A Physical Explanation for Consciousness

Large-scale Mechanisms of the Brain’s EM Field

Linkage between wave oscillations of the brain’s electric field and awareness is well-documented. Delta waves oscillating at EEG frequency .5-3 Hz occur during sleep. Theta waves (3-8 Hz) show up while in a daydreaming state between sleep and wakefulness. Alpha waves (8-12 Hz) are associated with a relaxed, idling state of mind such as when we pause with our eyes closed. Beta waves (12-38 Hz) happen during alert states of intellectual activity and outwardly focused concentration. Gamma waves (38-42 Hz) arise in conjunction with many neocortical contributions to perception and consciousness, such as analytical problem-solving.

Some wave types are strongly tied to certain regions of the brain. The hippocampus involves theta activity, the motor cortex features beta activity, and as was mentioned, gamma activity can obtain in the neocortex. Traveling waves of various frequencies traverse paths through the electric field ranging from a few millimeters to dozens of centimeters, and have been observed spanning the entire neocortex. It is noted that the strongest traveling waves incline to be out of phase with the rest of the brain. If tied to high arousal consciousness, this explains why fully attentive states consist in serial processing as opposed to the massively parallel processing of unconscious states. We might be able to intentionally concentrate on only a limited range of tasks because the electric fields of alert, focused consciousness segregate more from what surrounds them.

A typical explanation for large-scale electric field flows is that neural networks are synchronized by feedback loops, similar in concept to central pattern generators but so tightly coupled in recurrence that the emergent electric field evinces an in-phase pattern of oscillation as it moves. Experiments with electrodes inserted into in vitro nervous tissue have suggested that neurons engage in a phase locking mechanism which is still poorly understood, allowing the cells to fire in perfect, in-phase synchronicity. Researchers suspect that this phase locking is mediated by interaction of EM fields with the molecular structure of ion channels. Phase locking between ion channels and the EM field would certainly have pervasive effects, but it is plausible that much additional biochemistry could synchronize into EM fields due to complementary electromagnetic properties. Atoms are like tiny magnets, and even complex molecules may be sensitive to the motions of supervenient electric fields. Perhaps electric currents can almost causally saturate some tissues of the brain as they oscillate and flow.

Molecular biologist Johnjoe McFadden has proposed CEMI (conscious electromagnetic information) field theory, which claims the brain’s EM field is a motive force driving the activity of neural networks, and when these effects are strong enough they give rise to CEMI fields responsible for the causality and experience of willed agency. Some neurons have adapted for sensitivity to EM fields, and these are implicated in conscious brain processes, allowing us to control our attention and make decisions, while EM field insensitive neurons participate in unconscious processes. He explicitly asserts that the disjunction of CEMI fields from bordering EM fields can explain distinctly serial processing of consciousness.

It is the current author’s opinion that three factors must determine whether an EM field graduates to something like CEMI field status, becoming intentional will. Molecular structure of the tissues involved must be such that they are acutely responsive to EM field flows. The domain of the EM field must be large enough to incorporate holistically functional regions within its sphere of action. And EM field effects must be densely concentrated enough within tissue that an intensity threshold is surpassed. If EM fields minimally interact with tissue, are dispersed or remain small-scale, they may evoke lower arousal subconscious processes but will not enter into peak consciousness.

The plethora of evidence for electric field to awareness correlation alongside confirmation of feedback loop integration and phase locking mechanisms makes it seem as if neuroscience is well on its way to resolving the combination problem insofar as it relates to functional coordination. EM fields are not only a signature of neural network synchronicity but so far appear to actively modify activity throughout the brain, conjuring both low and high arousal states within large swaths of tissue. If CEMI fields are proven to exist with conclusiveness, this easily explains how intentional will manifests as structurally unified and causally efficacious. But though the forces which drive neural network synchronicity may be demystified by research along these lines, it is still not apparent why so-called will, ranging from the most unconscious to the most conscious processes, looks or feels like anything. What are the brain mechanisms that contribute to the substance of percepts and perception?

The Substance of Perception as a Consequence of Interactions Between Electromagnetic Radiation and Biochemistry

The most obvious and well-understood example of what it means to look or feel like something is a color percept, so we can begin to unravel subjectivity with a basic analysis of light. Electromagnetic radiation travels through the environment as a field with specific wavelengths, spreading in all directions. These radiating waves can be absorbed and emitted by electromagnetic matter in discrete packets or quanta called photons, so they have both wave and particle properties, a phenomenon referred to as wave/particle duality. Whether EM radiation is absorbed or emitted by an atom as a photon is determined by its wavelength and corresponding frequency or energy. As unabsorbed electromagnetic radiation flows through highly permeable portions of the environment such as Earth’s atmosphere or the vacuum of outer space at a breakneck speed of around 300 million meters per second, its wavelengths blend to produce combinations, and this property of simultaneous, hybridized, multifaceted structure is called quantum superposition. EM radiation also interacts through nonlocal mechanisms that remain mostly unknown, so perturbing a photon as it travels correlates statistically with changes to photons of common chemical origin moving in alternate directions. This is called quantum entanglement, an interaction occurring faster than light speed, which has even been observed as retroactive in cunning experiments.

The human eye is sensitive to EM radiation of wavelength 400-700 nm: the visible spectrum from violet to red. Light waves in this range are absorbed as photons by photoreceptor cells in the retina where they perturb molecular structures. Biochemical pathways convert these molecular perturbations into a neuronal signal which travels through the optic nerve to the brain by voltage dynamics described above, eventually arriving at the visual cortex in the occipital lobe for processing into a perceptual image.

Neural processing then rapidly makes its way from the back of the head to more anterior regions of the brain, adding layers of successively greater generalization to the perceptual field, such as a color palettes, shapes and relative sizes. The dorsal pathway trajecting towards the parietal lobe processes “where and how” features as increasingly inclusive data related to position and motion. It culminates adjacent to motor regions near the top of the brain that are the keystone of voluntary movement. The ventral pathway trajects into the temporal lobe and processes “what” features such as object and facial recognitions. Predominantly grey matter (dendrites and soma) of the separated dorsal and ventral pathways coordinates via interposed white matter which is an integrating web of axonic connections that run both ways, helping the entire visual system to function as a cohesive unit.

Almost all properties of visual perception can currently be identified in terms of neural structure except the most interesting part: why are the subjective phenomena that correlate with electrical signals a percept and not merely an electrical signal? What is it about reality and the way our brains interact with it, whether constituted of matter or something else, that contributes towards making perception a distinct property from conventional anatomy?

