Support NeoGAF

[Always-honest]

consciousness, yess. Weird

 

[Monocle]

Dreaming is the biggest and most readily available example. Once you realize that you can experience different realities with different rules all seemingly within ones mind/consciousness how can one not doubt the inherent "reality" of the meat world?

Now science can examine the brain and the associated neurological/physiological changes associated with dreaming. In fact this is almost exclusively what science CAN address. But this hardly touches the topic of the nature of reality. This is going to be true for all abstract concepts related to the self. Cognitive science has made huge strides in explaining and understanding the mind and cognition. Even with perfect knowledge of the physiology and neurology involved it would not validate/invalidate a metaphysical explanation for a metaphysical concept like "consciousness" or even more a more grounded concept like "intelligence."

The terms themselves are of a flavor that limits what science can address in relationship to them. And as must be repeated constantly science has inherent limits to the things it can applied to. Knowledge of the brain does not touch or threaten the more esoteric beliefs involved. Its not within the scope of the tool to do so.

What you're proposing isn't an explanation so much as philosophical handwaving. "We can't know the nature of reality for sure, therefore our current and future understanding of reality is wrong!" Anyone can carve out a conceptual space for whatever bizarro conception of reality they wish to entertain, but unless they're testing their ideas in a consistent, systematic manner, and making accurate predictions based on those ideas, they're just farts in the wind.

 

[Bad_Boy]

oh my gawd


MIND BLOWN

 

[akira28]

A thing is also it's opposite.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

'

You mean besides the fact that consciousness is a metaphysical concept and therefore could never be verified or refuted by science? If you cannot objectively define and quantify "something" you are never going to be able to apply science to it. Even more to the point studying the brain and cognitive science will not and can not exclude a metaphysical explanation being as how the term itself is metaphysical.

No scientific explanation ever excludes a supernatural explanation (I assume you are using "metaphysical" as a synonym for supernatural in this case), because scientific theories and explanations are never "proven" to be true. There could always be some non-scientific explanation, one that is entirely unfalsifiable and for this reason beyond the scope of scientific discourse.

That one cannot "measure" consciousness or the mind is only true if you have made the assumption that there is a mindstuff distinct from the physical world from the outset. From a strict physicalist perspective, measuring brain activity is measuring the mind. Under this philosophy, science would of course be able to give an accurate account of consciousness.

Even without assuming any specific philosophical approach, science may well provide an explanation that satisfies most people. Consider ancient philosophers speculating on the building blocks of "stuff", or early biologists who believed that Vitalism was the only possible explanation for life. Since a "life force" is something supernatural, science cannot rule it out, but it can never-the-less provide a good explanation. It's often unwise to make such rigid claims about what future science will not be able to discuss.

 

[meadowrag]

Speaking of the mind/body phenomenon, is anyone else fascinated with the placebo/nocebo effect?

I read a really interesting article in a weekly news magazine I get (aptly entitled "The Week") where a professor at the University of California was studying the frequent occurrence of SUNDS (Sudden Unexpected Nocturnal Death Syndrome) in healthy Hmong immigrants in America.
Apparently at the peak of their deaths in the early 1980s, 117 of these people died unexpectedly in their sleep, with 116 of them being healthy adult males. There were no obvious causes of death in any of them, and they were all otherwise perfectly healthy. I can't remember the particulars and I already gave the issue to my sister, but he ultimately came to the conclusion that these people were actually dying from sleep paralysis.

They were saying that in the Hmong culture, when they don't worship properly and perform religious rituals, they are susceptible to evil spirits coming to claim them (can't remember what they are called), which is their culture's explanation for sleep paralysis. Because of their displacement from each other and their native society, they felt a sort of isolation from their heritage, causing them to worry that they weren't fulfilling their devotions appropriately, causing episodes of sleep paralysis, which killed them because of their stong beliefs regarding the occurrence.

Most people experience sleep paralysis at least once and it is harmless, but for these people it was actually killing them because of their powerful cultural beliefs in the "demon" of sleep paralysis coming to claim their soul.

They were also talking about other examples of nocebo, such as researchers pretending to expose people who believe they are sensitive to electromagnetic radiation to cell phone signals, and ended up causing debilitating headaches.

There's been a lot of talk in this thread about how physical stimuli can affect consciousness, but I find the opposite reaction, consciousness directly causing physical stimuli, much more fascinating.
Pretty interesting stuff. Also, I think it's criminal that more psychedelic research isn't going on.

 

[True Underdog]

There are random times when I'm walking and I get fascinated by the fact I can control my body and do normal stuff. Weird. And then I go on with my life.

