The Final Answer to the Brain / Consciousness Mystery

Share thoughts and ideas regarding what can be done to meet contemporary humanity's need for rites of initiation and passage.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

What general solution will answer the mystery of the relationship between the material processes of the human brain and the phenomenon we all know as human consciousness?

a.) There is no mystery
1
7%
b.) The classical scientific solution
0
No votes
c.) The exotic scientific solution
6
40%
d.) There is no solution
3
20%
e.) Other
5
33%
 
Total votes: 15

richard silliker
Associate
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:28 pm
Contact:

Post by richard silliker »

ok

rs
"We sacrifice the whole truth of any given experience for the value to which we are constrained".

richard silliker
Associate
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:28 pm
Contact:

Post by richard silliker »

Neoplato
I see this from a different point of view. I see the soil as the stimulus, not a constraint, and the flower growing forth out of the seed.
ok

rs
"We sacrifice the whole truth of any given experience for the value to which we are constrained".

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

Neoplato wrote:It seems to me that everyone forgets the scientific fact that manifested life does not need a brain to live...
If I understood your post correctly, Neoplato, the underlying assumption is that all life is "conscious." If so, not everyone, of course, would agree with this assumption, myself included. And, again, this also links back to my pointing out the zillion conceptualizations of "consciousness" that exist and that tend to muddy such discussions. Perhaps the question to be fleshed out first is, What is "consciousness"? Not that there'll be agreement here, of course. :wink:

Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

richard silliker
Associate
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:28 pm
Contact:

Post by richard silliker »

Cindy B.
What is "consciousness"?
The experience of experience of experience. Another way: innate, intrinsic and abstract. Another way: motion, movement, motion. Another way :context, binding, context. We have the ability to shape the flow whereas rocks and such do not have this ability. We can change the abstraction.

RS
"We sacrifice the whole truth of any given experience for the value to which we are constrained".

Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas »

Iam not sure why but i too believe that all life is conscious. I was always amazed how every organism in this planet lives in equilibrium. How all this synergy is happening... precise and simple but still complex and chaotic for human thinking at least. When i hear the air, see the rain, a sunset or sunrise, the sea, the birds a plant growing you can almost get a feel of your place in the universe it feels to me that this is consciousness.

Like Neoplato said humans think differently because they are separating themselves from nature. Humans think in dualism our modern scientific minds are so primitive that they cannot distinguish the complexity of this synergy. Its been sometime ago since i read it but iam gonna try to quote here Claude Levi Strauss.. If i remember correctly he said :

"Humans think black and white, night and day, earth and water but in nature we have something else where is night in one place there is day in another, where there is water and earth there is another substance. In nature Strauss said there is no line to distinct elements its always a mixture of things."

Anyway something like that.

Edit: Just for the record i voted for the exotic scientific solution and iam happy that someone like Penrose feels that this cannot be explained with science.

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

Cindy Wrote:
If I understood your post correctly, Neoplato, the underlying assumption is that all life is "conscious." If so, not everyone, of course, would agree with this assumption, myself included. And, again, this also links back to my pointing out the zillion conceptualizations of "consciousness" that exist and that tend to muddy such discussions. Perhaps the question to be fleshed out first is, What is "consciousness"? Not that there'll be agreement here, of course.
Although I have stated that in many of my previous posts I wasn’t really trying to say that here. So let me clarify. :oops:

A flower is alive, and it “knows” how to make food and reproduce itself, without the benefit of internal organs. So IMHO, that same life essence is somewhere in human life. But where is it? It can’t be scientifically proven to exist in internal organs.

As for “what is consciousness?”, my answer is “human life” or “life being aware of itself”. :D
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas »

As for “what is consciousness?”, my answer is “human life” or “life being aware of itself”. :D
Hey Neo,

Just because we are not aware that plants may have an awareness of their existence that doesnt mean they dont. I mean they choose how to grow right? Some plants have defensive mechanisms against some kind of bugs while they let others benefit from their juice that seems like consciousness to me. I am not sure how much aware we are of anything anymore.. Iam just saying we might think we know it all as a human race yet everyday new discoveries are made, new barriers are broken etc.

