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

[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.

 

[anuj]

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.Paul

The mind disassociated with the body and having no thought what-so-ever except the one and only one that we still exist. Is it what we call consciousness?

Possibly, there are three states in which we can understand consciousness. And in all the three states, our mind has to be disassociated from our body.
The consciousness is beyond the understanding of our five body sensing organs. It can only be understood by mind and that too an unperturbed mind, that's why disassociation from the body.

The first state is just before birth, the second near death and the third deep meditation.

 

[Paul Martin]

...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,...

After reading this carefully several times, I think I understand your views much better, and I agree with everything you said here.

...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.

I agree with this also. But there is an exception. Physical principles have not explained, and I believe they cannot explain, the experience of consciousness.

As I see it, there are two fundamental options for explaining conscious experience. One is to prove me wrong and come up with an explanation based on physical principles for how conscious experience emerges from the structure and function of brains. The second is to explain consciousness on the basis of something that is outside, or beyond, or in some sense not, physical reality. Since 4D space-time is part of physical reality, that explanation would have to be based on something outside, or beyond the space and time we experience. If we posit such a "something", a reasonable explanation can be imagined which would explain how the physical reality could be the result of the actions of whatever is the basis for the explanation of conscious experience.

In short, it seems we face a choice of believing that consciousness created the physical universe, or that the physical universe created consciousness. It seems clear to me that the former is simpler than the latter in the sense that there are fewer hard problems involved. That is the advantage that I see.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I agree with this also. But there is an exception. Physical principles have not explained, and I believe they cannot explain, the experience of consciousness.

As I see it, there are two fundamental options for explaining conscious experience. One is to prove me wrong and come up with an explanation based on physical principles for how conscious experience emerges from the structure and function of brains. The second is to explain consciousness on the basis of something that is outside, or beyond, or in some sense not, physical reality. Since 4D space-time is part of physical reality, that explanation would have to be based on something outside, or beyond the space and time we experience. If we posit such a "something", a reasonable explanation can be imagined which would explain how the physical reality could be the result of the actions of whatever is the basis for the explanation of conscious experience.

In short, it seems we face a choice of believing that consciousness created the physical universe, or that the physical universe created consciousness. It seems clear to me that the former is simpler than the latter in the sense that there are fewer hard problems involved. That is the advantage that I see.

Right. I think this exactly where the physicalist-"something more" debate is right now. Personally I don't think consciousness will be produced through physical processes, but I also don't think that those of us who believe in something more will ever be able to prove it objectively either.

In my opinion, the very strongest case we will ever be able to make is with an inductive model that is supported by evidence in enough key places and accounts for enough important features of reality (i.e., those principles associated with life, consciousness and physicalness) that it outshines a purely physical model.

One thing I notice is that physicalist theory explains a lot of "how," but not so much "why." For instance, we know everything in the universe vibrates. We can explain how things do that, such as frequency or wave length, but who can answer why everything vibrates. Science can explain how chemistry works to sustain life, but no one can explain why chemistry organized to the extent it must to produce life. We can explain a lot about how the brain and consciousness interact, but we can't explain why consciousness has come about.

If a good inductive model could provide the whys behind the hows, then possibly there might be more openness on the physicalist side to "something more."

 

[Rothiemurchus]

Les Sleeth:
One thing I notice is that physicalist theory explains a lot of "how," but not so much "why." For instance, we know everything in the universe vibrates. We can explain how things do that, such as frequency or wave length, but who can answer why everything vibrates

Rothie M:

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.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.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.

 

[Rader]

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?

In the beginning there was only "I" so there were not any or many to cause a conflict of apparent evolution.

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.

Can we really know if it is primordial consciousness that changes? We know physical structures get simpler the farther back we go and through observation of behavior of simpler structure I assume they might be less conscious.

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,

Or this could be an illusion that the individual self creates.

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.

I agree that the evidence points to this possibility. If this is so, in essence, primordial consciousness, is the bits and all of it. Whys does it need to evolve? Is it not the interpretation of the bits, as seen through the I that thinks its evolving, where in reality, the physical complexity is evolving and its individual consciousness self interpreting it.

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.

I think you could consider this, as I am quoting you, when you answered a question from Les.

Originally Posted by Les Sleeth
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.

I do no think primordial consciousness changes or evolves, it has no need to, if it is all knowledge, I think the I, individual consciousness, interprets it this way because physical structures evolve and consciousness uses a ever greater complexity to know itself through them.

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

Close encounters of the third kind.

 

[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.