Same.

 

[Zaptruder]

Dreaming is the biggest and most readily available example. Once you realize that you can experience different realities with different rules all seemingly within ones mind/consciousness how can one not doubt the inherent "reality" of the meat world?

Now science can examine the brain and the associated neurological/physiological changes associated with dreaming. In fact this is almost exclusively what science CAN address. But this hardly touches the topic of the nature of reality. This is going to be true for all abstract concepts related to the self. Cognitive science has made huge strides in explaining and understanding the mind and cognition. Even with perfect knowledge of the physiology and neurology involved it would not validate/invalidate a metaphysical explanation for a metaphysical concept like "consciousness" or even more a more grounded concept like "intelligence."

The terms themselves are of a flavor that limits what science can address in relationship to them. And as must be repeated constantly science has inherent limits to the things it can applied to. Knowledge of the brain does not touch or threaten the more esoteric beliefs involved. Its not within the scope of the tool to do so.

Science, scientific method and free thinking principles are commonly conflated in colloquial discussions.

Still, we can and do use science to inform us on many of the specifics of these areas of discussion. And the findings and results of science can help inform us in a way on these subject matters in such a way that arriving at those conclusions would be otherwise impossible.

e.g. with regards to dreams - we can understand how and why they occur, and we can understand how to stimulate them. These understandings impliciltly help us to understand how to interpret dreams as well - i.e. as the cognitive phenomena of rested memory collation and formation, rather than as a mystical premonition of events to come.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

What you're proposing isn't an explanation so much as philosophical handwaving.

Explaining the nature of an abstract concept in relationship to objective verification is philosophical handwaving? No, its the application of basic reasoning and understanding the definitions of the terms being used.

Still, we can and do use science to inform us on many of the specifics of these areas of discussion.

No, but we can study the physiological and even psychological factors involved. I said as much a few posts up. But science can never address the issue directly due to its inherent nature. Its not an objective phenomena science cannot examine abstract and subjective "things", but it can certainly examine ancillary aspects of abstract.

Since a "life force" is something supernatural, science cannot rule it out, but it can never-the-less provide a good explanation. It's often unwise to make such rigid claims about what future science will not be able to discuss.

You could have condensed your post to this paragraph and lost nothing in the bargain. Its not "supernatural" its "metaphysical" and no consciousness is not synonymous with "life force."

Also not only can science, not rule it out, it cannot even begin to quantify or observe the topic of discussion. So in fact its very safe to assert that things beyond empirical measurement and objective substantiation will never be addressed by science.

They cannot be as a simple matter of definition of the terms and the inherent limits of science that has nothing to do with technological advancement.

 

[06nbarnhill]

I hate this....because whenever I consciously think about breathing it always takes me 4/5 seconds to remember how...... Its like if you are sitting in a chair (yes family guy) and trying to imagine standing....and then forgetting how.

 

[Sibylus]

It's a dull human being indeed who expresses no fascination about existence. Or failing that, a human being you shouldn't leave with possession of your valuables (wallet, car keys, precious metals, infants).

Speaking of the mind/body phenomenon, is anyone else fascinated with the placebo/nocebo effect?

I read a really interesting article in a weekly news magazine I get (aptly entitled "The Week") where a professor at the University of California was studying the frequent occurrence of SUNDS (Sudden Unexpected Nocturnal Death Syndrome) in healthy Hmong immigrants in America.
Apparently at the peak of their deaths in the early 1980s, 117 of these people died unexpectedly in their sleep, with 116 of them being healthy adult males. There were no obvious causes of death in any of them, and they were all otherwise perfectly healthy. I can't remember the particulars and I already gave the issue to my sister, but he ultimately came to the conclusion that these people were actually dying from sleep paralysis.

They were saying that in the Hmong culture, when they don't worship properly and perform religious rituals, they are susceptible to evil spirits coming to claim them (can't remember what they are called), which is their culture's explanation for sleep paralysis. Because of their displacement from each other and their native society, they felt a sort of isolation from their heritage, causing them to worry that they weren't fulfilling their devotions appropriately, causing episodes of sleep paralysis, which killed them because of their stong beliefs regarding the occurrence.

Most people experience sleep paralysis at least once and it is harmless, but for these people it was actually killing them because of their powerful cultural beliefs in the "demon" of sleep paralysis coming to claim their soul.

They were also talking about other examples of nocebo, such as researchers pretending to expose people who believe they are sensitive to electromagnetic radiation to cell phone signals, and ended up causing debilitating headaches.