It is not unfruitful to speculate that biochemical properties can, in consort with EM radiation, be largely sufficient to produce color percepts, because these forms of matter - atoms and photons - are not as distinguishable in their principles of action as a casual glance might lead one to assume. The double-slit experiment has created interference patterns from emission of molecules as large as two thousand atoms, so wave/particle duality applies at a much larger scale than photons and electrons. These effects are harder to induce as mass increases, so it seems that bigger size skews molecules towards the particle end of the structural spectrum. Superposition also occurs within molecules, but to a more limited extent than in light waves. The hydrogen atoms of methane (CH4) have been shown to superposition with the central carbon atom, overlapping in intermediate space. A tentative conclusion might be that hydrogen’s bonds extensively superposition in nature. But the evidence so far indicates that as molecules increase in size, their atoms become more particlelike and are less prone to overlap in superposition states. 15 million atoms have been entangled at once, an experiment performed on a gaseous mixture at the unprecedentedly hot temperature of 176.9 oC. Entanglement was originally only achievable with supercooled chemicals, but has subsequently worked at room temperature. Researchers even managed to entangle two aluminum drums of 1 trillion atoms each, about the size of red blood cells, which synchronously vibrated by the diameter of one proton at temperatures near absolute zero. It seems all sorts of conditions are conducive to entanglement between relatively large conglomerations of atoms, but again the effects have been harder to attain in the lab with structures that are chemically bonded in more large-scale or complex ways.

Difference between the extreme wave, superposition, entanglement behavior of light and the generally more constrained behavior of larger masses is attributed to decoherence. As mass increases, more particles are jostling entropically in a process that tends to cause them to interfere, canceling out their ability to spread and interact across relatively large space so that they become more localized. The opposite of decoherence is termed coherence, a state in which wave, superposition and entanglement properties can broadly apply.

Whether decoherence happens is determined by entropy, the disorder in a material system, and chemical structure rather than mass per se, though entropic factors such as thermal energy can of course limit the ability of mass to form large chemical structures, hence the rather loose correlation between mass and decoherence. Relatively low entropy chemical structures of large mass can give rise to coherent states if conditions are suitable, and somewhat higher entropy matter of smaller mass can as well given amenable chemical structure.

The following are some illustrations of the relationship between decoherence and coherence. An electron hurtles through the double-slit experiment at 6 million meters per second, a highly entropic state allowing a single photon to disrupt the electron’s path and prevent an interference pattern from materializing on the screen at the back of the vacuum chamber. A copper wire is comparatively nonentropic, its atoms fixed in place as an extremely stable solid, supporting the flow of constituent electrons as a rapid coherence current when electricity is applied. Saline solution is more entropic, its water molecules, sodium ions and chloride ions engaged in jostling diffusion over such large spaces per unit of time that they bond in chemical structures no larger in diameter than an ion’s nanoscale solvation shell. But when electricity is applied, positive and negative charges act as a bridge, perhaps by a similar but opposite mechanism to electrical transmission in neurons, allowing electromagnetic energy to move at a rapid enough rate that the solution is relatively stationary over short timespans, almost like a quasicrystal. This is a strong coherence current, but less rapid and far-reaching than in copper wires.

Raising ion concentration increases the quantity of emergent solvation shell structures, which can lower average entropy of the solution so electrical coherence is transmitted more forcefully. A large organic molecule interacts with surrounding solution such that a lot of decoherence happens at its fringes, but inner portions probably remain low enough in entropy for some kind of coherence to be in effect, at least to the extent permitted by a residual jostling of chemically bonded atoms, though how exactly this might work remains unknown. Organic molecules are often fixed in place by cellular structures like cytoskeletal fibers and membranes, reducing entropy and in theory facilitating even more coherence.

The dynamics of macroscopic particles are driven by thermal energy and involve a substantial degree of decoherence, dividing classical from quantum phenomena, but within a multitude of conditions at the atomic scale coherence still readily takes effect. Like light, individual atoms and even fairly large atomic and molecular structures have wavelength, superposition and entangle. So while only EM radiation behaves like a textbook wave, it is possible to regard atomic structure at the microscale as comprised of wavicles which can share in all the essential coherence properties of light. It makes sense then to consider the possibility that wavicles not only form chemical bonds and functional structures in relation to each other as well as absorb or emit light, but can cohere with EM radiation in a complex of atomic nodes within photonic fields.

The speed of light is effectively instantaneous in the brain, perhaps capable of synchronizing with numerous molecules in a simultaneous way by entanglement, and blending into atomic structure as superposition, far beyond the intricacy of EM radiation alone. Acceleration of electric currents generates EM radiation of lower frequency than that which is fully absorbed into or reflected by atoms, and this may be the primary substrate of superposition fields. In nervous systems and brains, one of the most likely locations for this low frequency light emission is between the nodes of Ranvier and juxtaparanodal regions, where electromagnetic energy flow is accelerated by reduced concentration of K+. An even more probable candidate is the dendrites, where electromagnetic energy accelerates over relatively long distances, moving between clustered sodium channels in distal regions and the negative, Cl- centers of charge around the dendrite/soma junction. The presence of multiple dendrites increases the amount of radiation, perhaps to levels that can interact with neural chemistry on a broad scale, conceivably even breaching the soma. If sites of current cause trillions upon trillions of radiative locations in stretches of neuron, and radiative fields travel in all available directions across the distance of many micrometers, this may be enough to bind hundreds if not thousands of molecular structures into individual units pervading the brain. Subjective color might consist in superpositions between EM radiative fields entangled with biochemistry, an ultrahybrid resonance of waves and wavicles, obeying the same structural principles of quantum physics as both atoms and free flowing light in environments outside the body. Image percepts could be constructed from these units of resonance.

Of course this theory of resonance is full of uncertainties, just as the study of neural networks was decades ago. A way to verify and then study likely resonance properties is required, enlisting physics in the development of neuroscience to contrive new observational methods and models. But this seems the most probable hypothesis for image perception yet. The simplest possible explanation is that mental images and the visual field are analogues to quantum effects operative upon light and atoms separately. Strong circumstantial evidence comes from the way this accounts for how brain matter has a darkish tint while myelin is white. The grey matter of dendrites, some and the interior of axons is darkly shaded to absorb large amounts of EM radiation, while myelinated white matter reflects as much as possible so that radiative fields minimally attenuate across space. From the outside, neural matter looks greyish, but from the inside it synchronizes via entanglement and blends in superposition to bind as the substance of image perception.

