The Problem of Consciousness

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;89112 wrote:

Consciousness is X, and also the sentence 'Consciousness is X', and also the sentence 'and also the sentence 'Consciousness is X''...indeed

... I find it consonant that Pathfinder chose to liken consciousness to the wind, considering the history of the mathematics of chaos:

Quote:

The Lorenz attractor, named for Edward N. Lorenz, is a fractal structure corresponding to the long-term behavior of the Lorenz oscillator. The Lorenz oscillator is a 3-dimensional dynamical system that exhibits chaotic flow, noted for its lemniscate shape. The map shows how the state of a dynamical system (the three variables of a three-dimensional system) evolves over time in a complex, non-repeating pattern.

The attractor itself, and the equations from which it is derived, were introduced by Edward Lorenz in 1963, who derived it from the simplified equations of convection rolls arising in the equations of the atmosphere.

(Lorenz attractor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

... it's all about recursion and feedback Smile

...

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

An excerpt from an essaythe theme of chaos theory and it's relationship to the Buddhist understanding of Karma (kamma) called (appropriately) Karma and Chaos.

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

Today I watched an incredible singing performance on America's Got Talent.

YouTube - Barbara Padilla * 2nd Semifinal * America's Got Talent 2009 HD

(performance begins at the 2:00 mark)

I don't know how a theory about wiggling neurons, even if done in marvelous cadence and unison, even begins in the slightest to explain such talent and human splendor. I think it is time to get real here. Smile

I mean, how does something like this happen? How does it translate from her feeling to our consciousnesses?

Rich

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

although I do believe she has been performing particularly well since the brain transplant:bigsmile:

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;89116 wrote:

Consciousness would first have to be turned into energy and energy into matter. Energy can be turned into matter but it requires an extraordinary amount of energy, much more than we can create at one time. However, physicists have theorized that this did occur at the very beginning - call it the Big Bang. So, I would suggest that consciousness created this thing called energy (which is not matter) and then a further condensation under tremendous force created matter from the energy.
Rich

Once again I'm confused by a few things.

First you say,

richrf;89116 wrote:

Consciousness would first have to be turned into energy

And then a few lines later you say,

richrf;89116 wrote:

So, I would suggest that consciousness created this thing called energy

How is consciousness turned into energy if, as you suggest, it created energy? Turning into, and creating are not the same thing.

I create art, but I do not become art.

Water, on its own, does not create steam. Dirt does not create mud without help. There is an additional, or outside, agent involved.

Who or what is the agent of transformation in your theory?

Remember, you can't say that energy is the agent, because you said that consciousness created energy. Nor can you say that matter is the agent, because you have already suggested that matter is created by energy (which is not matter), which is created by consciousness.

Also, you've mentioned a time or two

richrf;89116 wrote:

Experiences, which would be entangled, superimposed quantum waves, would be enfolded within consciousness in the same way waves form a hologram. They are then unfolded by light, as is a holographic pattern.

I've always been curious . . . what light?

Dazedly,
TTM

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;89140 wrote:

How is consciousness turned into energy if, as you suggest, it created energy? Turning into, and creating are not the same thing.

I guess in the same way all that energy was turned into mass. The universe is very big and there are black holes, dark matter, dark energy, possibly multiple-universes, all kinds of things, including consciousness. Maybe consciousness is the mother of all energies that IS the universe, it is what is making the whole universe move? It is what caused the initial condensation and then the subsequent explosions. What we view as the individual consciousness in one being may be just the tip of the iceberg (a giant one at that).

TickTockMan;89140 wrote:

I create art, but I do not become art.

I would say that you are entangled with your art. Everything you touch you become entangled with. Figuratively and literally. Barbara Padilla, touch everyone who was watching her, and now she is entangled. Some call it quantum entanglement while others call it memory.

TickTockMan;89140 wrote:

Water, on its own, does not create steam. Dirt does not create mud without help. There is an additional, or outside, agent involved.

Yes, we have to go back to the beginning. You need energy to turn water into vapor. Now what creates the energy? The energy that makes a neuron wiggle. What is it that made Barbara Padilla's neurons wiggle to make that sound? Where did it come from?

TickTockMan;89140 wrote:

Who or what is the agent of transformation in your theory?

The Universal Consciousness which would be likened to the Shen/Spirit in Chinese metaphysics. Consider it like the Ocean providing energy to the Wave (Hun/Soul). It is call connected anyway. Spinning around making waves (quantum waves if you like).