There's been a lot of talk in this thread about how physical stimuli can affect consciousness, but I find the opposite reaction, consciousness directly causing physical stimuli, much more fascinating.
Pretty interesting stuff. Also, I think it's criminal that more psychedelic research isn't going on.

I haven't read much about this nocebo effect, but the subject of dreaming and cultural beliefs definitely interest me. My background is one that extols the virtues of prophetic dreaming, sometimes of an apocalyptic nature (no prize for guessing what the background is!). Got interesting social exchanges out of that. It was more or less a part of what you might call a fluid "meta-fiction", with each retelling forming a small piece of a nebulous and personally-held canon. What's funny (for me at least) is that my recollection of these sorts of dreams was quite poor when I was a firm believer, but now I quite often recall dreams that feature hypothetical future scenarios. Perhaps a watched pot metaphor wouldn't be amiss.

 

[akira28]

It's a dull human being indeed who expresses no fascination about existence. Or failing that, a human being you shouldn't leave with possession of your valuables (wallet, car keys, precious metals, infants).


I haven't read much about this nocebo effect, but the subject of dreaming and cultural beliefs definitely interest me. My background is one that extols the virtues of prophetic dreaming, sometimes of an apocalyptic nature (no prize for guessing what the background is!).

er...You're a Mormon?

I agree with the first bit though. Anyone who doesn't wonder about whether this is all there is may have already decided.

 

[Zaptruder]

Speaking of the mind/body phenomenon, is anyone else fascinated with the placebo/nocebo effect?

I read a really interesting article in a weekly news magazine I get (aptly entitled "The Week") where a professor at the University of California was studying the frequent occurrence of SUNDS (Sudden Unexpected Nocturnal Death Syndrome) in healthy Hmong immigrants in America.
Apparently at the peak of their deaths in the early 1980s, 117 of these people died unexpectedly in their sleep, with 116 of them being healthy adult males. There were no obvious causes of death in any of them, and they were all otherwise perfectly healthy. I can't remember the particulars and I already gave the issue to my sister, but he ultimately came to the conclusion that these people were actually dying from sleep paralysis.

They were saying that in the Hmong culture, when they don't worship properly and perform religious rituals, they are susceptible to evil spirits coming to claim them (can't remember what they are called), which is their culture's explanation for sleep paralysis. Because of their displacement from each other and their native society, they felt a sort of isolation from their heritage, causing them to worry that they weren't fulfilling their devotions appropriately, causing episodes of sleep paralysis, which killed them because of their stong beliefs regarding the occurrence.

Most people experience sleep paralysis at least once and it is harmless, but for these people it was actually killing them because of their powerful cultural beliefs in the "demon" of sleep paralysis coming to claim their soul.

They were also talking about other examples of nocebo, such as researchers pretending to expose people who believe they are sensitive to electromagnetic radiation to cell phone signals, and ended up causing debilitating headaches.

There's been a lot of talk in this thread about how physical stimuli can affect consciousness, but I find the opposite reaction, consciousness directly causing physical stimuli, much more fascinating.
Pretty interesting stuff. Also, I think it's criminal that more psychedelic research isn't going on.

Nocebo and placebos seem to be in part explained by neural function.

Quick summary - neurons are heirichical pattern matching machines. They send information both ways, up and down heirachy. In essence, this means that higher up heirachy neurons (i.e. neurons that deal with patterns that on sum make up representations of a red car) can express down the heirachy the expected patterns (i.e. near the bottom of the heirachy, the neurons whose job it is to detect simple visual patterns, including the pattern matching electrical signal (converted from light hitting retinal cells) of the colour red), expects that particular pattern.

When there's external stimulus, our neurons play a matching game between input from external stimulus and from higher level heirachy neurons - differences are drawn to attention.

If we hear a piece of music, and know it off by heart - we expect it to be heard a certain way - if it goes off note, or it changes somehow, it is sent up the heirachy of neurons to be dealt with - which could result in novel stimulation for the brain.

Anyway, absent of external stimuli, internal feedback is still pretty good facsimilie of stimulus.

Picture a hotdog. You can kinda see a hot dog right? Even if you're not actually looking at one.

Now with placebos and nocebos - it's playing along that same expectation pathway - the same way that your brain allows you to generate mental imagery of a hot dog, it also allows you to fool yourself into percieving pain or no pain (or whatever the expected effect) when there is no actual effect from the relevant areas of effect.

This understanding of neural behaviour also plays well with our subjective understanding of dreams - we percieve alternative 'realities' while asleep, because our parts of our brain is feeding expected sensory information to other parts of our brains that pick up on this kinda stuff, while been free of external stimuli to tell it otherwise.

