Consciousness is a Biological Problem

@richrf,

The studies of near death experiences have found that even when there is no recorded brain activity,consciousness is found to be present. Now we could say that chemical activity creates these experiences and they are not actually experiencing death, but a reaction to the circumstances the brain finds it in.
What we should be asking, where does this consciousness arise from under these circumstances, if no visible activity can be found.Even in dreams we have REM.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;84054 wrote:

The studies of near death experiences have found that even when there is no recorded brain activity,consciousness is found to be present. Now we could say that chemical activity creates these experiences and they are not actually experiencing death, but a reaction to the circumstances the brain finds it in.
What we should be asking, where does this consciousness arise from under these circumstances, if no visible activity can be found.Even in dreams we have REM.

Hi there,

Yes, evidence of consciousness is everywhere, so why does it want to deny its own existence? Good question to ask.

Everything makes sense, once one looks at the sequence of events are beginning with consciousness and then everything else arises from it.

However, the problem is that given classical instrumentation, there is no way to measure consciousness. This is pretty much confirmed by the Heisenberg Principle which limits that which we might know. So the only way to get there is by having consciousness observe itself, which is what we are doing all the time, and become more aware of itself and how it is creating. In time, new ways of looking at things may emerge out of consciousness, which will allow us to see much more than we are allowed to at this time.

The human consciousness is constantly evolving as it becomes more sensitive to its surrounds. The human body's central nervous system is a mere mechanism for consciousness to move around and observe.

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;83995 wrote:

Not for me. For you. You have painted yourself into an absurd corner where talking to a computer is as meaningful as talking to a person, and whatever you say is perfectly meaningless because everything is determined. An absolutely banal existence that for some reason you and your colleagues wish to foist on other human beings, absurdity and all.

I hope you enjoy your corner. I like it where I am with Free Will, a conscious, thinking, creative, learning mind that I can share with other conscious beings. You see, I don't need any studies or proof that a human being is far more interesting than a computer and has the ability to change its mind. Apparently this obvious difference, the raison d'etre for having discussions on a forum such as this, cannot be acknowledged by your own mind. For what reason? Who knows. Minds choose funny games to play sometimes.

As far as the quantum issue is concerned, every thing can be described by a wave, albeit a very, very complicated one. We are what we are composed of. Quantum physics has long ago decided that this world is a probabilistic one with no room for determinism. The collapse of the wave functions could very well indeed be the result of consciousness, which means consciousness is creating all biological forms, not the other way around.

It remains a logical possibility that it is the act of consciousness which is ultimately responsible for the reduction of the wave packet
[in other words, "the collapse of the wave function] ... [John Stewart Bell]

Me thinks you watched The Secret one too many times.

1 Reply

@richrf,

The activity of the brain gives no clue to the conscious minds locality or its foundation.Those who say it is a result of the whole brains activity rather than a specific region have not decided by how much of this brain it occupies at any one moment.
The conscious mind appears to have a will of its own, it will disappear when sleep approaches and jump into existance in a fraction of second. It can exist when most of its brain has stopped reacting but can be invisible when the brain is damaged. It appears to be very subtle but prone to invisibility. It requires the brain to communicate but not to maintain its independence. It appears to be influenced by the mammalian brains earthly cravings but can evaluate these failings. By its appearance it appears to be unsure of its purpose but travels with enthusiasm like a passenger on a journey of discovery. We are travellers unaware of our own real existance.

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;83965 wrote:

if I don't have free will, I'll do something regardless

ascription of "purpose" is essentially meaningless btw

... aw, c'mon - you can do better than the tired old Cartesian/positivist party line, can't you? ... I mean, to imply that the fact that you "do something regardless" somehow negates free will doesn't cut it ... the ability to control the universe so that you don't have to "do something regardless" is omnipotence, not free will ... free will is simply being able to choose to duck when something comes flying at you - which is a lot more than a rock can do ... and as far as the ascription of purpose goes, if emergence is real then so is purpose ... in a world where emergence is real, higher level processes can constrain lower level processes (some of which are the very lower level processes from which the higher arise in the first place) in feedback loops of reciprocal causation ... if you need evidence that indicates purpose can have real impacts in the physical world, just visit New York City - those sky scrapers are not just random aggregates of atoms ... so is emergence real? - can a being who experiences purpose act on that purpose and impact the very circumstances in which he exists? ... is emergence compatible with determinism? (Dennett seems to think so) ...

