Consciousness is a Biological Problem

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;84198 wrote:

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

... sure I did ... it's just that phenomenological descriptions do not cast their eye toward the objective - merely the subjective and the intersubjective ... phenomenology leaves all that objective stuff to metaphysics ...

odenskrigare;84198 wrote:

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

The burden of proof is on them

... er, you might want to rephrase that as "no one has given any evidence that quantum effects have any macroscopic role in the brain" ... at the same time, the evidence from photosynthesis is that quantum effects can indeed play macroscopic roles ... this opens up the floor to the question: is billiard ball determinism sufficient to explain the phenomenological mind? ... and once this question has been raised and someone wants to claim that billiard ball determinism is sufficient to explain the phenomenological mind, isn't the burden of proof on them? ...

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

we're not talking about photosynthesis, we're talking about the brain

neuromodulators are titanic compared to quantum particles and no one has yet observed quantum effects playing a role in computation in the brain (claims made by Penrose et al. are purely fanciful right now) so the ball really is in your court guys

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

Thanks for the path Rich.

Picture a herd of deer grazing in the field. The does are generally conscious grazing. They are not unconscious but are basically consumed by their appetite and the goal of feeding it. Not much else has their attention. They are bascially eating machines interested in nothing else.

On the fringes are the bucks who are quite a bit more aware while they graze. They are keenly watching for threats to their herd and will react immediately to any threat entering into this environment. They are more attuned to their environment than the grazing does.

However some bucks are not as intelligent as others and may choose to flee when danger approaches by talking ther fast and clear routs down the edge of the open field thinking that speed and an open road will get them away quickly. Suddenly the speeding bullet from the predators rifle speeds into his sdie after being offered a clear, unobstructed shot.

The smarter buck has quickly slithered into the brush slowly picking its way through its familiar escape route and disappears like a ghost into the forest. One like consciousness and awareness showing a great deal higher level of intelligence applied to the same situation.

And then you have the wise old elder of the jungle thickets who has played this game many times. He NEVER steps completely into the open field at all preferring to graze right on the edges and constantly remaining mostly in the bushes where he looks more like a plant than an animal. When danger arises, he quickly surveys the danger by proximity, wind direction, point of attack etc., and in many cases wisdom suggests that remaining motionless and acting like a tree is the course of action that will save its life.

Consciousness, awareness, intelligence and wisdom all revealed in the most natural elements of the animal kingdom. Imagine how much more defintive it should be in the human species. And yet many of our fellowman cannot even acknowledge it. They will look pretty silly catching that bullet in the side of their gut leaping over that log in the middle of the field, while I sit hiding in the shadows asking myself,,,WHY?

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

distinctions between intelligence and wisdom are pretty antiquated bro

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

In the normal brain build/state, one may turn their head upon hearing the phone ring, put down the magazine they've been reading, uncross their legs, stand up, cross the room going through the door into the hallway, walk down the hallway, and answer the phone--as they kind of twist around on one leg to lean up against the wall, answering in a fairly clear and loud enough voice.

If you remove dopamine function from the basal ganglia of their brain build/state, they'd not be able to do so in time to reach the phone before the other party (unless knowing of and allowing time for the case) hangs up. This is Parkinson's Disease in a general nutshell. To fill it out a bit, please do see below, and visualize (based on our foundation now in hand) the whole of the state (including cause and result):

[indent]Parkinson's Disease (PD) is best to be thought of as a highly heterogeneous group of diseases, generally grouped as idiopathic parkinsonism, symptomatic parkinsonism, P-plus syndromes, and heterodegenerative disorders, and would include, therefore both genetically based forms (autosomal recessive juvenile parkinsonism (AR-JP), and familia parkinsonism (FPD)), and non-genetic based ones.

By a tragic 'underground' drug accident, it was further evidenced that MPTP (1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydrapyridine) attacks the DA neurons of the substantia nigra (SN), and results in PD symptoms. This is because the primary projector of PD symptom is the death of L-DOPA (dopamine (DA) precursor) cells in especially the SN area. Therefore in non-genetical cases, toxins--in the enviornment, or caused by faulty metabolism, or (possibly) unrecognized infectious disorders--appear to be possible upstream causes.