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

And just to complicate things more, noman, how is "consciousness" to be defined for the purpose of this discussion? Uh, good luck with this one. :P

- Cindy
Asking for a definition betrays your understanding of what consciousness is. Assuming, that is, that creator of Cindy’s posts is a human being with human consciousness and not a cleverly designed AI program. To ask for a definition of any word implies that it is possible to have an agreed upon meaning. And this is the whole point of human consciousness. What does it mean to know some thing? And how can we know what some thing means?

Defining human consciousness has to come down to a Yogi Berra statement like this. And this is exactly what makes the mind/body problem unlike anything else we’ve faced in science. We all know what human consciousness is from experience. We infer that same experience in other people. This is what allows us to talk about the definitions of words; of objective objects such as apples and stars. It also allows us to talk about subjective experience such as a toothache and dreams. We know what human consciousness is the way we know what time and three-dimensional space are.

“Cogito, ergo sum”

“I am thinking, therefore I exist”

- Descartes
This is the one thing in Descartes universe he said could not be denied. Even if it is an illusion, it is still a ‘real’ experience. But Descartes made one presupposition; that being the concept of self. How could Descartes be so sure that he was the one doing the thinking, and having the experience. Our concept of human consciousness is tied in with our concept of ‘self.’ Otherwise, Descartes first premise might have been, “Thinking, therefore existence”.

Putting this in 21st century terms, the US Department of Energy is currently building a computer nicknamed ‘Sequoia’.

To put the size of the computer into perspective, if each of the 6.7 billion people on earth had a hand calculator and worked together on a calculation 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, it would take 320 years to do what Sequoia will do in one hour.

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/ ... rtment.htm
Sequoia will be able to process a great deal of information. And have perfect recall of all information. And there is no theoretical limit. Imagine a network of ten thousand, or a billion Sequoias able to process much more information than all the information that hominids have ever processed in our brief tenure on earth. And yet, there is no indication, in my way of looking at this, that this ultra-supreme supercomputer would have a sense of ‘self’, would be self-conscious, or would know what it means to know, or what it means to define the word ‘consciousness’.

Chinese Room thought experiment

meaning – it’s like a wonderful gift

* * * * * * *

Neo – I’ve been careful to use the word human consciousness in this post. Because there is no way you can look WonderRex in the eye and deny that he/she is a conscious being. We can’t know what it’s like to be a dog. But we infer that other humans possess the same human consciousness as we do and that dogs and bats do not. As I said before, it isn’t just that we know – but that we know we know. That seems to be unique to humans - though I don’t know this for sure. I don’t have any memory of an experience of consciousness other than human consciousness.

Campbell says in POM that all life is conscious in its own way; animal consciousness, plant consciousness. But he goes even further. The more he thinks about it, the says, the more he believes that consciousness and energy are the same thing. And since matter is really just a form of ‘congealed’ energy – then all matter and energy is conscious. We live in a conscious universe. Not in an unconscious universe where consciousness happened to sprout in some little insignificant speck of dust we call planet earth. This idea would be a great philosophical proposal but for the fact that Spinoza came up with it in the 17th century. Spinoza phrased it differently. He said that our consciousness is God’s thoughts of our bodies and that a tree’s consciousness is God’s thoughts of a tree. A coffee cup is God’s thoughts of a coffee cup and so on.

In the modern version, a coffee cup reacts to stimulus the same as we do. Throw a coffee cup out the window and she reacts with coffee cup consciousness by falling ten meters to the pavement below shattering into many pieces. Push a human being out the window and they will react with human consciousness. But there is no need to believe there is any fundamental difference. The human being is just a little more complex.

This view is sometimes called ‘panpsychism.’

* * * * * * *

I voted for horse number 4. She will outlast the others. We don't know what time is. We don't know why there are forces in the universe or why the universe or anything else should exist. And there is no solution to the mystery of human consciousness - and never will be.