 

[Sibylus]

er...You're a Mormon?

I agree with the first bit though. Anyone who doesn't wonder about whether this is all there is may have already decided.

Ah, not quite. I was a Christian fundamentalist. The WASP, tongue-speaking, Left Behind-reading, creationist-believing, fruits of the spirit-seeking, baptizing sort. My favourite book of the Bible was (perhaps unsurprisingly) the last.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

You could have condensed your post to this paragraph and lost nothing in the bargain.

I can only hope that reading three brief paragraphs did not tax you overmuch.

Its not "supernatural" its "metaphysical"

In that case, I'm quite confused by your statements, since science is often very relevant to metaphysical discussions. I can't remember the last time I saw a discussion on Free Will that didn't bring up physics as a central point of contention. Relativity discusses space and time at length, including the notion that they are not the same as "nothing" as was classically assumed. Modern cosmologists routinely seek to answer questions about the origins of the universe, the beginning of time, and so on. Some interpretations of quantum mechanics have profound philosophical implications, especially regarding causality. Biology, chemistry and their relationship with vitalism during the renaissance was discussed already, but is also relevant here, because "what is the nature of life?" is an essentially metaphysical question.

Science does give us insights into these things. Yeah, we already know it never "proves" anything, and we know it doesn't comment on the supernatural. I don't believe anybody ever argued something contrary to this in this thread. However, this tangent started because you responded to the notion that science could provide an explanation for consciousness with a scoff.

I believe we have enough common ground in this argument that it probably doesn't need to continue, since we're both telling each other things we already know.

consciousness is not synonymous with "life force."

I'm very interested to know where you believe I made that claim.

 

[akira28]

Ah, not quite. I was a Christian fundamentalist. The WASP, tongue-speaking, Left Behind-reading, creationist-believing, fruits of the spirit-seeking, baptizing sort. My favourite book of the Bible was (perhaps unsurprisingly) the last.

The spiritual warfare sort, or the getting ready for the Rapture, like...now, sort? I knew some people who told me some awful stories man, about how their churches basically stole their wives and children. As soon as the father took issue with a sermon, or wanted to try a less extreme flavor of Christianity, family friends swooped in with their prayer circles and basically broke up families. This one guy is pretty sure one of the pastors was moving in on his wife. And she's like a damn lamb in his hands, I'm like whaaaat?

Why can't they be like those missionaries that spread the word by having attractive women have sex with potential members while offering Bible verse? Why did they have to stop that, and let this continue?

(My next guesses were, Native American, Jew, Coptic Christian.)


I feel like science trying to measure things like the soul or consciousness via things like EEGs is like asking a truly colorblind man to paint a rainbow.

 

[Sibylus]

The spiritual warfare sort, or the getting ready for the Rapture, like...now, sort? I knew some people who told me some awful stories man, about how their churches basically stole their wives and children. As soon as the father took issue with a sermon, or wanted to try a less extreme flavor of Christianity, family friends swooped in with their prayer circles and basically broke up families. This one guy is pretty sure one of the pastors was moving in on his wife. And she's like a damn lamb in his hands, I'm like whaaaat?

Why can't they be like those missionaries that spread the word by having attractive women have sex with potential members while offering Bible verse? Why did they have to stop that, and let this continue?

(My next guesses were, Native American, Jew, Coptic Christian.)

Yes to both spiritual warfare and Rapture readiness. Not nearly as extreme as breaking up families, however. The place always struck me as an aspiring megachurch, mainstream outreach was definitely more of a concern than maintaining congregational purity or some other such notion.

Spoiler

I suspect we still have a VHS copy of "Have you been left behind?" lying around here somewhere... (nice to know we might save the souls of some deranged looters)

 

[GavinGT]

I imagine religious types don't think about this as much. They have answers to these questions, even if they're most definitely the wrong ones. I'll bet there's peace in that.

 

[Max]

Sometimes when I'm completely alone I think to myself;

"Am I dreaming?"

Really weird feeling to say that aloud.

 

[strata8]

I always get really surprised at just how powerful the brain is. It's amazing when you think about it.

 

[CiSTM]

Funny, I was just reading article about issue that comes close to this thread:

Surely by now we’ve outgrown the soul?

Pretty good read.

 

[akachan ningen]

This is just a theory of course, but here's a video describing existence. Actually, a whole series but I think this is the key one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7GJ-8SY068

 

[Zaptruder]

This is just a theory of course, but here's a video describing existence. Actually, a whole series but I think this is the key one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7GJ-8SY068

lol... jesus christ, that's some creative rationalization.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

This is just a theory of course, but here's a video describing existence. Actually, a whole series but I think this is the key one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7GJ-8SY068

Yeah...that's uh...yeah...