Evident causes of cell death in the genetic-based cases, give rise to the likelihood of missense and nonsense mutations in the gene encoding a-synuclein (a protein) which has a similar effect with the build-up of Lewy bodies (LBs) and Lewy neutries (LNs), and appears to work with molecular chaperone Hsp70. The bodies are filamentious inclusions, and result in a placque-like build up; as is often seen in Alzheimer's disease. PARK2, SNCA, UCHILI, and DJ-1 are seen to be genes involved in one way or another, with PARK2 (parkin) being most widespread. Parkin operates in the ubiquitin-proteasome (Ub-Pr) pathway, giving rise to a faulty protein degradation, and thus a collection of Poly-Ub substrates, which in turn, lead to cell apoptosis.

It has been seen that efforts to make up for DA system losses by estrogen increase (as a kind of repair function), and tyrosine hydroxylase (TH) upregulation occur naturally. There are likely other pathway events which also occur due to the loss of basal ganglion projection, but futher study will have to draw those out. These efforts to compensate are, of course, conscious [note: new sense used here] brain acts--brain does it--but are not recorded in the usual (at least) ways, so that none represent an act within consciousness.

The effects are seen in a resting tremor (shaking head, hands, and so on) and 'cog' motion--a slow, rigid point-by-point motion as if a move depends on the turn of a cogwheel. There is also a degree of cognitive deficiency (1) in many cases, and dementia in later age ranges. In a number of cases, sexual disfunction or hypersexuality or aberrent sexual behavior (probably due to DA replacement therapy) is also seen. The main pharmacological is L-DOPA, a medication which replenishes the loss of the DA precursor. It is often taken in combination with some other chemicals which back up the desired result. L-DOPA will often result in sensitization, and dosage will have to be increased, and some patients do not seem to respond to it.

Another treatment is to replace damaged cells with fetal tissue. This has resulted in positive results. Recently, embroynic stem (ES) cells have been shown to be able to electrophysiologically and behaviorally lead to recovery of PD symptoms in mouse models of the disease. Another way which is still under study and testing, is gene therapy with glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) injection. Then there is deep brain stimulation (DBS) which is proving to have a fair enough degree of efficacy, but which can cause (a least when first switched on) mood changes towards the depressive state.

In the past, pallidotomies (surgical destruction of the GPi) was used for severe cases, and resulted in a degree of recovered movement, but in some cases made symptoms worse, or caused partial blindness (due to damage to the optic tract that lies right next door). [/indent]

What is seen in PD, is a brain-build which undershoots a normal brain-build in that--among a few other possible factors--a required level of neurons which project with DA in the basal ganglion system, resulting in the normal command controls for movement, is lost. This is all in an area of brain that has projections to and from areas which participate in cognitive decision making as well as thought--what we usually consider when we think of mind--and just like those other areas, have no choice but to work with and within (through 'push' and 'pull') the systems (to applicable genetic function, even) that make brain, which in turn give brain-build, thus providing the brain.

When we are presented with and study these cases, and see that normal brain build/state is lost (it once was, we must acknowlege), do we find any evidence at all that any contact (reception) with something out there, external to brain, has been lost by the structures of brain responsible for body movement control? No, we do not. In fact, we find just exactly the opposite; viz. that it is the very performance of the biological systems (brain build/state) that act on the biological system that the H. sapien is which are projected (thus interpreted [so to speak]) as the movements of the biological body that we are (on the pragmatic level here) ! Does the 'brain function as a TV' imagery work here (jeeper's #98 [and note flow up to my #299])? No, it does not (unless, perhaps, we'd like to include all [/i][/u](especially animal) life forms as recievers of 'something out there.'

Huntington's disease (HD) is purely genetic in cause, and also shows the fallacy of refusing to understand brain build/state as a biological source. I'll do that next, then summarize and apply these two before moving on. Additionally, to answer to Pathfinder's possible (not sure, but it just might be, you see) charge of my simply 'cutting' from somewhere and 'pasting' (see his number 279, third paragraph), I'll site some of my source material below...for those not interested, please just skip it (but do see the footnote just below). [No, Pathfinder, it is not cut and paste material which I present . . . not at all, so please do keep that in mind. Thanks.] KJ

1. This often may mean simply a re-routing of cognitive funtions from a normal route used by non-PD brains, and thus an only slightly measurable reduction of accuracy in learning skills.