It stretches the imagination when we try to think about how organization of matter in the brain can give rise to this perceptual field which appears so convincingly to be outside of the body. We must remember that the sharply focused visual field is only as large as the size of your thumb held at arm’s length in front of the face, with the majority of human vision pieced together from disjointed segmentations of eye saccading and even moreso involuntary memory functions. The visual field is mostly assembled by the brain from patches of stimulus that are fractional in space and temporally separated, so regardless of how physiology has adapted for experiencing, the mechanisms of our perception are largely within the brain. The way resonances hypothetically give rise to the substance of image percepts is really not a different issue in its fundamentals from how neural circuitry coordinates the cells within which these percepts would reside. Just as neural networks can be mapped according to their functional units, percept units could map onto the molecular structure of neurons insofar as it coheres with EM radiation. If this hypothesis is proven accurate, all kinds of new molecular functions and perhaps novel classes of functional molecule will be found, with heavy reliance on quantum physics in constructing these models. Ongoing discovery of the feedback loops associated with neural circuitry alongside progressing models of EM field synchronization effects as discussed above can probably explain how these radiative/molecular percepts are orchestrated to form an intelligible picture of the world around us. In addition to vision, this new theory can potentially model mental images and hallucinatory artifacts of brain processes, perceptual phenomena which are not derived from direct stimulation by the environment.

This theory would easily verify the mechanism of how percepts look, but what about how they feel? Why does perception have these nondimensional qualities in addition to spatial extension and temporal duration? When we think about resonance, the most characteristic property is vibration. All matter from the atomic to the macroscopic scale vibrates, and it is difficult to come up with a vibration that does not feel like something. Stretching and flexing of our skin, the bending of our eardrum, the soft or harsh glow of light with its frequencies and wavelengths, it all feels like something. The following is a tentative suggestion still to be proven by solid evidence, but perhaps it is intrinsic of waves and wavicles to consist in fragments of feeling as they resonate both independently and jointly. However, matter on the nanoscale does not seem to feel with much resolution. Specially adapted structures apparently exist throughout the body that increase the resolution of these resonances by idiosyncratic and intricate chemical organization, resulting in emergently complex feelings of incalculable diversity. If resonance between atoms and EM radiation produces perceptual feel as well, the variety in possible mechanisms is effectively limitless when we consider all the structural forms conceivable. The basics of feeling as molecular structures bound into percepts by EM radiation may constitute an even larger spectrum than image percepts.

Before the maturation of neuroscience, most philosophers and scientists viewed the substance of consciousness and its interactions with the environment as mediated by a nonphysical field. Nonlocal entanglement between matter separated by hundreds of kilometers certainly defies a model based on brain properties alone. But insofar as perception is tied to the brain, it seems promising that a theory of electromagnetic matter might be largely sufficient to describe many percepts along with motive forces that drive behavior of this matter on the electromagnetic scale. If an underlying, even nonelectromagnetic field with extremely remote effects is unveiled, it obviously must interact with molecular and radiative quanta to impact the brain. Wave/particle duality, superposition and entanglement will most likely be core to any theory of consciousness regardless of how exotic our knowledge of physical force becomes.

The Quest for a Theory of Consciousness and the Brain

Preliminaries of a complete explanation for the brain’s role in consciousness seem available to us. In neurons, a chain reaction of electromagnetic energy rapidly travels from more positive to less positive centers of charge, accelerated by periodically increasing charge disparity between neural regions. Feedback loops amongst neurons as well as phase locking between EM fields and neuronal chemistry synchronize these electromagnetic flows within large swaths of brain tissue, the emergent shapes of oscillating and traveling waves as recorded by EEG. A plausible hypothesis is that the electromagnetic causality imposed by these large-scale waves is responsible for the subconscious, intentional consciousness, and the experience of our own willed agency. Acceleration of electromagnetic energy in many trillions of locations within neurons of the brain emits EM radiation, and these radiative waves may interact with molecular wavicles by way of shared quantum mechanisms such as superposition and entanglement to bind biochemistry into percepts. Wave/wavicle resonances might not only comprise complex subjective images, but vibrations involved could include the basic constituents of feeling. These dimensional and/or nondimensional structures would form emergent arrays and conglomerations that are specialized to increase resolution, and together with EM field synchronization project the perceptual field insofar as it arises from the brain.

Percepts may at base be a product of quantum coherence properties and mechanisms, so if justified by subsequent evidence, this entire apparatus of electromagnetic energy flow, feedback loop or EM field synchronization, and wave/wavicle binding can be termed a “coherence field”. Whatever nonlocal fields and forces cause the extremely remote causality that is fast being revealed by experimentation in physics, it would of necessity interact with electromagnetically quantum phenomena, so this entire edifice of physical knowledge, at least to the extent that it intersects with consciousness and especially the brain, might be subsumable under the heading of coherence field theory. If coherence fields are proven to exist as outlined above, this will set science on course to resolve the explanatory gap and bring knowledge by acquaintance a great deal closer to knowledge by description.

Reply to Enrique :roll:

Re:
Quoting 180 Proof

Talking about the role quantum mechanics plays in any purported 'theory of consciousness' is like talking about the role QM plays in a theory of music ...

as per (e.g.)
Quoting 180 Proof

...the late, eminent, particle physicist and philosopher Victor Stenger, particularly his book The Unconscious Quantum reviewed here. I'm quite skeptical as it is of the terms like "entanglement" and "superposition", "energy fields" and "non-locality" that you're (mis)using, Enrique.

I haven't read all you wrote (tl dr?) but I have the feeling you associated consciousness with the EM field. Isn't electric charge a better canditate then for consciousness? All brain activity is constituted by neural currents. And who knows the true nature of charge? They produce EM fields. These fields are derived from charges and influence other charges. Is consciousness contained in the EM? Is is the EM field that has will or charge?

I have been thinking about consciousness and how it might be explained using atomics.

Consider the A) fact the the universe's visible energy is made up of three particles (protons, neutrons, electrons). Consciousness must then be, like all other fluid yet material things, composed of such parts. These parts are held together by forces.

Too, B) those forces must in some way frame conscious experience. Therein there is force explanation and particle explanation. We can measure particles as waves of energy, (ems and bws) rather than just particles (ions of k, Na, C).