 

[Liquidsnake]

Can we get an I don't know therefore Aliens.

 

[Khalifa Jayy]

Also does the fact that we are the most developed species on Earth mean that we are the only species to have a brain that can "realize" things? Do animals sit and think sometimes? Monkeys? Or are we the only ones with conscious-like thought...?

 

[Zwei]

even more interesting, the unconscious

 

[davepoobond]

the reality is, is that our consciousness is literally just electronic signals going back and forth in our brain.

once we are able to replicate those same electric impulses in a manner of being other than our biological selves, we may live forever. or as long as there is power/electricity.

 

[Deified Data]

When I was little I could provoke an orgasmic little chill at the base of my skull by thinking about the universe, i.e. how long it's been here, what was here before it, what the "nothingness" before and after the universe would "look" like, etc. Existence doesn't really fascinate me so much as the lack of it. I wonder if I'll be able to think or feel after I die and become "nothing". But normal "existence"? I live it every day. I've become desensitized to its many wonders.

 

[Venfayth]

I find thinking about things like this to be a waste of time. Someone once tried to talk to me about how because a picture of the universe and the electrical signals in the brain look similar it was likely the universe is just the brain of another creature. What the fuck? Take a fucking step back and realize that what you're talking about is

1. Insane

2. Irrelevant

3. A distraction from anything that matters

(edit: the "you're" is not directed at people in this thread, but the person in my memory that i'm describing )

I think that things like these are an 'ignorance is bliss' type deal. People find comfort in their psychadelic dreams and thoughts because they're so far detached from reality and any useful application in our lives. What really bugs me is when people start to act as if they're being super intellectual and profound.

I do ponder about existence, but I keep it in perspective and I keep it momentary. I draw useful applications from philosophy when it's possible to do so, but I don't suspend disbelief for any other reason when it comes to that kind of thinking. Self-perpetuated thoughts like these easily become masturbatory.

 

[DanteFox]

The consciousness is a fascinating thing.

But people should realise something about it - it's not a thing to find. There's no consciousness center of the brain; rather it's a process that emerges from the collective massively parallel iterative function of many smaller parts. Your brain isn't controlled by consciousness - consciousness is the perception that emerges from the function of the brain.

Like... what do you think would happen if you get a complex system like the brain; have some parts of it detect light, sound, vision, other parts of it processing for memories, others still figuring out spaces, words, faces...

have them all link up with each other, intermingling the information within, operating at a speed that is faster than can be properly percieved by a human (each neuron can fire around 200 times per second), and then jam it into a small enclosed box that can't monitor what's inside the box itself?

You'd get the perception of consciousness is what.

To elaborate a little more - consciousness occurs with cross communication of information - consciousness is comprised of not just words and thoughts, but also sights, sounds, smells, memories, skills, etc... as well as activation - your brain does many different things at once; but when much of it is working one task, then that's what you become conscious of (i.e. thinking about naked ladies, or thinking about the name of that face you're looking at).

To put it another way - what do you think it would feel like if your brain was firing off about 10-20 different things at once, evenly split between each thing. You'd probably feel pretty confused right? In this manner, the ability of the brain to encode and decode information as well as its ability to detect a signal from the electrical noise impacts directly on the manner in which we percieve things.

Still, recognizing the nature of consciousness as the counter intuitive thing that it is doesn't change the experience of consciousness. It'll still feel the same - but understanding it will help to better explain why things feel the way that they do.


If one is to consider the function of small cells with relatively basic functions into something as complex and vibrant as a human mind as problematic, then we should also consider the formation of small electronic on and offs building up into something as powerful and incredible as the internet as problematic as well.

This is a bunch of BS. If running information processing rapidly in parallel in one centralized unit were all it took to achieve consciousness, why aren't computers conscious? Is there some threshold for computational power that dictates when consciousness is achieved? Why should those calculations and transmissions all coalesce into one consciousness? Why not multiple, separate consciousnesses?

Do you believe the universe operates in a solely naturalistic way? If so, how can a sum of many physical parts produce something non-physical?

 

[Orayn]

This is a bunch of BS. If running information processing rapidly in parallel in one centralized unit were all it took to achieve consciousness, why aren't computers conscious? Is there some threshold for computational power that dictates when consciousness is achieved? Why should those calculations and transmissions all coalesce into one consciousness? Why not multiple, separate consciousnesses?