SOURCES (most, but not all)

Science Vol 304, 21 May '04; pp 1158-1160
[indent]Vol 247, 2 Feb '90; pp ?
Vol 295, 1 Feb '02; pp 865-868
Vol 209, 27 Oct '00; pp 721-724
Vol 302, 31 Oct '03; pp 819-822[/indent]

Brain and Cognition Vol 68, '08; pp 134-143
[indent]Vol 67, '08; pp 340-350
Vol 53, '03; pp 190-192
Vol 52, '03; pp 343-352[/indent]

Journal of Neurological Sciences Vol 284, issues 1-2, Sept '09; pp 177,178

Archives of CLINICAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY Vol 23, '08, pp 399-408

Neuroscience vol 156, '08, pp 830-840

Parkinsonsim and Related Disorders Vol 14, '08; pp 451-456
[indent]Vol 14, '08; pp 553-557[/indent]

Behavioural Brain Research Vol 190, '08; pp 224-232

Trends in Neuroscience Vol 30, No 5, '07; pp 194-202

Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science Vol 1, editor-in-chief Lynn Nadel, '03; pp 328-333

ibid Vol 3; p 458

Encyclopedia of the Human Genome Vol 4, '03; pp 492-497

and the other reference works, texts, and journals (with my mainstay being Journal of Neuroscience).

0 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;84297 wrote:

Consciousness, awareness, intelligence and wisdom all revealed in the most natural elements of the animal kingdom. Imagine how much more defintive it should be in the human species. And yet many of our fellowman cannot even acknowledge it. They will look pretty silly catching that bullet in the side of their gut leaping over that log in the middle of the field, while I sit hiding in the shadows asking myself,,,WHY?

Hi there Pathfinder,

I think much of what we call intelligence and wisdom can be parked within Awareness. Awareness is sensitivity to the surrounds. Call it more evolved nervous system.

The grazing animals for the most part are not aware of the hunter or the rifle. But some are. Their systems have evolved to become more sensitive.

And then there is the question of what to do with the information received? What one might call intelligent or wise action. There must be some memory of past experiences. This too is an aspect of awareness. That is, awareness of something that happened in the past.

Rupert Sheldrake would call such past memories as part of the morphic field that creates habits in the universe. I think this is an interesting idea.

For me, these memories are part of inherited characteristics which transcend multiple physical lives - the soul. It is part of the evidence I use to support the notion of a soul that transcends a single physical life. It is a big leap, but once taken, lots of things begin to make sense.

So, briefly, intelligence/wisdom (the method for making decisions) is the result of greater awareness that is developed (evolved) by the soul over multiple lives.

Thanks for your example!

Rich

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

rich do you have any evidence for this stuff or are you just pulling it out of your posterior

I think I went over how morphic fields are bunkum before

transmigration of souls is lol to

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;84309 wrote:

rich do you have any evidence for this stuff or are you just pulling it out of your posterior

I think I went over how morphic fields are bunkum before

transmigration of souls is lol to

But think how simple everything becomes when we understand the nature of life and the transcendental soul. For example, an explanation for your behavior. It might simply be because you never learned any manners. Not in this life time or in prior lifetimes. Maybe you will in this lifetime. Maybe not. It is a matter of experiences.

Everything makes sense, once one embraces the evidence of a soul that transcends multiple lifetimes. That is why the concept is so pervasive over history and in all cultures.

As for biological mechanisms, they are a result of an evolving consciousness. Consciousness creates a physical body so that it can move, retrieve and sense information. Quantum theory has actually be called an information theory. It is all about the limits of what we can know and how we can know it (e.g.. statistical probabilities).

Science has it backwards, because science has evolved to measure, but it has not evolved sufficiently at this point to measure consciousness - itself.

Rich

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;84268 wrote:

we're not talking about photosynthesis, we're talking about the brain

neuromodulators are titanic compared to quantum particles and no one has yet observed quantum effects playing a role in computation in the brain (claims made by Penrose et al. are purely fanciful right now) so the ball really is in your court guys

... actually, I think the ball is in the court of the scientific community and always has been ... the scientific community has yet to provide a scientific theory for the link between brain function and phenomenological mind ... it has long been an assumption that billiard ball determinism would eventually be demonstrated as being sufficient to explain phenomenological mind - this has yet come to pass, and as such is as much scientific speculation as the speculations of Penrose et al. ... certainly, at a time when it could be assumed that quantum effects never reach the macro scale, billiard ball determinism was Occam's choice as the most likely of the scientific speculations ... however, I think that the new evidence from photosynthesis that quantum effects can indeed have macro scale impacts (along with other results such as hardware evolution demonstrating evolution's ability to leverage microscopic/quantum seams) greatly erodes this received wisdom ...