0 Replies

@richrf,

Pathfinder;83981 wrote:

I could cut and paste a scientific research article for every one you paste in here that will debate abnd scientifically argue the opposing research.

then do so

richrf;83995 wrote:

Not for me. For you. You have painted yourself into an absurd corner where talking to a computer is as meaningful as talking to a person, and whatever you say is perfectly meaningless because everything is determined. An absolutely banal existence that for some reason you and your colleagues wish to foist on other human beings, absurdity and all.

rich you are making an appeal to consequences of a belief. that is, you are not addressing the content of my argument, just saying "well it makes me feel bad, therefore it can't be true"

I don't care whether you think a widely accepted finding of neuroscience, viz. that the brain is a kind of computer, diminishes your existence. lots of things make us small. heliocentrism, the Big Bang, evolution ... how they make us feel doesn't have any bearing whatever on whether they're true or not. so it is with the claim that the brain is a computer. and if all you have to overturn the substantial body of evidence that it is (I highly recommend that there book The Computational Brain), then I'll take note of that on a roll of toilet paper before putting it to good use

richrf;83995 wrote:

I hope you enjoy your corner. I like it where I am with Free Will, a conscious, thinking, creative, learning mind that I can share with other conscious beings.

oh please

new age mystics are two a penny these days rich. reveling in bunkum doesn't make you creative

I'm writing fiction for the UB Spectrum this semester. being a critical thinker is no bar to creativity, and hard science fiction is certainly more creative than quote mining and regurgitating new age pap

richrf;83995 wrote:

You see, I don't need any studies or proof that a human being is far more interesting than a computer

the human brain is a computer, i.e., a device with maps inputs to outputs in a meaningful way, so the comparison is meaningless
interesting is subjective. a Roy Batty-like artifice which could be realized in the next few decades by NBIC technologies (the nexus of nanotechnology, biology, information and cognitive sciences) would be more interesting than most smart people. the primitive text adventure Zork is already more interesting than an average person
but Zork is not what I would consider conscious, so whether something is interesting has no bearing on whether it is conscious. it's irrelevant

richrf;83995 wrote:

Apparently this obvious difference, the raison d'etre for having discussions on a forum such as this, cannot be acknowledged by your own mind. For what reason? Who knows. Minds choose funny games to play sometimes.

I'm playing funny games called "critical thinking" and "rationalism" which I know you find very quaint

richrf;83995 wrote:

Quantum physics has long ago decided that this world is a probabilistic one with no room for determinism.

probability doesn't leave room for free will either. you don't "choose" the states of quantum particles anymore than you "choose" the outcome of a die
quantum effects are washed out at the level of the brain. saying that quantum effects matter compared to neuromodulators is like saying that the tiny changes in my center of mass caused by punching the keyboard here have a noticable influence on the Earth's orbit around the Sun.

rich you do not know what you're talking about

richrf;83995 wrote:

The collapse of the wave functions could very well indeed be the result of consciousness, which means consciousness is creating all biological forms, not the other way around.

once you have some experimental evidence that shows this to be the case, I'll reconsider

richrf;83995 wrote:

It remains a logical possibility that it is the act of consciousness which is ultimately responsible for the reduction of the wave packet
[in other words, "the collapse of the wave function] ... [John Stewart Bell]

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/metaphysics/5521-consiousness-free-will-quantum-physics.html

do you really believe that the majority of physicists take this unfalsifiable bunk seriously

also what qualifies as conscious, that's an interesting question

---------- Post added 08-18-2009 at 04:12 PM ----------

xris;84054 wrote:

The studies of near death experiences have found that even when there is no recorded brain activity,consciousness is found to be present

what studies, where

xris;84054 wrote:

What we should be asking, where does this consciousness arise from under these circumstances, if no visible activity can be found.Even in dreams we have REM.

oh please, there's brain activity during REM

paulhanke;84105 wrote:

the ability to control the universe so that you don't have to "do something regardless" is omnipotence, not free will ... free will is simply being able to choose to duck when something comes flying at you - which is a lot more than a rock can do

a rock doesn't have a nervous system hooked up to sensors and effectors does it

whether the act of ducking a rock is chosen freely is another thing

the way I see it, patterns of light indicating something is coming at you hard and fast set in motion a complex reaction of neural activity whose events are all either deterministic or probabilistic (i.e. you do not choose them) and you duck as a result

xris;84054 wrote:

and as far as the ascription of purpose goes, if emergence is real then so is purpose ... in a world where emergence is real, higher level processes can constrain lower level processes (some of which are the very lower level processes from which the higher arise in the first place) in feedback loops of reciprocal causation ... if you need evidence that indicates purpose can have real impacts in the physical world, just visit New York City - those sky scrapers are not just random aggregates of atoms

purpose is subjective. maybe a Quechua hunter thinks skyscrapers are absolutely worthless. who's to say he's wrong?

3 Replies

@xris,

xris;84101 wrote:

We are travellers unaware of our own real existance.

Yes. It is strange, fascinating, bewildering.

Nature loves to hide. [Heraclitus]

Rich

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;84114 wrote:

a rock doesn't have a nervous system hooked up to sensors and effectors does it

... which is the main reason why a rock doesn't have free will Smile

odenskrigare;84114 wrote:

the way I see it, patterns of light indicating something is coming at you hard and fast set in motion a complex reaction of neural activity whose events are all either deterministic or probabilistic (i.e. you do not choose them) and you duck as a result

... sounds like what a cockroach would do ... I, on the other hand, could choose not to duck (if I were so inclined) ... does that deny determinism? (again, Dennett doesn't think so) ...

odenskrigare;84114 wrote:

purpose is subjective. maybe a Quechua hunter thinks skyscrapers are absolutely worthless. who's to say he's wrong?

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;84134 wrote:

... sounds like what a cockroach would do ... I, on the other hand, could choose not to duck (if I were so inclined)

if you "chose" not to duck, it would still be a deterministic/probabilistic nervous reaction over which no separate "self" has any control

this is like saying a safety valve "chooses" to let off steam, or a unicellular organism "chooses" to maintain osmotic balance

paulhanke;84134 wrote:

what is purpose then

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

Kielicious;84090 wrote:

Me thinks you watched The Secret one too many times.

That was John Stewart Bell, of Bell's Inequality Theorem, I was quoting, one of the most cited physicists in all of history. I find his thoughts fascinating. Very much along the lines of thinking that I independently came to.

It remains a logical possibility that it is the act of consciousness which is ultimately responsible for the reduction of the wave packet
[in other words, "the collapse of the wave function] ... [John Stewart Bell]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bell's theorem is a no-go theorem, loosely stating that:[INDENT] No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.
[/INDENT]It is the most famous legacy of the late physicist John S. Bell. The theorem has important implications for physics itself and philosophy of science as well. Physically, Bell's theorem proves that local hidden variable theories cannot remove the statistical nature of quantum mechanics.

Philosophically, Bell's theorem implies that if quantum mechanics is correct, the universe is not locally deterministic.

Rich

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;84139 wrote:

what is purpose then

... as Dennett would say, purpose gives us an evolutionary advantage on the level playing field upon which we find ourselves ... from a phenomenological perspective, purpose is a something akin to time consciousness - a relatively stable process that guides (and is guided by) our real-time interactions with the world ... that's the nickel tour of phenomenological purpose.

