Consciousness is a Biological Problem

So, as you noted in a previous to me, what is needed is imagination and creativity. Other than Rupert Sheldrake

What I am looking for are the creative authors.

I'll take my cell over your boson any day -- it explains a lot more and it means a lot more.

Describing, discerning common principles, explaining how things in this world work at a level higher than incidental physical forces.

Studying the nature of cells or the nature of igneous rock isn't studying the fundamental forces in the universe. On the other hand, I'm willing to take them for granted because they're incidental.

They are what they are and a boson means nothing to me. I mean talk about magic, physicists have "discovered" elements that don't even exist in nature by colliding particles, they've "discovered" theoretical elementary particles that cannot be observed.

And yet you think that it's all "miracles" and religion for someone to actually care about earthquakes or fish or bridge-building.

I'll take my cell over your boson any day -- it explains a lot more and it means a lot more.

Creative people, looking into consciousness, are not going to be attracted to an anti-creative environment such biology

The way you're distriminating against different sciences is just astonishing, rich.

I am not differentiating in the activities themselves but in the openness to creativity. It just so happens that the quantum physics equations

The title of this is thread is Consciousness is a Biological Problem. I don't think so, and my guess is that the answer will most probably come from physicists who are actively inquiring into this question, as opposed to biologists, who have already decided that consciousness is a biology problem, as a matter of convenience.

I am not differentiating in the activities themselves but in the openness to creativity. It just so happens that the quantum physics equations allow for creativity in thought (actually demands it), though for sure there are the gatekeepers in physics just as they exist everywhere else who attempt to suppress creativity.

Interesting, the preeminent physicist Benard d'Espagnet suggests that artists are the ones to observe much more of the fabric of the universe. It is an interesting thought.

For creativity and greater understanding to flourish, there must first be the hospitable environment.

Rich

Oden - Would you say that the behaviour of neurons is, at a fundamental level, driven solely by physical laws (whether of classical or quantum mechanics)? If so, I think rich's claim that consciousness creates neurons (rather than the other way round) can be refuted as follows:

1. The claim is that a non-physical consciousness affects physical matter in the brain.
2. Physical matter behaves in accordance with physical (classical and/or quantum mechanical) laws.
3. If (1) is correct, then physical matter in the brain additionally behaves in accordance with a non-physical influence.
4. So if (1) were correct, the behaviour of physical matter in the brain would violate physical laws, since these do not take into account the (alleged) non-physical influence.
5. But in fact, physical matter in the brain does not violate physical laws.
6. Therefore, it cannot be subject to any additional influence.
7. So non-physical consciousness (if there is such a thing) cannot affect physical matter in the brain. QED.

This does not disprove the existence of non-physical consciousness, or of a non-physical element to consciousness. Nor does it disprove rich's claim that it persists through multiple lives. It could, I suppose, be argued (though I am not arguing it myself) that consciousness can occupy multiple bodies in succession, rather like a physical substance can occupy one container and then another. But I think my above argument logically disproves the idea that non-physical consciousness can influence brain matter.

Rich - If you disagree, please tell me exactly where my argument is wrong.

3. If (1) is correct, then physical matter in the brain additionally habits behaves in accordance with a non-physical influence.

My point was that they are two entirely different things and biology shouldn't be looked down upon simply because it's not creative

As I view it, physical laws, as they are perceived during any period of time, are a manifestation of consciousness and what one is observing as laws is what Rupert Sheldrake would call habits. This opens up the possibility that physical laws may change. What we perceive as physical laws are a way of providing a coherent view of what we are observing, but they could very well be changing over time

this, and one of the goals of artificial life is to figure out the essence of life. life on Earth is based primarily on organic chemistry, with some oddballs like those sea vent microorganisms that metabolize sulfur. but there's no probably no reason that life couldn't be implemented on a different physical substrate. because the elemental components that make up living things are nonliving themselves, it seems more likely that life is essentially a process rather than a thing

And here we have the problem in a nutshell.

The way you're distriminating against different sciences is just astonishing, rich. Of course quantum physics wouldn't be considered by a biologist, because a biologist focuses on living organisms! It's not a bad thing that a quantum physics equation wouldn't be welcomed by a biologist. Why would it be? It's an entirely different focus. Should chefs begin studying the combustion engine? They could, but we surely wouldn't insinutate the non-acceptance of the study of the combustion engine in culinary arts, culinary arts' fault, would we? And yes, I use an extreme example like this because quantum physics has practically (and I don't use this as a synonym for "almost none", I mean that there's no practical application for quantum physics in what we call biology) no bearing on biologist's work. [At least not yet. Not until many of these quantum theories become more conclusive]

Next, people aren't addressing consciousness as biological (not sure about this "problem" thing) simply because of convenience. It makes the most sense that consciousness has to do with physical, cellular function, even if it's not all to do with the brain. Scientists aren't avoiding consciousness, they're just not playing the spiritualist game that many people are, consistently assigning 'higher' meaning and purpose to every damn thing they come to know.

I mean, if we can enhance our proprioperceptions, and increase our sensitivity to sound, light, etc, and increase our ability to see, feel, smell etc., not to mention producing neuromorphic chips that increase the complexity of the brain regions which process all this, and of course solve any potential problems along the way such as schizophrenia and alzeimers, would we not end up with a human race more aware and of a 'higher' consicousness even though the substrate may not be entirely organic anymore?

rich has yet to demonstrate how biology is less creative than QM

btw why is the term "Leѕlie" getting censored?

Quantum physics in particular resists any objective view of laws.