TickTockMan;89140 wrote:

Remember, you can't say that energy is the agent, because you said that consciousness created energy. Nor can you say that matter is the agent, because you have already suggested that matter is created by energy (which is not matter), which is created by consciousness.

It is the primordial Universal Consciousness that gave the initial impetus. But is all the same anyway. Energy creates matter and matter creates energy. The Universal Consciousness creates energy and back again. All energy is preserved as matter pops in and out of the universe.

The noted quantum physicist John Wheeler pointed out that such spontaneous formation of matter and energy is possible at a very small scale:

Quantum foam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quantum foam, also referred to as spacetime foam, is a concept in quantum mechanics, devised by John Wheeler in 1955. The foam is supposedly the foundations of the fabric of the universe,[1] but it can also be used as a qualitative description of subatomic spacetime turbulence at extremely small distances of the order of the Planck length. At such small scales of time and space the uncertainty principle allows particles and energy to briefly come into existence, and then annihilate, without violating conservation laws.

TickTockMan;89140 wrote:

I've always been curious . . . what light?

Now that is a great question. What is it that is maintains a constant speed in all frames of reference? What is it that illuminates all except itself? What is it that confounds description? Yes, light is a very interesting indeed. That which illuminates all. It creates a hologram in an unrecognizable form to the human eye and consciousness and then is able to take this jumble of waves and illuminates it into a recognizable image. Fascinating!!

I can assure you that life is MUCH more complicated than a little wiggling neuron. I want to know what makes that sound that emanates from Barbara Padilla and touches millions of people around the world - and how did that happen. I suggest, just as the physical world is evolving so is the Hun/Soul and that sound is the results of a very well practiced Hun/Soul. It is simple evolution. Smile

Rich

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;89130 wrote:

An excerpt from an essaythe theme of chaos theory and it's relationship to the Buddhist understanding of Karma (kamma) called (appropriately) Karma and Chaos.

... very reminiscent of the interplay going on between folk medicine and medical science Smile

...

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;89192 wrote:

It is the primordial Universal Consciousness that gave the initial impetus.

Great. So where did primordial Universal Consciousness come from?

richrf;89192 wrote:

I can assure you that life is MUCH more complicated than a little wiggling neuron.
Rich

Is it complicated because we will it to be complicated? Through our conscious perception of the universe? Or is it really actually complicated outside of any of our human doings?

Baffledly still,
Tock

---------- Post added 09-09-2009 at 11:14 AM ----------

richrf;89133 wrote:

YouTube - Barbara Padilla * 2nd Semifinal * America's Got Talent 2009 HD

(performance begins at the 2:00 mark)

I don't know how a theory about wiggling neurons, even if done in marvelous cadence and unison, even begins in the slightest to explain such talent and human splendor. I think it is time to get real here. I mean, how does something like this happen? How does it translate from her feeling to our consciousnesses?

Rich

Will you apply your same philosophy to this as well? If you are going to be true to your own ideas, I would think that you have to.

YouTube - Slayer Bloodline Music Video

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;89230 wrote:

Great. So where did primordial Universal Consciousness come from?

This is of course the million dollar question. All, I can create as a thought experiment at this time, is the concept of Universal Consciousness providing the necessary impetus to begin things moving in a spiraling, wave manner. From that we get condensation which results in energy (from the swirling movement), and then matter. It all comes from one source, but where that source comes from: The Dao that can be named is not the Dao. It is beyond my current comprehension. But, my metaphysical model does connect everything as one swirling Universal Consciousness that motivates everything, and we are part of it just as waves are part of the ocean.

TickTockMan;89230 wrote:

Is it complicated because we will it to be complicated? Through our conscious perception of the universe? Or is it really actually complicated outside of any of our human doings?

Yes, there is simplicity in complexity and vice-versa. Take the waves of the ocean, for example. We can observe them and watch them evolve as they superimpose themselves on other waves. It is simple to observe. However, to describe them individually and their interactions .... well that is a very, very, very difficult problem. How does one begin?

TickTockMan;89230 wrote:

Will you apply your same philosophy to this as well? If you are going to be true to your own ideas, I would think that you have to.

Yes, it is consistent. It is just the different ways that the Hun/Soul evolves as it experiences and experiments. Some like this and others like that. But, for me, it is all interesting to observe. Sometimes I laugh and sometimes I cry, and sometimes I am dumbfounded.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;89240 wrote:

This is of course the million dollar question. All, I can create as a thought experiment at this time . . .