So what's the level (metaphysical) playing field? ... we've got a few choices: billiard ball determinism, blind randomness ... but maybe its not that simple ... take Laughlin's Nobel Prize winning work ... where at supercooled temperatures a physical process can exist independently of the quantum foam ... raise the temperature, and the particularities of the quantum foam begin to show up in the process ... and vice versa? - that is, can processes have a "calming" or "determining" effect on the quantum foam? ... when a process "calms" the quantum foam, is there a residue of blind randomness that remains?; and on the flip side, when the particularities of the quantum foam begin to show up in the process, is there a residue of the "pure" process that remains? (leveraging that concept of emergence again!) ... so let's switch tacks to photosynthesis ... an article in Scientific American discusses findings that plants have evolved to harness quantum effects in order to convert energy at an otherwise inexplicable efficiency - evolution is great at finding and exploiting such seams ... and I used the word "harness" deliberately to emphasize that if this was simply blind randomness operating here as opposed to constrained randomness that photosynthesis simply wouldn't work (or at least wouldn't be nearly so efficient) ... and if plant evolution can find a way to harness the quantum foam, why not animal evolution?

So is there a theory in here somewhere? No - merely an observation that billiard ball determinism and blind randomness appear to be another one of those false dichotomies that we often get stuck in ... the full reality seems to be much more complex, much more fuzzy, and much more full of surprises - a lot more dynamic and processual than solely substantive (too bad our metaphysics of processes and science of dynamics are essentially just getting started, eh?) ... and in that light, I think it's premature to announce the philosophical demise of metaphysical purpose (or metaphysical free will, for that matter) ... but that's just me Smile

2 Replies

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;84184 wrote:

So is there a theory in here somewhere? No - merely an observation that billiard ball determinism and blind randomness appear to be another one of those false dichotomies that we often get stuck in ...

Hi Paul,

Borrowing from Chinese metaphysics/philosophy: humans have aspects including creativity and Will. The Will (Zhi) allows us to choose a direction. It doesn't determine an outcome, but it does allow us to move towards to or away from.

The analogy I use is a ships navigator, who sees a typhoon. The navigator can choose to move toward the typhoon, away from it, or attempt to go around it. The outcome of the maneuver, whichever direction is chosen, is not determined until the actual event occurs. That is, the navigator doesn't know what will happen until the ship and the typhoon collide, should this even happen. But turning away from the typhoon sends the ship in a path with other undermined consequences.

So, life is a process of navigation. We can choose direction but the outcome, the event is always undetermined until it occurs.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

paulhanke;84184 wrote:

... as Dennett would say, purpose gives us an evolutionary advantage on the level playing field upon which we find ourselves ... from a phenomenological perspective, purpose is a something akin to time consciousness - a relatively stable process that guides (and is guided by) our real-time interactions with the world ... that's the nickel tour of phenomenological purpose.

You still haven't told me what purpose is

I find it very hard to believe a pale blue dot floating in a mind-bogglingly vast emptiness has any kind of objective purpose

paulhanke;84184 wrote:

So what's the level (metaphysical) playing field? ... we've got a few choices: billiard ball determinism, blind randomness ... but maybe its not that simple ... take Laughlin's Nobel Prize winning work ... where at supercooled temperatures a physical process can exist independently of the quantum foam ... raise the temperature, and the particularities of the quantum foam begin to show up in the process ... and vice versa? - that is, can processes have a "calming" or "determining" effect on the quantum foam? ... when a process "calms" the quantum foam, is there a residue of blind randomness that remains?; and on the flip side, when the particularities of the quantum foam begin to show up in the process, is there a residue of the "pure" process that remains? (leveraging that concept of emergence again!) ... so let's switch tacks to photosynthesis ... an article in Scientific American discusses findings that plants have evolved to harness quantum effects in order to convert energy at an otherwise inexplicable efficiency - evolution is great at finding and exploiting such seams ... and I used the word "harness" deliberately to emphasize that if this was simply blind randomness operating here as opposed to constrained randomness that photosynthesis simply wouldn't work (or at least wouldn't be nearly so efficient) ... and if plant evolution can find a way to harness the quantum foam, why not animal evolution?