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;84314 wrote:

.it has long been an assumption that billiard ball determinism would eventually be demonstrated as being sufficient to explain phenomenological mind ...

Hi Paul,

I agree with your thoughts on this matter.

My own feeling is that determinism was used in an attempt to break the back of mind in its entirety. To really make human a mass of dumb junk careening off each other.

However, quantum physics long ago demonstrated that determinism, in the classic sense, no longer applies. Recent experiments have confirmed that there is no determinism in the classic sense, though there can always be hidden variables. I am surprised that the notion of determinism still lingers. Einstein, tried hard to save it, but couldn't. No one since has been able to save it.

The central question of quantum physics was and still remains - what makes the wave turn into a particle? My sense is that it is consciousness.

Rich

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;84114 wrote:

then do so

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ----------

what studies, where

oh please, there's brain activity during REM

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

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

I never quoted this and i never said you do not have brain activity during rem..The southampton university studies have initial found that ndes are experienced when no brain activity is present.

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;84317 wrote:

The central question of quantum physics was and still remains - what makes the wave turn into a particle? My sense is that it is consciousness.

... not that I've thought long and hard on this, but my own sense is that processes in general can collapse wave functions - e.g., the process of photosynthesis collapses wave functions in order to achieve incredibly high rates of energy conversion efficiency ... note that this would be in accord with the observation that consciousness can collapse wave functions, as consciousness is itself a process ... I know this doesn't jibe with your interpretation of things, but it seems to me more straightforward to propose a cosmic evolution of processes that tame the quantum foam and introduce macro-scale determinacies than to propose a pre-existing consciousness that directs things ... but that's just me Smile

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;84114 wrote:

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

Yes, I think this is an important point to bear in mind. Neither determinism nor quantum theory is compatible with free will. Both, however, allow unfree will - i.e. we perform an action because we will it, but we are caused to will it by deterministic or quantum factors.

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;84328 wrote:

... not that I've thought long and hard on this, but my own sense is that processes in general can collapse wave functions - e.g., the process of photosynthesis collapses wave functions in order to achieve incredibly high rates of energy conversion efficiency ... note that this would be in accord with the observation that consciousness can collapse wave functions, as consciousness is itself a process ... I know this doesn't jibe with your interpretation of things, but it seems to me more straightforward to propose a cosmic evolution of processes that tame the quantum foam and introduce macro-scale determinacies than to propose a pre-existing consciousness that directs things ... but that's just me

Hi Paul,

I too have wrestled with this thought experiment. Eventually, it drove me to the notion the everything is permeated with consciousness. This is why Einstein once exclaimed that the electron is collapsing itself!

So what is the difference then between this or that? I believe it lies in the differences nervous system. That is, the mobility of the system (the ability to transmit and receive information by individual forms of consciousness) as well as the sensitivity to information. Different forms are more sensitive to different types of information.

I do agree with you entirely it is about process - or as I might see it, as relationships. That is, the receiving and transmitting of information. Even laughing and crying (emotions) are forms of information sharing.

Thanks for your very informative insights.

Rich

---------- Post added 08-19-2009 at 11:13 AM ----------

ACB;84333 wrote:

Yes, I think this is an important point to bear in mind. Neither determinism nor quantum theory is compatible with free will. Both, however, allow unfree will - i.e. we perform an action because we will it, but we are caused to will it by deterministic or quantum factors.

Hi,

Quantum theory does not speak directly to the notion of determinism or free will. It is merely a mathematical formula that predicts an event. However:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/pg7r5166510140r4/http://www.springerlink.com/content/pg7r5166510140r4/

Arguments are given showing that the observed violation of the Bell, Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt inequalities may be interpreted within the framework of quantum mechanics without invoking violation of locality. This conclusion is reached by admitting that the probabilistic character of quantum mechanics is really a fundamentall one-that is without any hidden determinism or variables-and adapting the concept of locality to this situation. On the contrary, supposing that there exists some hidden determinism would lead to the quite unnatural situation in which locality must be violated for individual phenomena while remaining valid statistically.

If there is determinism, then locality is violated (Relativity is violated), which is a whole different ballgame. One that I think most scientists want to stay away from, though I am quite willing to entertain, along with David Bohm and his concept of the Implicate/Explicate Order in which he infuses the notion of Consciousness as part of the enfolded universe, and the individual exercising creativity within the confines of enfolded universe.