There is seemingly a dualism here in neurology or mind science as well, popping up the question, "Is consciousness wave or particle in nature?" Obviously it depends on what you are measuring, just like the quantum world theories that communicate to us such a nature of wave-particles.

These are just some of the thoughts I have on the matter as of recently. I do expect like any good theoretical frameworks they will develop in further examination and contemplation.

Reply to Josh Alfred Karl Jaspers notes that there are obvious discontinuities happening between different levels of description corresponding to the apparent hierarchy of evolving physical systems - physical - chemical - biological - psychological. While a lot of effort goes into reduction, Jaspers is not incorrect. I see no reason why there could not be more.

Reply to Raymond The fields are held in lock by the biological circuity of the brain. Just in the same way an electric circuit holds the current of an electric field. Yet the brain also happens to be pliable; simulatable by neuro-networks, but I do not not know of a perfect rendition of the mechanisms (specifications) at work for pliability in the biological counterpart. There are probably connections with what @Enrique posits as "phase lock" with memory and neuro-plasticity.

Reply to Pantagruel May I suggest the book, "Quarks to Cosmos: Linking All the Sciences and Humanities in a Creative Hierarchy Through Relationships" by J. Mailen Kootsey Ph.D. You can also check out my layout of the framework in my blog, "Levels of Lucidity." This being accessible here: http://lucidityhaslevels1.blogspot.com/ Scroll down to topic 3 there for a direct ordering.

Reply to Josh Alfred

It are the charges running around massively parallel, and on a virtual infinity of possible paths, on paths of least resistance (by modulated connectivity of the synapse connections between dendrites) that cause consciousness. Not the force fields emanating from them. Basically, we are electrically (and colorly) charged massive bodies, with a face, arms, and legs. Running and dancing with our fellow men and women, and all other forms our planet (still) harbors.

Reply to Josh Alfred Ok, I will look at that for sure. Do you think there is any reason in principle why there may not be even higher levels of description than those accessible to us? I doubt the amoeba has much awareness of its own psychological reality.....

Quoting Pantagruel

doubt the amoeba has much awareness of its own psychological reality.....

The psychological reality is the awareness.

Quoting Raymond

The psychological reality is the awareness.

Self-consciousness versus consciousness though......

Quoting Pantagruel

Self-consciousness versus consciousness though......

What's the difference? Both are conscious. Self-consciousness seems even a hindrance for consciousness. What's so special about self-consciousness? The consciousness about yourself, don't animals have that too? You gotta be conscious of your body to direct it. You gotta be conscious of your thoughts to think them or change them.

Reply to Enrique
:up: Excellent description -- or should I say "essay"?.
The only problem is that it is useless to connect consciousness with the brain directly, i.e. as if consciousness is created and maintained by the brain. Science, neurobiologists included, have actually not a clue about the nature, location and functioning of consciousness. (I don't think I need to bring dozens of references that prove that fact, based on scientists' words themselves.) After more than a century of research, in and out of laboratories, the only thing that they have to show are reactions of the brain triggered by patients watching videos, images, etc. and, of course, by tampering with the brain itself. I think that science has been given more than enough time to come up with something substantial on the subject of consciousness. I don't think they will ever do. They are looking to a wrong direction and use the wrong tools.

Reply to Raymond I agree, there's a case to be made for conflating consciousness and self-consciousness. My main idea is, that if nature evolves to produce these discontinuous realms, who is to say there isn't another beyond whatever is our current apex?

Reply to Alkis Piskas

Supposing consciousness to be a different substance from the information it is aware of, wouldn't you agree that all this scientific evidence nevertheless demonstrates that the limits or boundaries of an individual human consciousness is for all intended purposes largely, if not fully, set by the brain?

To clarify: In this substance-dualism supposition just offered, information - be it the physical information of the body, the psychical perceptual information of what is perceived, and so forth - would literally give form to, i.e. in-form, one’s consciousness such that it holds specific limits or boundaries … A consciousness which is yet upheld to be a different substance from that of information, including that of the physical information which is the body, but which - in being so limited/bounded by the body - is nevertheless dependent on the body’s being for its moment to moment form (i.e., for its identity as ego or self).

Merely asking out of a curiosity to better discern your worldview.

Reply to Enrique

Likewise kudos for - from what I can currently tell - a well thought out thesis. And I say this as a non-physicalist.

Reply to 180 Proof

:ok:

Reply to Enrique What else besides brains are conscious/can become conscious?

Reply to Alkis Piskas :up:

Quoting javra

Supposing consciousness to be a different substance

Consciousness is not a substance (Re: Substance is a particular kind of matter with uniform properties.).

Quoting javra

wouldn't you agree that all this scientific evidence nevertheless demonstrates that the limits or boundaries of an individual human consciousness is for all intended purposes largely, if not fully, set by the brain?

Yes, as far as the senses --i.e. the physical world-- are concerned. In fact, both the sences --e.g. bad vision-- and the brain --brain damage-- set limits to consciousness, since they limit perception. This is as far as science can attest to. But when it comes, for example, to feelings --joy, sorrow, etc.-- and other human emotional manifestations, things get outside science's jurisdiction.

Quoting javra

In this substance-dualism supposition

I would rather say "substance - non-substance" dualism ...

Quoting javra

be it the physical information of the body, the psychical perceptual information of what is perceived, and so forth - would literally give form to, i.e. in-form, one’s consciousness such that it holds specific limits or boundaries

I agree. (This can be derived from what I said earlier.)

Quoting javra

[consciousnessw] is nevertheless dependent on the body’s being for its moment to moment form

.
I agree. (This can be also derived from what I said earlier.)

Quoting javra

for its identity as ego or self

Now here we are moving into a quite controversial area! :smile:

Reply to RogueAI
Thanks :smile:

Quoting Josh Alfred

The fields are held in lock by the biological circuity of the brain. Just in the same way an electric circuit holds the current of an electric field.

The currents in an electric circuit are not the force fields though. It is an external field, generated by external charges, that direct, the electrons. The wire is indeed used to direct the field and push the charges, but this doesn't go on in the neuron wiring, where electric charge moves without a field directed by a field along the whole dendrites. The dendrites are there to direct the path of the charges, but doesn't pull it through, as on a wire on which a potential is applied. The charges move perpendicular to the dendrites (through the ion channels), and this process propagates along the dendrite line. Of course this motion creates its own EM field, and it can help to directs other running charges. All this directed and structured running charges constitute consciousness.

Quoting Alkis Piskas

Consciousness is not a substance (Re: Substance ia particular kind of matter with uniform properties.)

