand you, i agree with your response.

 

[siliconhype]

Wait a second, slowly and clearly . First of all, please define “thought” in your argument. I get an impression you’re talking about some abstract form that transcends the physical brain, in which case you defeat your argument with your own premise - thought is immaterial. If it’s physical, then what exactly do you mean by “Thought isnever a neuron simply firing and creating a cascade which eventually results in an effect on the body”. Then what is it, and how does it affect the body, physically? Please elaborate.

Second of all, I’d like to see some more meat behind your continuity argument. I don’t see a problem of creating a snap shot of the brain at any given point of time. Yes, technologically it’s impossible, but conceptually, just like I can pick a point on a continuous function, I think I can pick a point on a time line at which I can record values of all the subatomic particle-constituents of the brain. Now I’m not going to debate the continuity hypothesis and the whole Cantor set with real vs rational numbers problem (because I'm not good at it), but I'm sure of one thing - your assumption that time and matter transformation are continuous is just that – an assumption. Besides, if you successfully argue that they are, in fact, continuous, then, by implication, you effectively kill all the AI hopes of replicating consciousness with 1’s and 0’s, do you not?

So, until further clarification, I still think it’s fair to ask what causes the brain to be transformed from one state to another. The deterministic rules + random quantum events have been suggested. If that’s the case, I don’t buy into a single word you said about it for one simple reason – you said so because the it was a rainy day which obviously made you depressed, which made you conclude “we’re determined”, in a crude manner of speaking. Had it been a shiny day, you’d theorize that we’re all free and immortal. If you add randomness on top of that, then I’d have to calculate how many days in a year you’d come to the deterministic conclusion, and how many to something else, given the precipitation statistics, of course

Thanks,

Pavel

To the first question:

I think thought is material, but perhaps not in the sense that each thought can be found somewhere in the brain. What we think as thought is a process in the brain, the process of thinking, what our memories store are sensations, links, groups, semantics, not thoughts. I can say: I like red. and then say it again, I like red, so one could argue that the brain does indeed storer thoughts. My answer is yes, but not in the context of one neuron = I like red. But many neurons, in combination with mechanisms of thought, (deciding that you do like red, thinking about why you like red, wondering weather in fact you still like red, etc) all are part of coming to the conclusion that you like red. Yet, i cannot take a neuron in your mind and place it in another persons mind, then stimulate it and have the other person say "i like red". That is what i mean by thougths are process. there must be a system to come up with the thaght, and thus you cannot, unless you are aware of the path the electrical stimulation of the neurons must take, and how the system works find out "where" the physical Thought of "i like red" sits, and even then, the system must be embedded as a whole, and run, in order for it to produce the thought "i like red". I'm not done, if say you figure out the system, which will trigger a person to say "i like red", that system is also part of another system which processes other thoughts, thus you cannot isolate the system and everytime you trigger a neuron, have the system spit out the proverbial sentence.

Perhaps chaos theory can help my explanation, i don't say thought are random, i don't believe that, but, chaos theory is like this: In order to be able to predict the future of events (and thus trigger the process of thaught that says "i like red") you must know the initial state of all variables. Isolating a thought is like predicting weather, you can only do it if you know how the system works (weather system/mind system) and also if you know what the state of the variables affecting the system are. This will allow you to predict when i am going to say "i like red" but will not allow you to say "i like red" is here in the brain. You can freeze time, and say here is where he thought "i like red" , like you can freeze time and say here is where the rain is when it comes to weather. But to isolate the rain, and then say this is where there the rain is, is fallacy, tomorrow the rain will not be there anymore, and predicting its location will, again required you to know the state of all variables affecting the system and the way the system works. The mind, like the weather is mostly consistent, but it is also chaotic and changes.

