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

[Les Sleeth]

Sometimes answering how gives the why.An electron vibrates in a vacuum because it is struck by vacuum particles.This is why it vibrates and how it vibrates.There is not always a clear cut distinction between how and why.

Sometimes, yes. But you've answered the vibration mystery superficially. Your explanation doesn't explain why an atom may vibrate a trillion times per second. Why does EM vibrate? Why is it you cannot prevent EM from vibrating? And why do atoms and EM vibrate rhythmically, why not chaotically?

I could ask why do I exist and because I know that there are forces holding atoms in my body together - how I exist - the how answers the why.

Nonsense. You've pushed off major mysteries by simply describing your existence as how atoms hold together. That doesn't explain where an atom comes from (if you say Big Bang, then explain originated that), why there are polar forces bound up in atomic structure, why you, as consciousness exist at all.

Consciousness could not have created the physical universe because our conscious experience changes as our brains physically age - babies have blurred vision ,adults have sharp vision.If an adult has blurred vision then this can be due to a damaged brain but not a process associated with consciousness.

That's a fine example of a non sequitur statement , but I don't see how it translates into consciousness's inability to create the universe. Do you believe human consciousness defines the full potential of, say, universal consciousness? What if consciousness is something far more basic than physicalness, and what we see in humans is the barely even a molecule's worth on the scale of its potential?

 

[Pavel]

consciousness and string theory

Before I reply to some of your comments addressed to me, I had an observation that I wanted to share with you in hope that at least some of you might find it interesting. I was reading some stuff about the string theory over the weekend and I would like, very briefly, to highlight a part that I thought was interesting and relevant to our discussion. In summary, our space has 11 dimensions (some of which are microscopic). The region of space we live in is 3 dimensional because the open loop strings comprising all of our matter particles are attached to 3 dimensions only. All but one! The exception is the yet to be discovered graviton - the exchange particle accountable for the gravitational force. This particle is a closed loop string which is not attached to our 3D and thus can escape or leak into other spaces which are part of the overall 11D hyperspace. This explains why the gravitational force is so weak compared to other forces (we don't account for all of the gravity) and implies there are other worlds, [mem]branes, that are microscopic distances away from us, yet inaccessible through the matter that comprises our world, except for gravitons.

Now, assuming the string theory has some merit, I would think that for those of us who believe in the metaphysical nature of consciousness, it would be reasonable to expect our consciousness to be able to transcend our region of space and, just like gravitons, freely float into other branes. Alas, there is no evidence for such journeys.

Or is there? I suspect one could argue that the reason our consciousness is so 3D bound, is because it's heavily conditioned by our sense perception of the 3D world. Or, using Les's favorite word, has the integrative nature of consciousness shaped our mind to be so 3D bound that it'd be very difficult to "get out of the box"? Difficult, but possible? Some of us believe we do experience other worlds (and since we define experience to be a sufficient condition for consciousness, we can say our consciousness transcends the parallel universes). In fact, I remember reading some new teaching, an off-spring of theosophy, that states there are several layers of reality (7?) and we sense only the lower layers. There are two ways to sense the "thinner" layers; one - through meditation, spiritual development for which is a prerequisite; and the other - drugs, which is induced, or forced way, undesirable way, as you are not prepared to sense it and eventually "burn up". I don't do either, so I can't really comment, but there was only one time, without getting into details, when I thought I was definitely experiencing hyperspace. While I'm inclined to believe it was a trick of my brain, it doesn't matter whether my experience of RED comes from the retina of my eyes or internally induced by the configuration of my neurons - it's still the same nature of experience that we're trying to give an account for in the first place. Anyhow, I hope I made my point clear - assuming the string theory holds water and our consciousness has non-physical roots, should we be able to sense parallel universes predicted by the string theory?