Is electric charge a substance?

Reply to Raymond
No, it's a flow of energy.
(If you refer to "'substance - non-substance' dualism" that I mentioned, it was just to differentiate from your "'substance-dualism", which I undestood it meant "dualism between different substances". But "non-substance" does not mean "non-physical": e.g. energy is non-substance but it's still physical.
So, to speak more correctly, the actual dualism is between "physical and non-physical".

Quoting Alkis Piskas

So, to speak more correctly

Why is that more correctly? Because it's the way it actually is? Energy is physical. It's a means to gain motion by interaction. Pure energy, without mass, is used between massive particles, which might even be stuff without mass, gaining mass by some strong interaction. Is the charge, like mental charge, physical? What is charge? A physical property? Can we know it? It emits energy to interact. Is charge a will, a form of consciousness? It certainly seems so. It "wants" to be near other charges, opposites attract. Or stay away from them. Likewise, we could be viewed as charged people. With eyes, ears, a nose, etc. To feel other people and understand them. Our body seems fit for interaction. Why should energy be non-physical? It's the charge that's non physical and the inviable, correct, and necessary ingredient for the will and consciousness.

Reply to Alkis Piskas
:grin: Hey, thanks for the reply. Iffy about this post since I don’t want to take away from the OP, but I’ll post it as a minor sidenote regarding alternative views.

Quoting Alkis Piskas

Supposing consciousness to be a different substance — javra

Consciousness is not a substance (Re: Substance ia particular kind of matter with uniform properties.).

[...]

I would rather say "substance - non-substance" dualism .

In the way you are using “substance”, I would tend to agree with your notion of a duality between “information as substance” and “consciousness/awareness as non-substance”. So it’s known, I wrote substance in the substance-theory sense of that which is an ontically independent and non-contingent given, and which ontically occurs before changes, during changes, and after changes - that which undergoes changes without being itself changed - in a sense, as that which “stands beneath” all attributes and changes and thereby serves as a primary ontological foundation to all else that occurs.

To however share a different perspective - this where “substance” is understood as I’ve just described it - if a) we take information to be something that can be both ontically created and eradicated (as one example, when a person dies some of the persons unique psychical information, like hopes and dreams, can be argued to disappear forever from the physical world; conversely, with a person’s birth new psychical information can come into being), b) further presume a metaphysical primacy of awareness (to include all forms of unconscious awareness in addition to our conscious awareness), and c) then further premise that all existent information is in one way or another and in some ultimate sense contingent upon awareness, then we obtain the following: in a topsy-turvy manner to what was first mentioned, there here is a duality between “awareness as substance” and “information as non-substance”. This without in any way taking away from awareness being “in-formed” by the information it is bound to, very much including the physical information of the body and, hence, brain. Mentioned in part because this latter phrasing is accordant to my own current metaphysical beliefs. If any of this strikes you as a wrongheaded mindset, please let me know.

Quoting Alkis Piskas

for its identity as ego or self — javra

Now here we are moving here into a quite controversial area! :smile:

Very true. But awareness devoid of any information could then not be limited or bounded (else expressed, ratioed in relation to anything else) and so could then not have an ego or self, for the latter is always bounded/limited in some sense to itself, entailing a psyche and its relation to other. Instead, the awareness would be concluded to be limitless or boundless, hence with no subject-object divide (in part because no information would occur for this to happen). On the upside, being literally limitless, awareness would then be literally infinite. Something like the actualization of (not just inference of) Nirvana, or some such, as an ultimate reality that consists of a literally selfless/egoless awareness. But yea, a very controversial area indeed.

At any rate, I do find that our selfhood (but not awareness) is contingent on the information that surrounds.

Quoting Raymond

Why is that more correctly?

Because, in the subject of consciousness, it is better and more exact to speak about "non-physical" than "non-substance", which can mean anything, physical and non-physical.

Reply to javra
All this is well put and quite interesting!

Quoting javra

I’ll post it as a minor sidenote regarding alternative views.

I believe that you should post it as a major note and in big letters! :grin:
(Just joking ...)

Quoting javra

“information as substance”

Information is not a substance. It is facts, which can be known, evaluated, processed etc. by the mind. So, both information and consciousness are non-substance --better, non-physical.

Quoting javra

Substance theory

Thanks for this. I had to look it up! :grin: According to this theory, substance can mean the foundation, property of an object or the object itself. And this, indeed, creates a pysical - non-physical dualism. Nice! :up:

Quoting javra

we take information to be something that can be both ontically created and eradicated ...

I don't see the other leg of "both" ...

Quoting javra

duality between “awareness as substance” and “information as non-substance”

Well, I have already rejected consciousness as substance ... :smile:

Quoting javra

physical information of the body

Not sure about the meaning of this. Information that comes from the body or that refers to the body?
Anyway, I already talked about the non-physicality of information.

Quoting javra

awareness devoid of any information

Awarenes does not contain or has information. It is a state that makes it possible for us to acquire (perceive, know about) information. So, it is knowledge that contains information.

Quoting javra

awareness would then be literally infinite ... as an ultimate reality that consists of a literally selfless/egoless awareness

OK, I can see why you mentioned "ego" and "self" ...

Quoting Alkis Piskas

Why s that more correctly?
— Raymond
Because, in the subject of consciousness, it is better and more exact to speak about "non-physical" than "non-substance", which can mean anything, physical and non-physical.

The content of the physical can be non-physical? Who knows what the substance of charge is made of? You can describe the outer manifestations, but the inside can't be described in the same language. You can label it "charge", like you can label a brain or body structure "pain", but that doesn't explain what's inside.

Reply to Pantagruel "are there possibly other levels?" Not certain.

Single celled organism do not have a neuronal structure (No CNS). They DO participate in "life" and react to the external environment. That ability is much less complex than our own. When studying neuroscience it is best to start with the simplest known living things, and work one's understanding upward to more complex life forms (and thus more complex nervous systems). At least this has been the trend in the discipline.

Back to your question, any living thing will fall under the science of the biological. A living thing exempt from biology is most unlikely. Yet there are "structure complexities" that permit for higher levels interacting with each other, as in the case of man using telescopes compared to amoeba reacting to some environmental stimuli.

Both are biological, but when presented to a neuroscientist will not meet criteria or the stats necessary to be considered a sample of study for the neuroscientist. They are incommensurable in such a respect.