Second, i agree with most of your points, and i also agree that you cannot make AI with ones and zeroes. What you can do with ones and zeroes, given enough computational power, is create a system which mimics the brain, but then it will be the system that mimics the brain and not ones and zeroes which will constitute thaugths, you would not be able to isolate the ones and zeroes of the computer and then extract thought from them, the system of the brain has its own language, it will be this language, a higher abstraction than ones and zeores which will let you see thaughts, but in the same context as i argue above.

third, to answer " I still think it’s fair to ask what causes the brain to be transformed from one state to another." you have to state the level of abstaction, it can be, chemicals, thoughts themselves, even the rain and sunshine, atoms, hormones, disease, whatever, clarify level of abstaction.

I'm not sure about the randomeness factor, my thoughts seem pretty coherent and logical (hopefully). I cannot argue in favor of randomness.

 

[Shastry CVK]

"consciousness".I think it is an interesting topic raised by one of the members.My personal feeling od that the understanding of consciousness or explanation for the same will never come through the materialisitic explanations.As the consciousness is beyond the materialstic realm.I think the consciousness belongs to the realm of spirituality."Science ends where the spirituality begins".
Hope to hear comments from the members.

 

[Shastry CVK]

"consciousness".I think it is an interesting topic raised by one of the members.My personal feeling is that the understanding of consciousness or explanation for the same will never come through the materialisitic explanations.As the consciousness is beyond the materialstic realm.I think the consciousness belongs to the realm of spirituality."Science ends where the spirituality begins".
Hope to hear comments from the members.

 

[sourmonkey]

Is it possible that other (if not all) forms of life possesses consciousness?

If the most basic function of "mind" serves to differentiate between the "outside" world and the "inner" world of the organism, than all of life might possesses some form of consciousness. We shouldn't be so anthropocentric as to assume that humans alone possesses "mind". We are animals, after all... even plants "react" to external stimuli be it the movement of the sun or cold weather.

I think the word "consciousness" remains ambiguously defined because we humans like to label our experiences often without seeking a deeper explanation. We all too often presume that a semantic symbol defines meaning, when in "reality" all of our semantic and mathematical symbols are creations of our own limited mind and only approximate or quantize meaning without providing the "big picture". These symbols are tools that we use to approximate the function of our "reality", but they are complete creations of our own "consciousness" and our bound by the limitations of our own understanding (sorry for the redundancy).

After observing insects, cats, Capuchin and squirrel monkeys, spiders, lizards, etc, I am convinced that "consciousness" is a by product of life and that "humans" (being the bipedal, quixotic, and domesticated primates that we are) are not the sole possessors of "mind". We're just a little bit more creative, and we accel at bending space and time within our minds to produce culture and project identity.

This doesn't really answer the initial question, but I think it's important to realize that much of our understanding of the universe is derived from cultural facets of the human imagination. Though we think highly of ourselves, our brains are still limited in perspective, and this handicaps any quest for "meaning".

What is consciousness?

The recognition of the current moment as it flows from future to past... ? maybe?

The ontological surfer riding the waves of entropy?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Is it possible that other (if not all) forms of life possesses consciousness?

Personally speaking, I think so, except I suspect that a life form needs a nervous system to experience individual consciousness (that would exclude plants from individualized consciousness).

If the most basic function of "mind" serves to differentiate between the "outside" world and the "inner" world of the organism . . .

The mind does seem to do that.

What is consciousness? . . . The ontological surfer riding the waves of entropy?

Nice image. I might add that your description is one of consciousness in biology. Once departed from that, the entropic surf might not be an issue.

 

[anuj]

"As the consciousness is beyond the materialstic realm.I think the consciousness belongs to the realm of spirituality."Science ends where the spirituality begins".

No doubt, the consciousness is beyond the materialistic realm. However, it is incorrect to assume that science and sprituality are two milestones on the same road that explains the very existence of human beings. In all probablity, the science and religion both coexist as two separate roads and both are likely to explain all the basic questions related to consciousness. There appears to be lack of understanding in both science as well as religion and that is why the two paths appear so different.