And speaking of gravitons, Les, I vaguely remember reading one of your posts where you expressed your unhappiness with how scientists define "energy". I believe you didn't like how their mysterious description of energy fits into their reductionistic paradigm. I'm sure I didn't quite catch on with your thought, but I thought energy was pretty clearly explained in physical terms. In summary, as you know, there are 4 fundamental forces that are thought of as energy (gravitation, electromagnetic, strong and weak), 3 of which (the latter) actually become one superforce at very high temperatures. Gravitation is reduced to gravitons if you buy into the string theory, but I don't have a problem with a classical Einstein's interpretation of it either - gravitation is nothing more than curvature in space induced by mass (hmmm, why? because mass has gravitons? ) Anyhow, the strong force is produced through the exchange of force particles (gluons). Again, I don't see any problem with that, as I can clearly picture how such exchange produces attraction or repulsion. The weak force is nothing but particle decay, i.e. transformation from higher generation quark to the lower one. While I can see how the electromagnetic force can be thought of as voodoo vibes, my understanding now is that, just like the strong force, the electromagnetic field is induced by the force particle exchange - photons. In fact, even the attraction of an electron to the nucleus is explained as an exchange of virtual photons, which exist for a very short period of time, so short that they violate the law of energy conservation and get away with it. (I swear I didn't come up with that ). So, out of curiosity, please clue me in on the mysterious part.

Thanks.

Pavel.

 

[RingoKid]

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.

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.

Sorry Paul

been hella busy in real life to respond

So any way what I meant was if a Calabi-Yau manifold is a 6d construct that only touches in 1d of our 4d universe then for all intents and purposes it may as well only be a 1d construct especially when dealing with 4d concepts of space and time. There is nothing to suggest that they open up to larger dimensions especially if they don't overlap. Spacetime as it applies to our universe doesn't apply to CY manifolds. M theory with the all encompassing 11th dimension in which all multiverse scenarios take place is as far as i know (which isn't that much) is the only postulate for larger dimensions that has any creedence in the scientific community.

As far as the primordial consciousness learning, I think it is us that is continually learning to accommodate more of the prime consciousness as our intellect evolves. All knowledge already exists we just haven't learned it yet or have forgotten what we already learned by spending our lives unlearning it.

There's a few other interesting points being raised i'd like to chuck my 2cents in on but I'm a bit pressed for time at the mo

so in the words of the governator "I'll be Back"...

peace

 

[Canute]

I agree with whoever said that we cannot ever demonstrate the existence of consciousness, and so can never prove that it is fundamental.

However, there is circumstantial evidence for it. It seems unlikely to be a coincidence that physicists find themselves with three major 'explanatory gaps' in their explanations of reality. The first is whatever it is that gave rise to the physical universe, the second is whatever it is that matter is made out of, and the last is whatever it is that mediates the relationship between mind and matter. It seems reasonable to suppose that there is just one substance that fills these gaps, a metaphorical 'God of the Gaps', and that these gaps exist simply because physicists cannot detect consciousness with pointers and dials. They must therefore appeal to metaphysics on these issues. I'd say this is equivalent to appealing to ignorance, but just sounds more professional. As Heidegger argued, western metaphysics does not address the issue of Being, and is thus left trying to deal with questions about reality with one hand tied behind its back.

 

[Les Sleeth]

And speaking of gravitons, Les, I vaguely remember reading one of your posts where you expressed your unhappiness with how scientists define "energy". I believe you didn't like how their mysterious description of energy fits into their reductionistic paradigm. I'm sure I didn't quite catch on with your thought, but I thought energy was pretty clearly explained in physical terms. In summary, as you know, there are 4 fundamental forces that are thought of as energy (gravitation, electromagnetic, strong and weak), 3 of which (the latter) actually become one superforce at very high temperatures. Gravitation is reduced to gravitons if you buy into the string theory, but I don't have a problem with a classical Einstein's interpretation of it either - gravitation is nothing more than curvature in space induced by mass (hmmm, why? because mass has gravitons? ) Anyhow, the strong force is produced through the exchange of force particles (gluons). Again, I don't see any problem with that, as I can clearly picture how such exchange produces attraction or repulsion. The weak force is nothing but particle decay, i.e. transformation from higher generation quark to the lower one. While I can see how the electromagnetic force can be thought of as voodoo vibes, my understanding now is that, just like the strong force, the electromagnetic field is induced by the force particle exchange - photons. In fact, even the attraction of an electron to the nucleus is explained as an exchange of virtual photons, which exist for a very short period of time, so short that they violate the law of energy conservation and get away with it. (I swear I didn't come up with that ). So, out of curiosity, please clue me in on the mysterious part.