However, if there is no determinism, then what is left? Consciousness has a choice! For me, it is open field running when it comes to quantum interpretation.

Rich

1 Reply

@ACB,

ACB;84333 wrote:

Yes, I think this is an important point to bear in mind. Neither determinism nor quantum theory is compatible with free will. Both, however, allow unfree will - i.e. we perform an action because we will it, but we are caused to will it by deterministic or quantum factors.

... that's an uncontroversial statement ... but it is also uncontroversial to state that water is incompatible with a world where there is only hydrogen or a world where there is only oxygen ... so where does this assumed "either/or" come from with respect to determinism and quantum? - don't we observe both in operation? ... and if the world is at base quantum, where the heck does determinism come from in the first place? ... and has anybody bothered to consider what happens when you mix the two? ... (maybe that's a topic for another thread) ...

2 Replies

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;84345 wrote:

... and has anybody bothered to consider what happens when you mix the two? ... (maybe that's a topic for another thread) ...

Hi Paul,

Yes, there are interpretations that attempt to do this. Everett's multi-universe is one where ever possible possibility arises - so Schrondinger's Cat is both dead and alive - but in different universes. The number of universes created with this interpretation is LARGE. Smile

David Bohm's implicate order is one such interpretation. He wrote an essay on the nature of free will within his conception of the enfolded universe/implicate order, but I have to say, I was very unsatisfied with his conceptions. It was just very foggy. For me, this usually indicates that someone is still groping.

It is just darn difficult to combine the two notions - classical determinism and free will.

So I massage it a bit. For me, we are all surrounded by external influences, which guide us toward possible directions, but Consciousness makes the final choice on which direction to take. The choice of direction is what I call Free Will. It takes into account influences and possibilities/probabilities (Awareness) and chosen direction (Will).

Rich

0 Replies

@paulhanke,

richrf;83945 wrote:

If there is no free agency then what the heck are you doing conversing on the forum? Why don't you just talk to your computer and maybe you will notice a difference. And, then again, maybe not.

In any case, quantum mechanics put an end to determinism 80 years ago.

Rich

Couldn't help but laugh; seeing this made my day. You openly admit to not believing in anything, and that there is no proof for anything, and then appeal to Quantum Mechanics to prove your point? HA. Your whole shtick is to throw everything out the window by saying there is no proof and then equating your bizarre and arbitrary spiritual explanations to those of general relativity because they appeal intuitively to you. You know, you take the same position as those who killed Galileo. Ignore the evidence and continue to stick with what intuitively appeals to us, heretics be damned!

richrf;84311 wrote:

But think how simple everything becomes when we understand the nature of life and the transcendental soul. For example, an explanation for your behavior. It might simply be because you never learned any manners. Not in this life time or in prior lifetimes. Maybe you will in this lifetime. Maybe not. It is a matter of experiences.

Everything makes sense, once one embraces the evidence of a soul that transcends multiple lifetimes. That is why the concept is so pervasive over history and in all cultures.

As for biological mechanisms, they are a result of an evolving consciousness. Consciousness creates a physical body so that it can move, retrieve and sense information. Quantum theory has actually be called an information theory. It is all about the limits of what we can know and how we can know it (e.g.. statistical probabilities).

Science has it backwards, because science has evolved to measure, but it has not evolved sufficiently at this point to measure consciousness - itself.

Rich

I rest my case.

richrf;84317 wrote:

Hi Paul,

I agree with your thoughts on this matter.

My own feeling is that determinism was used in an attempt to break the back of mind in its entirety. To really make human a mass of dumb junk careening off each other.

However, quantum physics long ago demonstrated that determinism, in the classic sense, no longer applies. Recent experiments have confirmed that there is no determinism in the classic sense, though there can always be hidden variables. I am surprised that the notion of determinism still lingers. Einstein, tried hard to save it, but couldn't. No one since has been able to save it.

The central question of quantum physics was and still remains - what makes the wave turn into a particle? My sense is that it is consciousness.

Rich

If you don't know the math and the experimental support behind a scientific theory, you have no reason to believe it. Why do you buy into the big quantum mechanics scam and not other scams of science? Is it because you define a scam to be something that does not intuitively appeal to you so you assume it to be a trick?