Do you believe the universe operates in a solely naturalistic way? If so, how can a sum of many physical parts produce something non-physical?

That's the point of a naturalistic worldview - Consciousness isn't mystical or non-physical, it's just a funny name we gave to the sum total of a bunch of interconnected processes running in parallel. It can break down, be modified by certain effects, etc. Consciousness is a weird synthetic name for an amalgamation of things, rather than some entity unto itself.

 

[Mato]

What's also cool to think is that it's been scientifically proven that neither matter nor energy actually die. They can't escape this universe, go in or out. They just get rearranged all the time. So that means that everything that we are made of is going to be around forever and has been around since the beginning, about 14.5 billion years ago. Which also means that the the matter and energy that our bodies are composed of right now have been part of billions of other things in the past. And when you really think about it you realize that the universe is just one giant organism which is in complete disorder and we are all just part of that beings existence. Each one of us is to the universe what a molecule is to a human body. And we are not really separate we are one, but our ego blinds us from this truth. And the universes ultimate purpose is to become like its creator, a homogenized, harmonized all-knowing being. And science is just a means to that because science is his wisdom being revealed to us.

 

[Conciliator]

I think about this sometimes: Assuming an indifferent, chaotic universe, isn't it wacky that anything exists? I mean, instead of just nothing having ever happened? Why is there something instead of nothing? It's fucking unfathomable. Was there nothing at some point before, or is 'when' even a valid concept outside of the internal logic of our universe? Bonkers mang.

 

[Deleted member 81567]

Sleeping is the best thing that ever happens, ever. The mystery also amplifies its awesomeness.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I can only hope that reading three brief paragraphs did not tax you overmuch.

Three poorly written and constructed paragraphs are not taxing intellectually. Its just tedious to read the same 2 thoughts reiterated in different ways that do not support or expand on each other.

In that case, I'm quite confused by your statements, since science is often very relevant to metaphysical discussions. I can't remember the last time I saw a discussion on Free Will that didn't bring up physics as a central point of contention.

Well I agree you are very confused if you do not understand the difference between using things discovered by science to apply to something metaphysical and using science to examine directly something metaphysical. The first can be done and is often even if senselessly (All natural science is based on the assumption of causality therefore it MUST view "Will" in that perspective). Like all those who new age up QM and attempt to apply in all sorts of absurd aspects of spirituality.

However, this tangent started because you responded to the notion that science could provide an explanation for consciousness with a scoff.

No, this tangent began when you said there is no reason to doubt science will be able to explain a metaphysical concept like "consciousness." I responding with the explanation of limitations of science (not technological in nature...) and what consciousness is. Consciousness could mean one of a million things and each would be correct. You cannot empirically substantiate or explain an abstract that cannot even be concisely defined in the first place.

But what you can do and is being done is examining the brain and how it relates to cognition, but an abstract like consciousness is irrelevant. Its a concept that has no bearing on the process of science since by deffinition its not something tangible or observable. Its also pretty hard to define since any concise deffinition would almost certainly include things we do not view as conscious (computers, lots of animals).

What's also cool to think is that it's been scientifically proven that neither matter nor energy actually die.

Well its axiom for modern physics. We haven't proven its always true (something that isnt possible) but the rule is substantiated by a lack of contradiction. Nothing discovered so far contradicts the rule. The rule has practical value, is internally consistent (with physics) and lacks an instance of contradiction. But its not a fact or a truth.

Consciousness is a weird synthetic name for an amalgamation of things, rather than some entity unto itself.

You are both correct and incorrect. It is a weird name (abstract) encompassing a wide variety of parts. But its also an entity unto itself. Just as a boat is a name of an amalgamation of things and is an entity unto itself divorced of its parts.

And things are almost always greater than the sum of their parts.

 

[Bloodbeard]

Speaking of consciousness and perceptions, I sometimes experience this strage phenomenon with my hearing that I can't explain all that well...

It's like there is some electrical radiation that interferes with my hearing. I can "hear" this resonance build up and it gets so loud to the point where I cannot hear anything but this frequency. The sound isn't coming from some obvious external source like a cop siren or anything, and it's unlike any other kind of hearing...like the electro magnetic radiation is particularly strong and it's interfering with my ability to hear. I makes me wonder how differently the world would be if we had more sense capabilities beyond sight, sound, touch, taste, smell...like if we could perceive magnetic radiation somehow.


Has anyone ever had anything like this before?

 

[Khalifa Jayy]

Speaking of consciousness and perceptions, I sometimes experience this strage phenomenon with my hearing that I can't explain all that well...