Just to make sure we are using the right terms (and we don't get in trouble from any physics mentors ), what you have described are the four fundamental forces of the universe, which is not the same thing as energy. Force is usually defined as any influence that changes a body's uniform motion or state of rest, expressed: F=ma. Energy is defined as the capacity to do work. The two are related when, for example, a force is applied to a box that moves it, expressed: Energy=force x distance.

However, both force and energy are merely a means of measurement, and in that force like energy qualifies for what I was suggesting is absurd. The point of my little objection was that although we can see things moved by the team of force and energy, they are not assigned any existential qualities. If you try to talk about energy like it has an actual composition (like, say, the way one can say water is composed of H20), you will get a lecture for treating energy as a substance when it is simply an abstract concept used to measure and calulate.

Is energy something? Well, something is causing all the movement in the universe, but no one knows or seems very concerned about if it has any essential substance qualities.

One of my common themes here has been that it seems like existence can be better explained if we posit some absolute substance, of which everything is a form of (including energy and force, matter, consciousness . . .). This idea is called "neutral monism" and it suggests that the absolute existential "stuff" resides in an infinite ocean, has always existed, and cannot NOT exist. So my thread was me being a pest (my stated profession), and attempting to show in an indirect way why it seems absurd that something which is said to compose and move everything (energy) is not assigned any existential qualities.

 

[RingoKid]

I think you have just described the string theorists fixed background dependence Les.

A "sea" of vibrating bands of energy flickering through 10 dimensions of which only 4 are detectable by current means and constitute our universe. All encompassed in a larger 11th dimension where other universes may be.

Imagine picking up a coffee cup. We see our hand extend, pick up the handle and move the cup. Now if all this action is made up of strings fixed in a static background, then maybe it's the strings that change to accommodate the movement of objects.

We percieve fluid motion at 25 frames per second but if matter is getting transformed by reconstituting basic strings at lightspeed then we would never know the difference between us picking up the cup and atoms, molecules changing their basic structure to accommodate movement.

What do you think that does to our perception of reality ?

 

[anuj]

I'd put it, consciousness (whether disassociated from the body or not) is minimully the awareness of one's own existence. Thinking isn't necessary to experience existence.

To experience our own existence, what do we need if not our thinking?

 

[Canute]

To experience our own existence, what do we need if not our thinking?

You'll know the answer to that when you're able to exist without thinking, but not before.

 

[Les Sleeth]

To experience our own existence, what do we need if not our thinking?

There is a difference between thinking and experience. For one thing, you can tell experience is more basic because you can experience thinking, but you cannot think experience (obviously one can think about experience). A person might be able to think about love or skydiving, but that is not the experience of it.

A thought could be described as the result of an image and concept formulation process, concepts and images which can then be organized into patterns for "thinking." We might try to arrange our thoughts so that they represent reality, and then calculate with them to understand how something works; or we might just "imagine" possibilities, or dream . . .

What is experience? Well, we've been saying it is subjective awareness; in conscious experience there is a "me" present, and that "me" is not a thought (what causes the subjective aspect of consciousness is quite the mystery). I love music, and when I listen I do so with as little thinking as possible because thinking actually interferes with first my full apprehension (edit: whoops!, er, I mean . . .) comprehension of the music, and then my full appreciation.