- NoMan

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

Andreas Wrote:
Just because we are not aware that plants may have an awareness of their existence that doesnt mean they dont. I mean they choose how to grow right? Some plants have defensive mechanisms against some kind of bugs while they let others benefit from their juice that seems like consciousness to me. I am not sure how much aware we are of anything anymore.. Iam just saying we might think we know it all as a human race yet everyday new discoveries are made, new barriers are broken etc.
Point well taken and I agree with you 100%. :D

However, for the sake of those more “scientifically” oriented, I didn’t go there.

Noman wrote:
Because there is no way you can look WonderRex in the eye and deny that he/she is a conscious being.
You’re right. No I can’t.
Campbell says in POM that all life is conscious in its own way; animal consciousness, plant consciousness. But he goes even further. The more he thinks about it, the says, the more he believes that consciousness and energy are the same thing. And since matter is really just a form of ‘congealed’ energy – then all matter and energy is conscious. We live in a conscious universe. Not in an unconscious universe where consciousness happened to sprout in some little insignificant speck of dust we call planet earth. This idea would be a great philosophical proposal but for the fact that Spinoza came up with it in the 17th century. Spinoza phrased it differently. He said that our consciousness is God’s thoughts of our bodies and that a tree’s consciousness is God’s thoughts of a tree. A coffee cup is God’s thoughts of a coffee cup and so on.
Thanks for posting Joe’s thoughts on this. This expresses my view as well. E=M (The c2 is just a conversion factor for time). :wink:

I only said “human life” in my previous post because it would be silly to argue that human life doesn’t have consciousness.

(However an Eckhart Tolle fan may argue that that the majority of human life is “unconscious”) :wink:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

When it comes to attempting to define consciousness, I like the metacognition definition...thinking about thinking.

I wonder if there would be any such thing as depression if we could not think about our thoughts?

Some say yes...animals get "depressed", but are we anthropomorphizing our human experiences on them?

I found out this week I get to go to the Consciousness Conference this spring (http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/) in Arizona to do a poster presentation. Maybe I will return with the answer to life, the universe, everything AND consciousness! :wink:
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

richard silliker
Associate
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:28 pm
Contact:

Post by richard silliker »

Neoplato
Thanks for posting Joe’s thoughts on this. This expresses my view as well. E=M (The c2 is just a conversion factor for time).



How about c2 being the speed of mass through the universe?

RS
"We sacrifice the whole truth of any given experience for the value to which we are constrained".

Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas »

Point well taken and I agree with you 100%. Very Happy

However, for the sake of those more “scientifically” oriented, I didn’t go there.
Well sorry if i go too far, i dont mean to offend anyone just my personal thoughts on the matter.

Sequoia will be able to process a great deal of information. And have perfect recall of all information. And there is no theoretical limit. Imagine a network of ten thousand, or a billion Sequoias able to process much more information than all the information that hominids have ever processed in our brief tenure on earth. And yet, there is no indication, in my way of looking at this, that this ultra-supreme supercomputer would have a sense of ‘self’, would be self-conscious, or would know what it means to know, or what it means to define the word ‘consciousness’.
Isnt that the difference of knowledge and wisdom? Which makes me think of a question.. if consciousness cannot be understood with scientific analysis could it be because consciousness doesnt mean to think, maybe we can define consciousness as a soul? Something that is not related with mind or the body.
Some say yes...animals get "depressed", but are we anthropomorphizing our human experiences on them?
Nope we dont. I have a dog and if you neglect him or dont pay him attention he will get depressed.. You can see in his eyes and actions that there is thinking, emotion and choice if i give him too much freedom he will jump into my bed if i neglect him for too long (something i try to never do) he will feel depressed.