Why not? Well why not

But unfortunately no one has given any evidence that quantum effects have any role in the brain

The burden of proof is on them

richrf;84189 wrote:

Hi Paul,

Borrowing from Chinese metaphysics/philosophy: humans have aspects including creativity and Will. The Will (Zhi) allows us to choose a direction. It doesn't determine an outcome, but it does allow us to move towards to or away from.

rich according to the Ha'zakh, the Supreme Holy Writ, Dhaakhra "commands all the many sentient beings and beasts of the Universe" (Thakhuun 225:2401:125). Indeed, "the Word of the Great Devastator is Law" (Mazhakh 637:928:32) and "whosoever shall spitefully defy in word or deed that Highest and Most Terrible Foe of Haa'zhalka shall be cast into the Ninth Abode of Damnation whence none return" (Shaza'khaotak 6:982:245)

so you see we don't have our own will, it's Dhaakhra's will ... by adhering to this blasphemous notion of zhi, you risk eternal damnation!

2 Replies

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;84198 wrote:

according to the Ha'zakh, the Supreme Holy Writ, Dhaakhra "commands all the many sentient beings and beasts of the Universe" (Thakhuun 225:2401:125). Indeed, "the Word of the Great Devastator is Law" (Mazhakh 637:928:32) and "whosoever shall spitefully defy in word or deed that Highest and Most Terrible Foe of Haa'zhalka shall be cast into the Ninth Abode of Damnation whence none return" (Shaza'khaotak 6:982:245)

so you see we don't have our own will, it's Dhaakhra's will ... by adhering to this blasphemous notion of zhi, you risk eternal damnation!

So where does Nyarlathotep fit in with all this? Don't tell me I've been following the wrong lurker in the void all of these years . . . .

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

There is a vast difference between awareness and consciousness. And even greater chasm between awareness and intelligence.

But the grand canyon of them all is the divide between intelligence and wisdom.

3 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;84201 wrote:

There is a vast difference between awareness and consciousness. And even greater chasm between awareness and intelligence.

But the grand canyon of them all is the divide between intelligence and wisdom.

would you give me your definitions of awareness, consciousness and intelligence? i have read a lot and dont like any of them yet...

(i'm cool with wisdom. Smile

it is definitely in a class by itself...)

0 Replies

@Pathfinder,

TickTockMan;84199 wrote:

So where does Nyarlathotep fit in with all this? Don't tell me I've been following the wrong lurker in the void all of these years . . . .

Blasphemer! How dare you speak his name!

Pathfinder;84201 wrote:

But the grand canyon of them all is the divide between intelligence and wisdom.

according to the Dungeons and Dragons school of metaphysics

but seriously wisdom, legitimately defined, is a form of learned intelligence where fine synaptic tuning imparts a skill that cannot be entirely conveyed in words, but is not magical either

more frequently, "wisdom" is an attempt at adherents of outmoded belief systems to give themselves a consolation prize

0 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;84201 wrote:

There is a vast difference between awareness and consciousness. And even greater chasm between awareness and intelligence.

But the grand canyon of them all is the divide between intelligence and wisdom.

Hi Pathfinder,

You may be interested in the Chinese metaphysical description of the human being. Interestingly, it stays away from things like intelligence, and wisdom. But here are the essential aspects:

1) Shen: the Spirit. It is the spark of life. This would be the closest to the Western notion of Universal Consciousness. That which binds everything together.

2) Hun: the Soul. It is the transcendental aspect of the being that is exploring, learning, creating through multiple life times. It would be the source of such things as inherited characteristics, innate capabilities, etc.

3) Yi: the awareness/creative aspect. It uses the nervous system to receive information and to create new information.

4) Zhi: the Will. That which pushes us to live and evolve. It combines with the Yi.

5) Po: the physical life that we are living. It uses Yi and Zhi to keep itself alive.

It is a very interesting metaphysical structure and I have found many parallels with Heraclitus' view of the cosmos.

Hope you find this interesting.

Rich

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

While the cerebellum has direct connections to the spinal chord, the basal ganglia do not, but interact with the cerebral cortex. The general flow of information runs from the cerebral cortex to the striatum where it synapses with projections to various areas of globus pallidus, ventral tegmental area, substantia nigra (pars compacta & reticulata), and the sub thalamic nucleus. The general outflow (after all inner flows) is to areas of the frontal lobe. The cerebellum could be said to be more directly active in regulation and planning (based on memory search) of (especially) ballistic movement, whereas the basal ganglia participate in what could be called the cognitive dimensions of movement--thus the structures dual role of is planning and execution of motor strategies.