It's like there is some electrical radiation that interferes with my hearing. I can "hear" this resonance build up and it gets so loud to the point where I cannot hear anything but this frequency. The sound isn't coming from some obvious external source like a cop siren or anything, and it's unlike any other kind of hearing...like the electro magnetic radiation is particularly strong and it's interfering with my ability to hear. I makes me wonder how differently the world would be if we had more sense capabilities beyond sight, sound, touch, taste, smell...like if we could perceive magnetic radiation somehow.


Has anyone ever had anything like this before?

Yes this has happened to me a few times... I chalked it up to being a drummer. But that's probably not the right explanation for it. It kinda reminds me of what they do in modern war movies and games such as battlefield when an explosion goes off nearby.

 

[Trent Strong]

And things are almost always greater than the sum of their parts.

I would argue that that is a meaningless idea. Or I would argue that nothing is greater than the sum of it's parts.

 

[Zaptruder]

This is a bunch of BS. If running information processing rapidly in parallel in one centralized unit were all it took to achieve consciousness, why aren't computers conscious? Is there some threshold for computational power that dictates when consciousness is achieved? Why should those calculations and transmissions all coalesce into one consciousness? Why not multiple, separate consciousnesses?

Do you believe the universe operates in a solely naturalistic way? If so, how can a sum of many physical parts produce something non-physical?

Those are all good questions - and they kinda get at the fuzzy edge of 'consciousness'.

Networked communication and cross communication of neural information is the reason we have one relatively natural consciousness.

The signals in our brain travel between different neurons much faster than we can physically express ourselves - ergo, we appear to act relatively congruently as a 'single personality' (even though the nature of our 'personality' may vary somewhat depending on time of day, our levels of energy and hunger as well as from knowledge of external events - like winning lottery, or the death of our parents).

But, if you study someone who's had their corpus collosum severed - the bundle of nerves that connect the left hemisphere of the brain to the right hemisphere (which they do for patients who have problems with massive epiliptic seizures), you'll find that their left and right halves can and do act independently of each other.

The right brain, controlling certain faculties can be pitted against the left brain which control other faculties; by presenting information directly to the right/left hemispheres of the eyes (linked to the left/right hemispheres of the brain) - you can signal to one half to stand up - but because that information fails to travel to the other side which holds the speech centre and rationalization capabilities, the person when asked why he stood up doesn't have a clue why he stood up - but instead makes up a reason on the spot (e.g. I wanted to get a can of coke from the kitchen).

There are other similar changes of personality that are observed when we study brain damaged patients - showing that various areas of a person's brain control varying different functions of a person's collective personality.

Other areas of the brain still don't control personality related functions - but more basic and critical functions, including speech recognition, facial recognition, vision, motor control, bodily sensory, etc. There are plenty of fascinating studies out there on these sorts of people.

As for computers achieving consciousness - you've phrased your opposition to the premise in such a way that seems to preclude you from accepting the idea that they could ever attain it.

 

[Zaptruder]

I would argue that that is a meaningless idea. Or I would argue that nothing is greater than the sum of it's parts.

Complexity is an emergent phenomenon - bring multiple relatively uncomplex things together and their interactions will result in behaviour that is far more complex then what could be managed without said interaction.

 

[Shanadeus]

Those are all good questions - and they kinda get at the fuzzy edge of 'consciousness'.

Networked communication and cross communication of neural information is the reason we have one relatively natural consciousness.

The signals in our brain travel between different neurons much faster than we can physically express ourselves - ergo, we appear to act relatively congruently as a 'single personality' (even though the nature of our 'personality' may vary somewhat depending on time of day, our levels of energy and hunger as well as from knowledge of external events - like winning lottery, or the death of our parents).

But, if you study someone who's had their corpus collosum severed - the bundle of nerves that connect the left hemisphere of the brain to the right hemisphere (which they do for patients who have problems with massive epiliptic seizures), you'll find that their left and right halves can and do act independently of each other.

The right brain, controlling certain faculties can be pitted against the left brain which control other faculties; by presenting information directly to the right/left hemispheres of the eyes (linked to the left/right hemispheres of the brain) - you can signal to one half to stand up - but because that information fails to travel to the other side which holds the speech centre and rationalization capabilities, the person when asked why he stood up doesn't have a clue why he stood up - but instead makes up a reason on the spot (e.g. I wanted to get a can of coke from the kitchen).

There are other similar changes of personality that are observed when we study brain damaged patients - showing that various areas of a person's brain control varying different functions of a person's collective personality.