So what about experiencing versus thinking about one's own existence? Yes you can think about it, as we have been doing in this thread. But if you can stop your mind, sit still, and just feel yourself, you will find something unavailable to thoughts. Personally I find experiencing my existence a lot more rewarding and knowledge-creating than merely thinking about it.

 

[anuj]

So what about experiencing versus thinking about one's own existence? Yes you can think about it, as we have been doing in this thread. But if you can stop your mind, sit still, and just feel yourself, you will find something unavailable to thoughts. Personally I find experiencing my existence a lot more rewarding and knowledge-creating than merely thinking about it

For a moment, even if it is assumed that thinking isn't necessary to experience our own existence, what is that experience about. Is it having any shape, sound, taste or if not what else. Or is it just a void feeling like a singularity in the universe.

 

[Les Sleeth]

For a moment, even if it is assumed that thinking isn't necessary to experience our own existence, what is that experience about. Is it having any shape, sound, taste or if not what else. Or is it just a void feeling like a singularity in the universe.

What can I say? If I say "it is like . . . " (i.e. anything whatsoever), then I've given you a thought, and not an experience. If you lived in the desert all your life, could you could know what an ocean is like through my description of it? Or would you need to go to the ocean and experience it?

Try this. If you have a closet handy, go into it and sit there. Turn your attention back on yourself and see what you feel. You will not experience a void. You exist and you can feel that.

 

[anuj]

What can I say? If I say "it is like . . . " (i.e. anything whatsoever), then I've given you a thought, and not an experience. If you lived in the desert all your life, could you could know what an ocean is like through my description of it? Or would you need to go to the ocean and experience it?

If experience is something which need to be felt and cannot be explained, not even thought of, then how do we propose to link the consciousness with the 11 dimensional understanding of the physical universe.

 

[Canute]

Ah, that's the big question. Experiences are 'incommensurable' and don't show up on meters and dials in the laboratory, so it's not clear there will ever be a scientific answer. Some would say, and I would agree, that it's clear there will never be a scientific answer. Science cannot detect, let alone explain, something that is assumed to have no physical effects and which is itself unobservable.

 

[Les Sleeth]

If experience is something which need to be felt and cannot be explained, not even thought of, then how do we propose to link the consciousness with the 11 dimensional understanding of the physical universe.

I am not sure if you are kidding or not. First of all, the eleven dimensional concept is theory. Right now all we have to worry about is 3 spatial dimensions and time.

But how big a mystery is experience to you? Can't you see, hear, smell, feel . . . ? That's experience. There should be nothing unfamiliar about that to you. I am simply saying that experience is one thing and thoughts are another, and that one doesn't need to think to experience, or "feel," one's own existence.

 

[Rader]

Ah, that's the big question. Experiences are 'incommensurable' and don't show up on meters and dials in the laboratory, so it's not clear there will ever be a scientific answer. Some would say, and I would agree, that it's clear there will never be a scientific answer. Science cannot detect, let alone explain, something that is assumed to have no physical effects and which is itself unobservable.

I do not understand this, then what shows up on the meter? If you test a brain for beauty and you have the same stimulus and different patients and the same part of the brain lights up. Statistics and logic indicate a thought is something and does something even if you can not hold it in your hand. Why is behavioral data useless evidence?

 

[anuj]

I am not sure if you are kidding or not. First of all, the eleven dimensional concept is theory. Right now all we have to worry about is 3 spatial dimensions and time.

But how big a mystery is experience to you? Can't you see, hear, smell, feel . . . ? That's experience. There should be nothing unfamiliar about that to you.
.

I agree that at present we need to be worried about the 4 dimensions as we know. From your earlier replies I got the impression that experience has nothing to do with the five body sensors that is eye, ear, nose, tounge and skin. If I correctly understand your views, our experiences are all due to the feedback received from these sensor organs. Now the next question arises

I am simply saying that experience is one thing and thoughts are another, and that one doesn't need to think to experience, or "feel," one's own existence.