Sadly, I fear my brain is not wired to create either valid or sound thought experiments. I keep incorrectly inferring conclusions that fit my subjective premises. Or do I have that backward?

richrf;89240 wrote:

my metaphysical model does connect everything as one swirling Universal Consciousness that motivates everything, and we are part of it just as waves are part of the ocean.

Do you believe that consciousness has intention?

richrf;89240 wrote:

But, for me, it is all interesting to observe. Sometimes I laugh and sometimes I cry, and sometimes I am dumbfounded.

Rich

Yes. It's a grand parade, isn't it?

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;89243 wrote:

Sadly, I fear my brain is not wired to create either valid or sound thought experiments. I keep incorrectly inferring conclusions that fit my subjective premises. Or do I have that backward?

Everyone is different. For me, I just keep observing things and looking to put the various of pieces of the puzzle together. The key, for me, is to find similarities in differences and differences in similarities. This is a very nice thought that I found in David Bohm's book Creativity.

TickTockMan;89243 wrote:

Do you believe that consciousness has intention?

Yes, the major one of which is to observe itself as it creates. Sort of like a person combing their hair in a mirror.

TickTockMan;89243 wrote:

Yes. It's a grand parade, isn't it?

Yes, it is!

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

I read a review of the old Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

It left me with a question for anybody who would humor me:

How much of the time are you experiencing an inner dialog or soliloquy?

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

Arjuna;89249 wrote:

I read a review of the old Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

Is there a link somewhere?

Arjuna;89249 wrote:

It left me with a question for anybody who would humor me:

How much of the time are you experiencing an inner dialog or soliloquy?

Can you describe a bit what you mean by an inner dialog or soliloquy?

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

I looked it up on Wikipedia. I think the quick run down is: somewhere along the line, the human brain basically started talking to itself... the left side comprehending the right side's experience, and vice vs. And everything was fine, people thought the voice coming from the left side of the brain was external in origin... like God talking to Abraham.

Then somehow something changed and people started realizing: that's not from outside... that's me! And so human consciousness was born. (sorry Mr. Jaynes for the cartoon version of your theory)

As I was reading this I started thinking about inner voices.

One time I was looking into a fire and a friend of mine asked what I was thinking. I said: nothing. My friend, a polylingual German just stared at me and then told me that I was lying. The conversation progressed until I understood that my friend had an inner voice that talked all day long from sun-up to sunset, and she assumed everybody did. I eventually saw a German movie in which an angel roams around listening to people's thoughts. Every one of them has this on-going voice.

I don't have that. I talk to myself in spurts. I habitually practice what I'm going to eventually say out loud. I discovered as a teenager that if I didn't do that, I would appear stupid to people. Even now, most of what I say is like a prerecorded message. I've started wondering if that's why I have a hard time grasping language philosophy. I was wondering particularly Rich, do you have that continuous inner voice?

2 Replies

@Arjuna,

richrf;89244 wrote:

The key, for me, is to find similarities in differences and differences in similarities
Rich

This is too clever for me to unravel. Can you break down for me exactly what this means? Without resorting to tautologies? Also, could you tell me what this activity accomplishes?

Arjuna;89262 wrote:

I looked it up on Wikipedia. I think the quick run down is: somewhere along the line, the human brain basically started talking to itself...

Your assessment is quite accurate. Here's a nice link that goes into a bit more detail, but still keeps it simple to follow: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

Arjuna;89262 wrote:

I don't have that. I talk to myself in spurts. I habitually practice what I'm going to eventually say out loud. I discovered as a teenager that if I didn't do that, I would appear stupid to people. Even now, most of what I say is like a prerecorded message.

I know exactly what you mean. According to some, enlightenment is found in that silent space when all inner dialog . . . ceases.

0 Replies

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;89115 wrote:

... actually, I think one point BrightNoon might be trying to get at here is that consciousness is first a phenomenological problem ... it is only second a metaphysical problem ... the methodological error here may be in thinking that one can develop a metaphysics for something before one really understands what that something is in and of itself ...

Thanks for getting back wtih that, paulhanke. I think I would appreciate the exercise if you could kind of walk me through your line of reasoning on how you take what BrightNoon might be trying to get at here (and by here, I assume the meanging of 'this thread' rather than that of 'that particular demand in that post'). I think it could most definitely be considered embedding, and thus not off topic; and it should prove to be educational, as well.