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

Andreas Wrote:
if consciousness cannot be understood with scientific analysis could it be because consciousness doesnt mean to think, maybe we can define consciousness as a soul? Something that is not related with mind or the body.
I got into a discussion one time with a person who argued that animals don't have souls. My reflex response (without thinking) was "then how to they breathe?" 8)
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

Isn’t that the difference of knowledge and wisdom? Which makes me think of a question.. if consciousness cannot be understood with scientific analysis could it be because consciousness doesn’t mean to think, maybe we can define consciousness as a soul? Something that is not related with mind or the body.

- Andreas
In choosing number 4, the option that says there is something about human consciousness that will never be explained, I didn’t consider the consequences of opening up to the theological issue. A person could be completely a-spiritual, have none of God or soul stuff and still believe that human consciousness will forever remain mysterious. That is why I used examples such as ‘time’ and ‘existence’. There are some stones we just weren’t designed to lift. But leaving consciousness as a mystery does provide a spiritual ‘back door’ so to speak for those of us not exactly enamored by the myth/ritual options presented to us. Philosophizing about consciousness; the true nature of human consciousness, what it is and what it means, does quickly drive a mind into theological questions: Is there consciousness before or after this life? Is it right to eat mammals such as pigs and cows that are certainly just as conscious as Neo’s dog? Perhaps my spiritual prejudice was showing through without my knowing it when I decided on number 4.

* * * * * * *

JonsJourney – The Tucson conference is the place to be for these debates and discussions on consciousness. I tried to read Dennett’s Consciousness Explained but he meanders too much for my taste. I like very clear, concise, no frills explanation and ideas. We do live in the age of the 15 second sound bites. One book I loved was Conversations on Consciousness, Susan Blackmore, 2006. Many of the big names in this field are interviewed by Susan Blackmore. There were the standard questions about consciousness. But also, some personal questions about how studying consciousness has affected these peoples lives. It put the whole mystique of modern consciousness studies into perspective for me – in a way that no single author could do.

Here is an interesting part of an interview with Stuart Hameroff – Director of the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
“It was at Tucson 1 – the first Tucson conference – in 1994. It was the first ever international interdisciplinary conference on consciousness and we had it all planned out. The first day was philosophy, the second day was neuroscience, the third day was cognitive science, and so on.

On the first day a very well known, famous philosopher spoke first and he gave a very boring talk, the second speaker was kind of dull, and so I was getting worried – like the playwrights’ opening night, you know – that this was gonna flop. Then the third speaker was an unknown young philosopher named David Chalmers, who got up there with hair down to his waist, in a T-shirt and jeans, and gave the best talk I’d ever heard on the topic of consciousness. He talked about the easy problems of consciousness (which include reporting, perception, and things like that), and then the hard problem of conscious experience, which is “what it’s like to be’, or qualia, or raw sensations.

People were just buzzing about Dave’s talk and the ‘hard problem’, as he called it. I think that moment really galvanized an international movement in consciousness, because the problem was identified.

Well David would be the first to admit that he was restating things that William James had said, or that Tom Nagel had in his paper “What is it like to be a bat?’ But, as you know, consciousness was under a rock for most of the twentieth century because of the behaviorists, and only came out again in the eighties with Crick and Penrose.

I think he just captured the moment; he came along at the right time in the right place, with a very clear message, in plain talk. He characterized the problem of qualia, of why we have an inner life, and he used the zombie example to illustrate it.”

- Stuart Hameroff,

Conversations on Consciousness, Susan Blackmore, 2006. (p115)
And with the continued discoveries in neuroscience, things are still buzzing as far as I can tell. You’ll have a jolly good time.

- NoMan

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

That was a great trip to the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy web-site. Spent most of the day attempting to work out why I agree with Pinker and disagree with him at the same time. Conclusion: I agree with him because he is right, and disagree with him because David Bohm's guiding wave theory seems quite useful for what I can discern. Sheldon Goldstein's entry on the Stanford site explained quite convincingly that Bohm's theory have a better fit with what we know about the world. 'There are always pointers." or 'The pointers always point'. In my humble opinion a mixture of knowing and not knowing is what we living consciousnesses do here on Earth and that's just how the cooky crumbles. :roll:

Evinnra
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

Locked