Do you intend to delink the sensor organs from the mind, our thinking process. I would like to differ here. Consciously or unconsciously, our mind is in constant link with these sensor organs. As soon as a human body part is delinked from the mind (i.e. no feedback to mind and no instruction acceptance), that body part becoms useless or paralysed. There is no way one can have an experience let us say about a desert or an ocean without involving thoughts. They are all the time there. The only possible way may be to switch off your thought process itself.

The consciousness as far as I can understand is beyond the reach of five body sensors that work in the four dimensions. The big question still remains. If we cannot understand or explain the consciousness in terms of all that we know till day then how can we explain it scientifically? What are our assumptions in an attempt to link consciousness with physics theories?

 

[Canute]

I do not understand this, then what shows up on the meter? If you test a brain for beauty and you have the same stimulus and different patients and the same part of the brain lights up. Statistics and logic indicate a thought is something and does something even if you can not hold it in your hand. Why is behavioral data useless evidence?

All sorts of things show up on meters, but not experiences, and no amount of meter-based research into the brain will ever show that experiences exist. Generally the view of scientists, their public view anyway, is that thoughts, are not causal, at least in the sense that it makes no difference to our actions whether or not we are conscious of our thoughts. Behavioural data is not evidence of consciousness in this view, because consciousness does not cause behaviour. Behavioural data is only relevant to the study of consciousness if consciousness is assumed to be causal.

 

[Rader]

All sorts of things show up on meters, but not experiences, and no amount of meter-based research into the brain will ever show that experiences exist. Generally the view of scientists, their public view anyway, is that thoughts, are not causal, at least in the sense that it makes no difference to our actions whether or not we are conscious of our thoughts. Behavioural data is not evidence of consciousness in this view, because consciousness does not cause behaviour. Behavioural data is only relevant to the study of consciousness if consciousness is assumed to be causal.

I understand the view > there view, what I do not understand, why anyone would think that way. What is it that they wish to deny?

If I am conscious, I would assume all humans are. My consciousness causally effects my actions and behavior. Is this then only my self illusion?

 

[Les Sleeth]

From your earlier replies I got the impression that experience has nothing to do with the five body sensors that is eye, ear, nose, tounge and skin. If I correctly understand your views, our experiences are all due to the feedback received from these sensor organs.

Hmmmmm. This could get confusing if we aren't careful, I may not have spoken as precisely as I should have.

One can talk about experience as being the result of two aspects of consciousness. The first is that consciousness is sensitive. It seems like field that vibrates in response to information that reaches it. This central "sensitive" aspect is linked to remote sensory fields as well we call the senses. They maintain fields too which are sensitive to certain electromagnetic wavelengths, pressure, heat (or lack of), air vibrations, chemical stimulation, etc.

In addition to the sensitivity of consciousness is that most internal aspect which "notices" what is detected/felt by the sensitivity aspect (you, me). The sensitivity plus the "noticer" together is defined as conscious experience.

My mistake was implying the senses themselves are experience, rather than saying the senses provide information or stimulation to the sensitive aspect of consciousness.

Do you intend to delink the sensor organs from the mind, our thinking process. I would like to differ here. Consciously or unconsciously, our mind is in constant link with these sensor organs.

Right, I acknowledged that above.

As soon as a human body part is delinked from the mind (i.e. no feedback to mind and no instruction acceptance), that body part becomes useless or paralysed.

If you are talking physiology, I think you are wrong. To be correct you'd have to equate mind and brain, and that has not been proven. We know mind and brain are related, at least while a being is alive in biology. Whatever connection mind does have to the body, the influence doesn't appear to bflow both ways. Look at Stephen Hawking. There is a major disconnect from his body, but his mind is just fine. And then, consider, being lost in thought. The body may not be doing anything sensible, but we can still walk around (even if we are running into furniture and stepping on the cat).