Other areas of the brain still don't control personality related functions - but more basic and critical functions, including speech recognition, facial recognition, vision, motor control, bodily sensory, etc. There are plenty of fascinating studies out there on these sorts of people.

As for computers achieving consciousness - you've phrased your opposition to the premise in such a way that seems to preclude you from accepting the idea that they could ever attain it.

Great post.

 

[Zaptruder]

Speaking of consciousness and perceptions, I sometimes experience this strage phenomenon with my hearing that I can't explain all that well...

It's like there is some electrical radiation that interferes with my hearing. I can "hear" this resonance build up and it gets so loud to the point where I cannot hear anything but this frequency. The sound isn't coming from some obvious external source like a cop siren or anything, and it's unlike any other kind of hearing...like the electro magnetic radiation is particularly strong and it's interfering with my ability to hear. I makes me wonder how differently the world would be if we had more sense capabilities beyond sight, sound, touch, taste, smell...like if we could perceive magnetic radiation somehow.


Has anyone ever had anything like this before?

It's very unlikely you're hearing 'electro magnetic radiation' (which covers a very wide range of things including visible light)... unless you have synethesia; where the brain muddle feedback from one sensory area into a different sort of sensory feedback - or you've mutated and have been born with sensory detector equipment that no other human (possibly creature) on the planet has.

More likely you're talking either about the natural neural noise of the brain (i.e. the low activity threshold that occurs in the brain to keep neurons 'alive' - if the signal from the ear is low enough (i.e. you're in a very quiet room, or some sort of anechonic chamber), you'll be able to hear this neural noise - it's electrical noise rises above the electrical signal from your ears... but you'll probably know when this happens, because you'll also be able to hear the sound of your own heart...

Or you could be hearing the misfirings of your ear canal - if the cells there are sufficiently damaged from abuse, the detectors could be firing at random, causing you to hear an erroneous noise that can range from a steady thump to a high pitched whine. This is called tinnitus.

Either way, if it's a big problem, you may want to visit an audiologist.

 

[Trent Strong]

Complexity is an emergent phenomenon - bring multiple relatively uncomplex things together and their interactions will result in behaviour that is far more complex then what could be managed without said interaction.

Well, you could argue that a car's engine is a bunch of uncomplex things being brought together and interacting to produce a phenomenon that is far more complex than what could be managed without their interaction. I don't think I disagree with you though. I think that when I say "nothing is greater than the sum of it's parts", I just mean "nothing is greater than the sum of it's parts and their interactions".

 

[teh_pwn]

I don't like thinking about this topic too much because I tend to come to the conclusion that consciousness is an illusion. We're all biological machines. You 10 years ago isn't you today. That you died and has been replaced.

That video about circles was amusing though.

 

[Mr. B Natural]

I try not to think...ever.

This thread makes me think I made the right decision.

Oh wait...no. No. Ah crap. Too late.

 

[Zaptruder]

Well, you could argue that a car's engine is a bunch of uncomplex things being brought together and interacting to produce a phenomenon that is far more complex than what could be managed without their interaction. I don't think I disagree with you though. I think that when I say "nothing is greater than the sum of it's parts", I just mean "nothing is greater than the sum of it's parts and their interactions".

I know what you mean. Magic doesn't pop out of nowhere when you bring shit together.

Spoiler

The magic was IN this shit to begin with. *mind blown*

[realspoiler]They just required interaction with other stuff to express it.[/realspoiler]

 

[Kwixotik]

This was the first thing that popped into my head after reading a few posts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc

 

[umop_3pisdn]

I don't like thinking about this topic too much because I tend to come to the conclusion that consciousness is an illusion. We're all biological machines. You 10 years ago isn't you today. That you died and has been replaced.

That video about circles was amusing though.

I don't understand this conclusion, awareness/consciousness is the only thing that we can positively assert isn't wholly illusion, because it is the only thing that we can know via direct experience, "being" is essentially the strongest kind of knowledge claim that there is, a person could easily argue that it's more reliable than something like science which presupposes naturalism without the epistemology to justify it. I mean, consciousness may be illusory (likely everything is), but establishing reality according to what we can actually know is less of a waste of time than striving for an objective understanding of the universe which is and will always be impossible.

 

[The Technomancer]

I know what you mean. Magic doesn't pop out of nowhere when you bring shit together.

Spoiler

The magic was IN this shit to begin with. *mind blown*

[realspoiler]They just required interaction with other stuff to express it.[/realspoiler]

This is the real mind-blowing perspective for me. The whole idea of emergence is just so incomprehensibly incredible. You want to appreciate the universe? Take a course on molecular biology. Instant awe right there.