Why do you pretend to be so open minded and then attack someone who 'thinks that computers are like humans'? Why do you refuse to listen to the definition (a scientific/academic definition rather than a layman's one) that appealed to the intuitive link between brain and computer? Why are you so keen on rerouting the beliefs of others if you hold that nothing that humans know is true? You realize that you cannot know for sure that that is true, I think. You think that you hold some kernel of truth and want to present it to others, but you don't want it to be criticized.

1 Reply

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235;84358 wrote:

Couldn't help but laugh;

Glad I made you laugh. :a-ok: There is plenty of things to laugh about in this world. I am glad to see the humorous side of everything. Yes, it is fun to laugh at all sort of things. Your post made me laugh. And why not?

Most of the post was about what I think. It is totally inaccurate, but that is usually what happens when someone tries to tell someone else what they think or should think. The former is called projection in psychology and latter is called thought policing.

In any case, just something you may want to consider, if you talk more about what you think instead of what others think or should think, there is a higher likelihood that you will be accurate.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;84311 wrote:

But think how simple everything becomes when we understand the nature of life and the transcendental soul. For example, an explanation for your behavior. It might simply be because you never learned any manners. Not in this life time or in prior lifetimes. Maybe you will in this lifetime. Maybe not. It is a matter of experiences.

you don't need to invoke a soul to explain my low tolerance for pretentious utter s**te

at all

richrf;84311 wrote:

Everything makes sense, once one embraces the evidence of a soul that transcends multiple lifetimes. That is why the concept is so pervasive over history and in all cultures.

whoa whoa whoa slow down chief

first of all, even if every single culture across time believed in reincarnation, you'd still be using an argumentum ad populum. for another example Bayes' theorem is counterintuitive to most people, indeed:

Yudkowsky - Bayes' Theorem

richrf;84311 wrote:

As for biological mechanisms, they are a result of an evolving consciousness. Consciousness creates a physical body so that it can move, retrieve and sense information. Quantum theory has actually be called an information theory. It is all about the limits of what we can know and how we can know it (e.g.. statistical probabilities).

yeah but that has nothing to do with consciousness and everything to do with things like WinZip

paulhanke;84314 wrote:

... actually, I think the ball is in the court of the scientific community and always has been ... the scientific community has yet to provide a scientific theory for the link between brain function and phenomenological mind ... it has long been an assumption that billiard ball determinism would eventually be demonstrated as being sufficient to explain phenomenological mind - this has yet come to pass, and as such is as much scientific speculation as the speculations of Penrose et al. ... certainly, at a time when it could be assumed that quantum effects never reach the macro scale, billiard ball determinism was Occam's choice as the most likely of the scientific speculations ... however, I think that the new evidence from photosynthesis that quantum effects can indeed have macro scale impacts greatly erodes this received wisdom ...

Research News: Quantum Secrets of Photosynthesis Revealed
[INDENT]BERKELEY, CA -Through photosynthesis, green plants and cyanobacteria are able to transfer sunlight energy to molecular reaction centers for conversion into chemical energy with nearly 100-percent efficiency. Speed is the key - the transfer of the solar energy takes place almost instantaneously so little energy is wasted as heat. How photosynthesis achieves this near instantaneous energy transfer is a long-standing mystery that may have finally been solved.

Electronic spectroscopy measurements made on a femtosecond (millionths of a billionth of a second) time-scale showed these oscillations meeting and interfering constructively, forming wavelike motions of energy (superposition states) that can explore all potential energy pathways simultaneously and reversibly, meaning they can retreat from wrong pathways with no penalty.
[/INDENT]this is the timescale that quantum effects take place on

do you know how much slower neurons are than that

Max Tegmark's cosmology library: brain

richrf;84317 wrote:

My own feeling is that determinism was used in an attempt to break the back of mind in its entirety. To really make human a mass of dumb junk careening off each other.

appeal to consequences of a belief

richrf;84317 wrote:

However, quantum physics long ago demonstrated that determinism, in the classic sense, no longer applies.

at the macroscopic scale it more or less does which is why we can use the mechanics of Newton, Lagrange et al everywhere, everyday (that includes you)

xris;84327 wrote:

I never quoted this and i never said you do not have brain activity during rem..The southampton university studies have initial found that ndes are experienced when no brain activity is present.

link

paulhanke;84328 wrote:

... not that I've thought long and hard on this, but my own sense is that processes in general can collapse wave functions - e.g., the process of photosynthesis collapses wave functions in order to achieve incredibly high rates of energy conversion efficiency ... note that this would be in accord with the observation that consciousness can collapse wave functions, as consciousness is itself a process ... I know this doesn't jibe with your interpretation of things, but it seems to me more straightforward to propose a cosmic evolution of processes that tame the quantum foam and introduce macro-scale determinacies than to propose a pre-existing consciousness that directs things ... but that's just me

well yeah wave function collapse could simply be caused by particles hitting your retina

ACB;84333 wrote:

Yes, I think this is an important point to bear in mind. Neither determinism nor quantum theory is compatible with free will. Both, however, allow unfree will - i.e. we perform an action because we will it, but we are caused to will it by deterministic or quantum factors.

BINGO!

richrf;84335 wrote:

So what is the difference then between this or that? I believe it lies in the differences nervous system. That is, the mobility of the system (the ability to transmit and receive information by individual forms of consciousness) as well as the sensitivity to information. Different forms are more sensitive to different types of information.

huh

richrf;84335 wrote:

I do agree with you entirely it is about process - or as I might see it, as relationships. That is, the receiving and transmitting of information. Even laughing and crying (emotions) are forms of information sharing.

well yeah but I don't see why we need to invoke quantum effects for this

richrf;84335 wrote:

If there is determinism, then locality is violated (Relativity is violated), which is a whole different ballgame. One that I think most scientists want to stay away from, though I am quite willing to entertain, along with David Bohm and his concept of the Implicate/Explicate Order in which he infuses the notion of Consciousness as part of the enfolded universe, and the individual exercising creativity within the confines of enfolded universe.

However, if there is no determinism, then what is left? Consciousness has a choice! For me, it is open field running when it comes to quantum interpretation.

well there is no determinism at the quantum level but it's replaced with probabilistic behavior which isn't willful either

sooooo ......

Zetetic11235;84358 wrote:

Couldn't help but laugh; seeing this made my day. You openly admit to not believing in anything, and that there is no proof for anything, and then appeal to Quantum Mechanics to prove your point? HA. Your whole shtick is to throw everything out the window by saying there is no proof and then equating your bizarre and arbitrary spiritual explanations to those of general relativity because they appeal intuitively to you. You know, you take the same position as those who killed Galileo. Ignore the evidence and continue to stick with what intuitively appeals to us, heretics be damned!

was galileo killed?

I thought he was just kept miserable under house arrest

kind of like that Aung San Suu Kyi chick

Zetetic11235;84358 wrote:

Why do you pretend to be so open minded and then attack someone who 'thinks that computers are like humans'?

well what I was arguing was that humans are a proper subset of all computers

which is true by definition

a computer as we recall is not limited to a sort of beige box that hums quietly in the corner

it's just a physical thing that maps inputs to outputs in a meaningful way (though "meaningful" is subjective)

do people map inputs (sensory input) to outputs (motor activity) in a more or less "meaningful" way?

are they physical things?

yes?

then they're computers!

http://brmovie.com/Images/Characters/Deckard/BR_Deckard_Noodle_3.jpg

richrf;84360 wrote:

Most of the post was about what I think. It is totally inaccurate, but that is usually what happens when someone tries to tell someone else what they think or should think. The former is called projection in psychology and latter is called thought policing.

you tell people what they should think constantly, or at least strenuously imply it

and it's really kind of dirty. rather than being honest and open you just sort of indulge in hypocrisy and obliquely insult people in such a way that it's hard to call you out on it

I am extremely suspicious of these kinds of people

richrf;84360 wrote:

In any case, just something you may want to consider, if you talk more about what you think instead of what others think or should think, there is a higher likelihood that you will be accurate.

do you actually have any numbers on these likelihoods rich

or are you just making things up again

and btw: the Thought Police were a band of state-sanctioned thugs from 1984, relying as much on irrational thinking as you. rich I am very anti-authority and I can speak for all skeptics when I say that we do not coerce people. we simply become vocal. we do not believe we are right because we can force people to accept our beliefs. (generally speaking, we can't.)

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;84335 wrote:

However, if there is no determinism, then what is left? Consciousness has a choice!

Does it? I thought quantum effects were purely random. And they date right back to the beginning of the universe, long before there was any life, or "consciousness" in the ordinary sense.

1 Reply

Consciousness is a Biological Problem

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know