Reply to Josh Alfred I am leaning towards the much-maligned concept of spirit. Energy presents a dizzying array of forms. And evolution has been going on for an extremely long time. Who knows what shape a very, very long-lived type of spiritual entity might take? I

Reply to Pantagruel The study of "spiritual entities" is part of a pseudo-science, like parapsychology.

From my take there are possibly
1) Spiritual entities, or "other realm beings" that have not existed in a mortal vassal.
2) Spiritual entities that have existed in the mortal world.

The science behind it doesn't offer a lot to go on, (as far as I am aware) and so such a level is has been left out of what is known as "THE HEIRARCHY OF THE SCIENCES." If such beings do exist, evidently there will be evidence based edits to the Hierarchical model. Meaning, as far as I am concerned much more investigation, experimentation, and reporting are due.

Reply to Josh Alfred I've just presented a premise to the effect that it isn't pseudo-science. I hear what you're saying though, it is often abused. But then, so is science nowadays. I'm suggesting that there may be systems involving energy patterns that we can now conceptualize (using tools like systems theory) possibly taking place at very large scales of space and time. Even in our world we can see hints of such patterns. Who knows exactly what is being transmitted through culture? It's more than just a simple blueprint.

It most likely isn't something that we can "study," any more than an amoeba can study human society. However perhaps it represents a direction in which our understanding can evolve....

Intelligence, it seems, doesn't require a brain. Proof? The universe is acting in ways that we would ascribe to a genius (re mathematical precision and sense) and we know the universe doesn't have a brain. That is to say, intelligence can exist sans a brain. Intelligence is nonphysical or thereabouts.

Quoting Raymond

The content of the physical can be non-physical?

Empty objects: they contain nothing! OK, this is self-defeating (language deficiency). But what about a "written page containing ideas, information, etc."? OK, this is a figure of speach.
So, I guess not. :smile:

That was fun, but I can't see how does this question fit in the discussion ...

Quoting Agent Smith

Intelligence, it seems, doesn't require a brain. Proof? The universe is acting in ways that we would ascribe to a genius (re mathematical precision and sense) and we know the universe doesn't have a brain. That is to say, intelligence can exist sans a brain. Intelligence is nonphysical or thereabouts.

Yes. Individual humans consistently exhibit self-centric cognitive biases in interpretation, which results in biases in perception. Humans as a species likewise exhibit anthropo-centric biases. In another thread the fact that human culture and tools can be viewed as "natural" was raised. That's true. Equivalently, if human beings are alive (or conscious), then so is the universe....

Reply to Pantagruel Hm."...anymore than an amoeba can study humans." Great use of analogy.

"...who knows what is being transferred through culture?" I think Jung really went at it. Now we have more modern culture studies. I kind of grasp what you are saying, though.

Is science evolving? To what end? Does it to have some kind of shape, structure? I'd answer, yes to all. But I too am an amoeba in the larger scheme of things. Its hard enough to conceptualize all that goes into a single organism, let alone the whole system. It's partially due to the limited sensory apprehension an individual has. I do think there is plenty more to discover, we just need new tools that upgrade human or non-human (AI) senses as well as cognitive capacities. That sounds like a thematic for a sci-fi. How many works are there are the supernatural mixed with artificial intelligence? Lol. Definitely gets those cogs turning.

Quoting Josh Alfred

we just need new tools that upgrade human or non-human (AI) senses as well as cognitive capacities

Yes, this overlaps with the theme of the other thread I mentioned - what are the effects of the integration of tools into human culture, for society, and for the mind? Our whole existence is inextricable from our instrumentalities (perhaps even describable in terms of them).

We are wayyy too far from understanding the brain to be able to say that we have an explanation for consciousness.

If the behavior of a particle is giving us serious trouble in physics, I don't think the human brain is likely to be "solved" any time soon.

Quoting RogueAI

What else besides brains are conscious/can become conscious?

I think the nonlocal, perhaps nonelectromagnetic field that is probably responsible for effects such as remote entanglement has close correlation with consciousness. This might be responsible for phenomena such as the collective unconscious in all kinds of lifeforms, just as EM fields seem to coordinate percepts within individual brains and bodies. Nonlocal fields might induce perceptual superpositions in addition to entanglement, and could be the source of what humans have historically regarded as spiritual awareness.

Quantum science might actually be able to tease apart the way in which these substance properties work, beginning with how percepts arise in brains. This trajectory would be similar to how electricity was discovered in organisms during procedures such as dissections before it was attributed to the environment generally and applied technologically.

Quoting Enrique

I think the nonlocal, perhaps nonelectromagnetic field that is probably responsible

You think it's perhaps probably responsible? What is a nonelectromagnetic field? A hidden variables field?

Quoting Raymond

You think it's perhaps probably responsible? What is a nonelectromagnetic field? A hidden variables field?

Yeah, a hidden variables field of some kind that interacts with electromagnetic and possibly nuclear fields. An interdisciplinary quantum neuroscience might be able to figure out how it works.

It really is a new physical phenomenon, but so obvious that one wonders why it was neglected: how is EM radiation contained in or infused into atoms such that an emergent photonic/atomic field results, and does a hidden variables field with still more remote effects impact the way these electromagnetic fields manifest? What are the qualitative properties, mechanistic parameters and probably biological roles of photonic/atomic blending? I suspect this type of process is closely associated with consciousness.

The issue becomes how to develop instrumentation that can scientifically observe this phenomenon, allowing us to model it and harness it for technological and medical purposes.

Reply to Enrique I think it's easier to ditch all the talk of fields and assume mind is primary. That seems to require less assumptions.

Quoting RogueAI

I think it's easier to ditch all the talk of fields and assume mind is primary. That seems to require less assumptions.

But what if the mind is a field?

Reply to Enrique Are fields rational? Are fields meaningful? Does the sunset I'm imagining exist in a field in my skull? When I think of my favorite song, is there music playing in a field somewhere in my brain? The mind is definitely not a field. You could say it's caused by fields, but that is also a tricky claim. The simplest thing is to stop assuming there's any mind-independent stuff.

Quoting Pantagruel

My main idea is, that if nature evolves to produce these discontinuous realms, who is to say there isn't another beyond whatever is our current apex?

I think quantum physics will be key for modeling this realm beyond physiology, probably by uniting ideas such as coherence and the collective unconscious.

Quoting Pantagruel

I agree, there's a case to be made for conflating consciousness and self-consciousness. My main idea is, that if nature evolves to produce these discontinuous realms, who is to say there isn't another beyond whatever is our current apex?