What really came flying off the page at me with his #135 was that basically, we could boil his demand (1) down to saying that there is no requirement, nor stipulation, that there even BE evidence for any statement, claim, assertion, or specific point in their argumentation; much more have to produce it ! That is a methodological error in that there IS no valid method at all, actually. Any one can say whatever they like without any requirement to demonstrate, support, or verify anything they asserted to be factually true in nature. That's very nonsensical a procedural layout !!

1. Here I say 'demand' in the sense that he was fundamentally demanding the veracity of the claim that there could be no discussion, if any and/or all participants were required to show evidence for any and/or all claims, assertions, and argumentive points.

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

Arjuna;89262 wrote:

I don't have that. I talk to myself in spurts. I habitually practice what I'm going to eventually say out loud. I discovered as a teenager that if I didn't do that, I would appear stupid to people. Even now, most of what I say is like a prerecorded message. I've started wondering if that's why I have a hard time grasping language philosophy. I was wondering particularly Rich, do you have that continuous inner voice?

Interesting stuff. It never occurred to me that people may be thinking differently. I am not sure how my thoughts compare to others.

Mostly, I would say that I am observing my thoughts during the day. So, while playing tennis, I might be thinking about hitting the ball with the racquet in a certain manner. While I am thinking this, I will be observing myself thinking about this. But it is not like I am observing myself, observing myself, thinking. Smile

I'll just know that I am considering different options. The same thing may occur when I am speaking to someone.

However, this becomes particularly interesting when I am in a group. Sometimes, I'll just be conversing in a group. But sometimes, I will be observing myself talking (the role I am playing) and at the same time observing others and the roles they are playing. It feels like I am in an audience observing. It sometimes happens on this forum. It is quite interesting to observe myself doing this. Smile

Anyway, that is how my thought process goes to and fro during the day. Smile

Rich

---------- Post added 09-09-2009 at 08:09 PM ----------

TickTockMan;89267 wrote:

This is too clever for me to unravel. Can you break down for me exactly what this means? Without resorting to tautologies? Also, could you tell me what this activity accomplishes?

It is a creative process that I go through.

Observing differences within similarities would be like observing stock market cycles which are similar but different and trying to determine what are the differences and how I might use these differences within similarities to better understand the nature of the stock market. Observing similarities within differences, would be trying to find human behavior that is ostensibly different (lets say humans playing poker and humans playing the stock market) and within these differences find the similarities (e.g. psychological behavior when big money is involved vs. small money).

Using these concepts, I can develop a entirely new and creative way of looking at the stock market that allows me to understand and play the game a bit better. All of this goes on in my thoughts as I look for patterns, change my way of looking at things, and create a completely new pattern that totally replaces what I was previously thinking. It happens all the time. Call it an inspired moment.

Hope this explains it. Bohm does a more lengthy exposition in his book which is very clever and interesting to read.

Rich

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;89285 wrote:

Thanks for getting back wtih that, paulhanke. I think I would appreciate the exercise if you could kind of walk me through your line of reasoning on how you take what BrightNoon might be trying to get at here (and by here, I assume the meanging of 'this thread' rather than that of 'that particular demand in that post'). I think it could most definitely be considered embedding, and thus not off topic; and it should prove to be educational, as well.

... as far as that particular post, I think BrightNoon is saying that simply citing a pile of neurological data that demonstrates there is some link between consciousness and neurons and using that to claim that consciousness is a neurological problem is flawed ... that if you only bother to cite neurological data, then by fiat it can be nothing but a neurological problem ... but what of artificial intelligence, the implications of which lead to consciousness being a computational problem? ... or cognitive science, the implications of which lead to consciousness being a dynamic systems problem of the brain-body-world system? ... or psychology, the implications of which lead to consciousness being a psychological problem? ... without first having a phenomenological description of consciousness, this seems very much like the blind sages trying to figure out what an elephant is (the one thinks it's a snake, the next thinks it's a tree, and so on).

As far as the OP goes, the questions posed there seem not to ask "where does consciousness come from" so much as they ask "what is the relationship between consciousness and the (supposed) external world" ... so trying to demonstrate the neurological basis of consciousness seems to be off topic ... is neurology involved at all in the OP questions? - personally I think so (at least as far as human consciousness is concerned), but again, neurology can be at most only part of the answer, and then only after you have sat yourself down and described the conscious experience of the external world as the point of departure.

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;89291 wrote:

Interesting stuff. It never occurred to me that people may be thinking differently.