The skeletomotor loop more specifically recieves input from the primary motor, lateral premotor, supplimentary motor areas, and primary somatic sensory areas into the putamen which synapse with globus pallidus internal and substantia nigra pars reticulata where output goes to the ventral anterior & lateral thalamic nuclei. From there, feedback/output flows to the motor areas. One interesting aspect is the working load degree of the basal ganglia by inhibitory, rather than excitatory activities--and some of the excitation is actually caused by disinhibition (inhibition of inhibitory spiking). The direct path of the skeletomotor loop promotes movement, and the indirect path inhibits movement.

The neurotransmitters and neuromodulators involved are (among a few possible others) glutamate (excitatory; corticostriatal neurons input into basal ganglia, thalamic neurons projecting to the striatum, and the subthalamic projection neurons), GABA (inhibitory; the medium spiny projection neurons of the striatum feeding both segments of the globus pallidus & the substantia nigra pars reticulata, and projection neurons of both segments of the globus pallidus and substantia nigra pars reticulata), enkephalin (a peptide contained largely in the medium spiny neurons), substance P (a peptide also contained largely in the medium spiny neurons), dynorphin (an endogenous opiod), dopamine (catecholamine) contain by neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta & the ventral tegmental area), acetylcholine (in the striatal interneurons).

In looking at this overall motor system, we can see that we have very complicated circuitry, and that the interaction (internal feedback) makes a difference in the system's 'self-control' (so to speak) as does input (feed forward and feed back) from outside the system as well (such as emotional, visual and auditory input). What we have very little trouble concluding, is that we are exactly dealing with brain activity here, in controlling bodily movement.

Points made by jeeprs #98 (A. 1, 2; B) [also see #116, #147] can be applied here as well. The brain build is set up to work towards a normal state (talking about the H. sapien brain here for now), and that achieved, the brain build is normal, and works normally. (please note that there is a normal brain build, and we need not get side tracked on this) There is no evidence which tends to stipulate that anything beyond brain build/state is needed for motor function, and yet error or disruption/infarction in that system will present itself in lack of, or disturbance of, or enhancement of, movement and relative cognitive state (due to connections with the motor system). I'll next point some out.

I tend to agree, pathfinder, that it is sad that at times things go wrong, that so many rush with a new find by some figure with a 'Dr.' or 'Phd' used along with their names--but that's just life, it's always been pretty much that way, for whatever arena of human activity, and it doesn't look as though it's going to change anytime soon. Oh yeah, no need to worry on those after thoughts. . . it's that brain that has self recognition and acknowledgement of the body it's a part of and controls (thus 'you') that typed that linguistic communication through those actions.

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;84234 wrote:

Hi Pathfinder,

You may be interested in the Chinese metaphysical description of the human being. Interestingly, it stays away from things like intelligence, and wisdom. But here are the essential aspects:

1) Shen: the Spirit. It is the spark of life. This would be the closest to the Western notion of Universal Consciousness. That which binds everything together.

2) Hun: the Soul. It is the transcendental aspect of the being that is exploring, learning, creating through multiple life times. It would be the source of such things as inherited characteristics, innate capabilities, etc.

3) Yi: the awareness/creative aspect. It uses the nervous system to receive information and to create new information.

4) Zhi: the Will. That which pushes us to live and evolve. It combines with the Yi.

5) Po: the physical life that we are living. It uses Yi and Zhi to keep itself alive.

rich this blasphemy directly contradicts the Tripartite System of Sentience of the Supreme Holy Writ. A sentient being clearly consists of:

Zhak: the physical body
Hao'khor: the mind
Dhaakra-tuum: the immanent presence of Dhaakhra (loosely translated as "will")

cease your profanity lest you suffer damnation

1 Reply

Consciousness is a Biological Problem

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know