There is no way one can have an experience let us say about a desert or an ocean without involving thoughts. They are all the time there. The only possible way may be to switch off your thought process itself.

You are just telling us what you can and cannot do. I know for a fact I can experience a desert or an ocean without thoughts. So can other accomplished meditators. That is exactly the purpose of the practice . . . to achieve 100% conscious experience and not have thoughts intrude on that.

The consciousness as far as I can understand is beyond the reach of five body sensors that work in the four dimensions. The big question still remains. If we cannot understand or explain the consciousness in terms of all that we know till day then how can we explain it scientifically? What are our assumptions in an attempt to link consciousness with physics theories?

That is what a lot of philosopy is about these days . . . that we cannot yet scientifically explain consciousness. We know the brain and consciousness are entwined, but we don't know how. You'll have to stick around for awhile until humanity figures it out.

 

[loseyourname]

I understand the view > there view, what I do not understand, why anyone would think that way. What is it that they wish to deny?

If I am conscious, I would assume all humans are. My consciousness causally effects my actions and behavior. Is this then only my self illusion?

Fliption and I went over this for about six pages in the "Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?" thread. Just about every argument for and against can be found in there somewhere, if you can find the exchange.

 

[magus niche]

thoughts...

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

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

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

both exoteric and esoteric knowledge are useful for these matters.

 

[RingoKid]

We know the brain and consciousness are entwined, but we don't know how. You'll have to stick around for awhile until humanity figures it out.

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

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

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

 

[Rothiemurchus]

Les Sleeth:
In addition to the sensitivity of consciousness is that most internal aspect which "notices" what is detected/felt by the sensitivity aspect (you, me). The sensitivity plus the "noticer" together is defined as conscious experience.

Rothie M:

It is the noticing which separates us from machines which are merely detectors.
But the question is:can a bunch of electrical conductors be wired to notice.
Or is noticing something which goes beyond wiring.I wonder if noticing has
something to do with a unique effect the brain has on the geometry of space-time.
Perhaps noticing takes place outside space-time and somehow part of the brain does not affect the geometry of space-time.

 

[Les Sleeth]

so there is consciousness, and it has infinite degrees.
it seems to be a synthesis of forms of stuff like energy and matter.
it does not have any prerequisites, as it is a universal that we cannot know.

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

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

As I've argued before, we can find out what potential the subjective self has for higher consciousness. One can merely assume things about it, or one can learn to experience it and find out for sure.

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Les Sleeth]

It is the noticing which separates us from machines which are merely detectors. But the question is:can a bunch of electrical conductors be wired to notice. Or is noticing something which goes beyond wiring.

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

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

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

 

[Rothiemurchus]

Les Sleeth:
But if the "self" of consciousness is outside space-time, then I don't see how it can be an effect of the brain

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

Thinking of time in general:

we can define "now" as the moment between the immediate past and the immediate future.if I don't remember the moment from the immediate past "now" is no longer defined and since "now" becomes the past of the next moment,that should no longer be defined.However we still consciously observe a passage into the future.This means that the absolute passage of time is not affected by the part of our brain that stores memories.However, the relative passage of time is:as we age,we remember fewer
instants of time and time seems to have passed more quickly.

 

[RingoKid]

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

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

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

...besides God hasn't shown to be empirically proven either but that doesn't stop most people believing in a divine creator/intelligent designer

 

[quantumdude]

so the fundamental strings would have changed to accommodate all such variations allowing for diffrering subjective interpretations of physical experience and that's not even taking into account genetics/hereditary streams of consciousness...

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

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

 

[juju]

Hi,

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

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

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

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

juju

 

[Les Sleeth]

Hi,

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

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

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

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

juju

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

 

[juju]

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

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

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

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

juju

 

[pack_rat2]

"...When we are asleep and unconscious we are not aware of space or time."

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

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

One need not be aware of anything to be conscious.

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

Or a "consciousness."...a sense of "I am," without necessarily an awareness of anything else.