I find your sarcasm refreshing.

richrf;89291 wrote:

Mostly, I would say that I am observing my thoughts during the day. So, while playing tennis, I might be thinking about hitting the ball with the racquet in a certain manner. While I am thinking this, I will be observing myself thinking about this. But it is not like I am observing myself, observing myself, thinking. I'll just know that I am considering different options. The same thing may occur when I am speaking to someone.

I would think this level of activity would rob one's life of much of its spontaneity.

Have you heard of the concept of "No Mind?" If not, this is an interesting link. Mushin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I try to practice this in my martial art training. I can tell when it's working when I'm not getting punched in the face as frequently. It is also equally valid in sports training, such as tennis. Some call it "being in the zone." Is this not taught in Tai Chi?

Who, by the way, is this I that you refer to as being the observer? How have you managed to separate the observer from the observed?

richrf;89291 wrote:

Observing differences within similarities would be like observing stock market cycles which are similar but different . . .

I'm sorry, but I still fail to see the profundity of the statement, "different similarities and similar differences." At best it seems a rather redundant observation. Or is it oxymoronic? Like saying, "same difference," which some sorts of people think is a clever remark.

But I could be stumbling over semantics.

What you are describing in relation to playing the stock market sounds to me more like intuition, or good instincts. Think how one could soar without all these metaphysical complications entangling us!

Thank you for reading and responding. Sorry to be so obtuse.

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;89299 wrote:

... as far as that particular post, I think BrightNoon is saying that simply . . .

OK, but I really wonder. Now, I had kind of entertained the hope that you might (as I would like to imagine you might have possibly sensed, knowing me) have gone through a bit more of a process based on things said in the past (you know, kind of doing the detective work to put the circumstantial and testimonial evidence together) leading to the understanding you had seen BrightNoon trying to get at. I do appreciate your input and explanation, there, of course.

Just in case, here's his wording again:

BrightNoon;89104 wrote:

First, let me address a methodological issue. Kielicious, and other materialists in the thread: If you require scientific/empiric evidence of any claim made, it is impossible for anyone who does not share your materialist conception of consicousness to debate with you. To require that sort of evidence assumes already that consciousness is purely a biological problem. It's like asking someone to provide evidence that x does not equal 2 in 2x=4, only using the basic rules of algebra. The debate is about whether those rules are appropriate, i.e. about whether consciousness is in fact a biological problem, or some other sort of problem, and then of course what the solution is.

What might be the most likely outcome, if we were to exchange the modifying terms 'scientific/empiric' with 'accumulated-over-time-and-test'? Would that still be seen to largely equate 'scientific/empiric,' or would that give way to a different shade (nuance) of a type of evidence that could arguably be necessary for making firmer conclusions toward our matter of inquiry, consciousness?

What might be said to be drawing--more heavily than not--one's view away from seeing an average bulk of fair, practical and logical, honest, and time tested evidence as presenting (leading towards) a thinkable conclusion, towards seeing that conclusion as being almost 'presuppositional' in nature? (The usage of 'assumes already' in contextual juxtaposition with 'only using the basic rules of~,' and 'the debate is about whether those rules are appropriate' greatly appears to signifiying that asking for evidence of the nature indicated is to have presupposed the understanding before any evidence of that nature.)

Well, regarding the later most part of your post, you are correct in some ways, and not so correct in another; as I see it. I mean we all know exactly why this particular thread came up, and so that is no great big mystery. However, it is not really clear from the OP, that any 'problem' (concern) related to consciousness is off-limits here. (the two questions posed, to get the ball rolling, are simply two questions [lack of contextually derived information], and the title is pretty open)

It is also no big mystery, really, why that post in question had been made, what had led to it--namely evidence provided for a matter which had been questioned by another. I would argue that jeeprs had been set on attempting to provide argument against the evidence provided, but which had relied on an analogy that had seemingly had a conclusion from a much larger area of thought attached to it, rather than the simple example of the analogy.

Therefore, are we to conclude that this thread is the defense position of that which the other thread, from which it had been given birth to, has argued? If so, that is fine . . . however, is it not a fact that to overturn a conclusion determined by evidence of a certain nature, one has to provide counter evidence of that same general nature, or more clearly and accurately demonstrate how the conclusion drawn from the average bulk of evidence for such conclusion is wrong? If the answer to this last question were to turn out to be positive, then what harm would there be in presenting evidence here in this thread, even?

1 Reply

The Problem of Consciousness

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know