You mean consciousness and self consciousness or classical and quantum mechanics?

In terms of a physical explanation for consciousness, I ascribe to panpsychic and animistic frames of mind. In other words, everything physical is conscious, and is consciousness.

Reply to Bret Bernhoft

Indeed. How else can it be? We are what we eat.

Reply to Cornwell1

That's my opinion as well. Animism makes sense.

Reply to Enrique Sounds plausible. I'm just reading Michio Kaku's The Future of the Mind and he touches on the issue of thought and the quantum realm. I'm a pantheistic neutral monist; I think thought is ubiquitous.

Reply to Enrique

Are not the EM fields generated by electric charges? I don't think the non-local character of these charges gives an explanation. The charges themselves are the mystery.

Quoting Enrique

What are the brain mechanisms that contribute to the substance of percepts and perception?

Well, if I could stimulate you to a response to your own question, I might ask what are the evolutionary pressures and conditions that would needs be present t give rise to that will, and what does will look like to our animal relatives, whom also not only share a brain with almost identical processes of operation, but are made of almost identical elements and materials? With that in mind, how would you anwer your own question? Because to me, it seems like will emerges as a method by which to ensure longevity of the individual entity, either in form, or in posterity. What say you?

By the by, I'm a philosopher, not neuroscience, so work with me on jargon if you decide to respond.

Quoting Garrett Travers

I might ask what are the evolutionary pressures and conditions that would needs be present t give rise to that will, and what does will look like to our animal relatives, whom also not only share a brain with almost identical processes of operation, but are made of almost identical elements and materials?

If this theory I outlined in the OP proves accurate, the implications for how physiology, perception and thought evolved will certainly be interesting to investigate. I've got my own speculation but no definitive conclusions besides the fact that I think free will, within constraints of variable and conditional stringency of course, does exist in thousands upon thousands of species.

I find it intriguing that EM radiation moves rapidly enough to at least in principle circle the planet multiple times per second, while gravitational lensing of long-range radio waves has been observed near extremely massive celestial bodies. So does a correlation exist between mass and frequency that determines the EM radiation which is most substantially "lensed", with shorter wavelengths lensed by smaller masses, and how does this correspond to radiation on Earth in general or produced by brains?

Quoting Enrique

If this theory I outlined in the OP proves accurate, the implications for how physiology, perception and thought evolved will certainly be interesting to investigate. I've got my own speculation but no definitive conclusions besides the fact that I think free will, within constraints of variable and conditional stringency of course, does exist in thousands upon thousands of species.

On that point, as it is being discussed in a separate forum I'm involved in, have a look at this and tell me what you think:

Definitions of Will: the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action/ control deliberately exerted to do something or to restrain one's own impulses/ the thing that one desires or ordains/ make or try to make (someone) do something or (something) happen by the exercise of mental powers/ intend, desire, or wish (something) to happen.

Now check out my reformulated definition of will, from a philosophical perspective: The sum total of all individual human action or thought, the emergent expression of all functions of the brain and all of the processes therein that contribute to them.

Tell me from the perspective of your studies, as I also have mine and maybe we'll swap if there are discrepancies, is there any issue you take with either the current working definitions of 'will,' or my reformulated one. If so, what are they?

Quoting Garrett Travers

Tell me from the perspective of your studies, as I also have mine and maybe we'll swap if there are discrepancies, is there any issue you take with either the current working definitions of 'will,' or my reformulated one.

I think substance in general as we presently comprehend it must be its own impetus. In this respect, every facet of the brain, at least that we can currently identify, partially determines itself and has degrees of freedom. In the context of biology, when it was advantageous to evolve degrees of freedom, organisms trajected towards less constraint on whatever level of emergence, and the opposite is probably true also.

Degrees of freedom can be conscious, subconscious and unconscious, but I associate "free will" with premeditated motive, so organisms display this when they reflect, make plans as humans do. Humans can increase or decrease their capacity and opportunity to reflect by the way we organize society, either selecting for or against deliberate freedom.

I think your definition of free will corresponds to physiological degrees of freedom in general, and the standard definition of free will you reference aligns with reflective purpose. Both are accurate in context, but most wouldn't correlate degrees of freedom in general with will.

Quoting Enrique

I think your definition of free will corresponds to physiological degrees of freedom in general, and the standard definition of free will you reference aligns with reflective purpose. Both are accurate in context, but most wouldn't correlate degrees of freedom in general with will.

I am in accord with everything you've said. However, on this point I have to ask. Given the definitions I provided, what you know of the science; doesn't my describing it as "the sum total of all human action and thought," cover the varying degrees aspect?

Quoting Garrett Travers

Given the definitions I provided, what you know of the science; doesn't my describing it as "the sum total of all human action and thought," cover the varying degrees aspect?

Some components of human cognition are voluntary and some involuntary. The visual cortex registering the border of a shape is involuntary. An internal monologue is involuntary but can be deliberately modified. Reasoning through a philosophical problem is quite voluntary but involves involuntary aspects as well. Many cognitive processes have conventionally free elements, but moreso unfree elements which subjugate our self-identified wills. So human will is not the sum total of all brain processes, and many involuntary features of cognition that reside beyond our wills aren't what common sense labels as thought or action. I think common sense terms are essentially being redefined, which could lead to confusion. Basically, some elaboration will be necessary for your approach to work.

Quoting Enrique

Some components of human cognition are voluntary and some involuntary. The visual cortex registering the border of a shape is involuntary. An internal monologue is involuntary but can be deliberately modified. Reasoning through a philosophical problem is quite voluntary but involves involuntary aspects as well. Many cognitive processes have conventionally free elements, but moreso unfree elements which subjugate our self-identified wills.

100% agree, no issues here.

Quoting Enrique

So human will is not the sum total of all brain processes, and many involuntary features of cognition that reside beyond our wills aren't what common sense labels as thought or action. I think common sense terms are essentially being redefined, which could lead to confusion. Basically, some elaboration will be necessary for your approach to work.

The issue I take with this, is that, if you review the term 'will' in all of its various modern and historical definitions, you'll notice that all human behaviors are encompassed by it, either involuntary or voluntary. Free Will and Will are similar concepts, but one implies what the other does not, in this case complete independence. If the behaviors that can be voluntary are done through neural processes of the brain, which also handles the involuntary processes, then it stands to reason, whether free or unfree, 'will' is simply that expression of thought and behavior, both voluntary and involuntary. Right, like it isn't some mystical you apart from the brain doing it, because if we provide trauma to the brain we lose those faculties in accordance with the functions of the damaged structures. And as you said, the voluntary aspects are replrete with many involuntary aspects. Seems to me they all come from the same place, through the same processes, and are even expressed in the same ways (thought and action), it's just some of those ways are covered by the part of the brain the provides executive function. What do you think?