 

[Bobby R]

Consciousness or being aware can be attributed to your brain’s central processing unit being on. As for having a soul, it’s like hitting your funny-bone! Once you do you know you have it.
Bob Rollins

 

[gptejms]

I have quickly read thru some of the discussions here.Is there a thing like consciousness without matter--i.e. a consciousness that does not need supporting matter?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I have quickly read thru some of the discussions here.Is there a thing like consciousness without matter--i.e. a consciousness that does not need supporting matter?

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

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

But of course, it's all theory. Right now nobody's got a disembodied consciousness they can study.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Consciousness or being aware can be attributed to your brain’s central processing unit being on. As for having a soul, it’s like hitting your funny-bone! Once you do you know you have it.

Well, that's what we've been debating. At least one aspect of consciousness, subjectivity, doesn't seem explained by brain physiology. (I liked your soul and humor point. )

 

[pack_rat2]

I have quickly read thru some of the discussions here.Is there a thing like consciousness without matter--i.e. a consciousness that does not need supporting matter?

I believe there is. But getting into the reasons would require a whole new, and very extensive, discussion topic.

 

[graffix]

This is strictly an idea, but thinking about consciousness forces you to be creative, since it's really really hard to prove much of anything. Here goes:

Since no two persons (two consciousnesses) share the same 3d space at the same time, why do we necessarily assume that our consciousnesses should all share the same 4th dimensional space (time). In philosophy class I remember learning that you really can't prove anything other than your own existence (I think therefore I am). I can't prove that inside the body of you (that's reading my post) lies the same type of consciousness that I am experiencing. Would it be possible that you, (that's reading my post) is actually more like an NPC (like in computer or roleplaying games), and that I am allowed to see your reactions to my post (if we're in the same room), but there is not the EXPERIENCING of reading my post WHILE I have a consciousness? Your reaction that I would be able to see, if we were in the same room, is either 1) one of the probable reactions you will have or 2) a reaction that you experienced previously/will experience in the future? If you can imagine that, can you imagine that maybe, sometime in the future or in the past, I will eventually get to be you, the reader?

 

[gptejms]

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

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

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

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

 

[Canute]

That is what one of the theories is -- that possibly consciousness is something that developed before the universe, or at least before biology.

I think I agree with gpgejms here. The idea that something could develop outside of spacetime seems to embody a contradiction.

But of course, it's all theory. Right now nobody's got a disembodied consciousness they can study.

Ah, I was about to disagree - then I spotted the wink.

 

[Rader]

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

A way out of your dilemma is to consider consciousness, information. No physical system can function or evolve without information and energy.

 

[allanpatrick]

Consciousness is awareness and comprehension of ideas and concepts that are readily at hand or within our circle of influence. Comprehension of ideas and concepts may include minute analysis of everyday mundane life processes like the simple awareness that one breathes. Consciousness is the mind absorbing the vast horizon of understanding that is reachable within the reality of a finite, physical nature. It is something physical because it is ultimately human; there is no other way of communicating consciousness but only through the bodies we have.

 

[allanpatrick]

I once asked a teacher in Philosophy this question: if a tree falls in the forest and nobody heard it crash down, can anybody even say it made any noise? The answer is of course no. We would have no way of knowing; human consciousness is limited by the finite physical nature of our bodies. There is no such thing as being aware or conscious of the noise you have never heard. Consciousness moves within the realm of what human understanding permits.

 

[gptejms]

A way out of your dilemma is to consider consciousness, information.

What would this information be---information about what?

 

[allanpatrick]

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

 

[treat2]

Just going to throw in what I do know, and leave it to those that wish to draw a distinction between humans and all other animals, to debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a site for starters on the subject:

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

http://assc.caltech.edu/index.htm

 

[Les Sleeth]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


I hope that was helpful.

 

[juju]

Hi,

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

This is from my own experience.

juju

 

[gptejms]

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

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

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




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


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

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

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

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


I hope that was helpful.

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