Reply to Garrett Travers

Some kind of elaboration along those lines is adequate I think. Amazing to realize neuroscience is so nascent that the textbook meanings of "thought" and "action" will be completely different in a hundred years.

Quoting Enrique

Some kind of elaboration along those lines is adequate I think. Amazing to realize neuroscience is so nascent that the textbook meanings of "thought" and "action" will be completely different in a hundred years.

An absolutely excellent point. I literally just jotted that down in my private writings last night. I'm working on an epistemology of ethics that opens with where such a practice begins, that being with consciousness. So, I had to explore a little bit regarding what we know and how long it's been going on. I found an awesome journal two nights ago on consciousness that blew me away. Not because it was new to me as a thought, but because it took until 2021 to elaborate on in the form of a published journal in neuroscience. Check it out if you get a chance. Basic gist, we've been wrong about consciousness for years. Oddly, this was already my idea of consciousness before I read it; hope you like it, share thoughts if you're up for it:


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351365249_WHAT_PRODUCES_CONSCIOUSNESS?_iepl%5BgeneralViewId%5D=lhn7ZjibDGnkfzBkMEcxCBfaDEZU94efInAd&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=searchReact&_iepl%5BviewId%5D=6hj7dd19J1eHUhdAIOwfuUSjvB5fcDpSFdzK&_iepl%5BsearchType%5D=publication&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BcountLessEqual20%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BinteractedWithPosition3%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BwithoutEnrichment%5D=1&_iepl%5Bposition%5D=3&_iepl%5BrgKey%5D=PB%3A351365249&_iepl%5BtargetEntityId%5D=PB%3A351365249&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=publicationTitle

Quoting Garrett Travers

Basic gist, we've been wrong about consciousness for years. Oddly, this was already my idea of consciousness before I read it; hope you like it, share thoughts if you're up for it

I agree that the material basis of paranormal intuition is a great mystery, and I think it will be solved when physics has advanced far enough to fashion a model of matter's supradimensional structure along with how energy flows through it. Could causality proceed no faster than the speed of light and time travel by filling a supradimensional hyperspace of which thermodynamic substance is only the veneer or a fractional component? How would this change the way we conceptualize distance? What are the contents of hyperspace, how does it correlate with electromagnetism and interact with the brain? Might this space be populated by objects and organisms that transcend sense-perception and our current models? What kind of instruments would enable scientists to objectively inspect this paranormal realm and perhaps ecosystem if it indeed exists?

Quoting Enrique

I agree that the material basis of paranormal intuition is a great mystery, and I think it will be solved when physics has advanced far enough to fashion a model of matter's supradimensional structure along with how energy flows through it. Could causality proceed no faster than the speed of light and time travel by filling a supradimensional hyperspace of which thermodynamic substance is only the veneer or a fractional component? How would this change the way we conceptualize distance? What are the contents of hyperspace, how does it correlate with electromagnetism and interact with the brain? Might this space be populated by entirely spiritual objects and organisms that transcend sense-perception and our current models? What kind of instruments would enable scientists to objectively inspect this paranormal realm and perhaps ecosystem if it indeed exists?

Pretty cool concepts. However, interesting abstractions compared to what the data to this point seem to suggest is hard for me to move beyond, especially dealing with that level of abstraction. For example, if we were to discover objects in that domain, wouldn't they stop being spiritual and immediately become natural, considering the fact that we know there's no evidence for anything not natural by definition? Who knows? What that journal highlights is how unclear scientists have been all this time on the nature of consciousness, which strikes me as strange because I've regarded consciousness as a neural function that is emitted, or generated as a result of all the functions of the brain working as a synchronized catena of systems. Seems pretty clear to me, given the data besides. But, anyway. Thought you'd like that.

Quoting Garrett Travers

I've regarded consciousness as a neural function that is emitted, or generated as a result of all the functions of the brain working as a synchronized catena of systems.

Do you think mental states are identical to brain states? Or mental states are caused by physical states?

Quoting RogueAI

Do you think mental states are identical to brain states? Or mental states are caused by physical states?

All states, short of illnesses of certain types, are produced by the brain. Mental states are a result of neural activity in association with chemicals that are part of the intrinsic function of the brain.

Quoting Garrett Travers

All states, short of illnesses of certain types, are produced by the brain. Mental states are a result of neural activity in association with chemicals that are part of the intrinsic function of the brain.

But are mental states identical to brain states? It sounds like you're saying mental states are caused by brain states.

Quoting RogueAI

But are mental states identical to brain states? It sounds like you're saying mental states are caused by brain states.

That is correct. The word "identical" doesn't really have a place here, not really applicable. The brain creates the states, just as it does everything for you. There's is no state without the brain. It's like asking if a sight and visual perception are identical, doesn't really work.

Quoting Garrett Travers

The brain creates the states, ...

But the question is, what is a brain? Does a jellyfish have a brain? Does a jellyfish have mental states? Is an electronic brain a brain? Does your computer have mental states?

Nothing is explained.

Reply to Garrett Travers How does the brain cause mental states? Why is consciousness only associated with some parts of the brain? Would something that's functionally equivalent to a brain also be conscious? What about a simulated brain?

Quoting SolarWind

But the question is, what is a brain? Does a jellyfish have a brain? Does a jellyfish have mental states? Is an electronic brain a brain? Does your computer have mental states?

Nothing is explained.

That actually is not the question. The question is does the brain do this? The answer is yes. The brain governs all human activity. As far as how, that is still being investigated. Primarily through a complex, multistructural, system of chemical exchanges, electrical and electromagnetic interactions across 80 billion neurons, specialized by 3.5 billion years of evolution. As far as computers are concerned, the most advanced computer ever made by Man pales in comparison to the complexity of even a single structure of the brain. A simulated brain is a concept that I don't even know about.

Quoting RogueAI

How does the brain cause mental states? Why is consciousness only associated with some parts of the brain? Would something that's functionally equivalent to a brain also be conscious? What about a simulated brain?

Through chemical interactions across 80 billion neurons. Consciousness is actually NOT only associated with some parts of the brain, but all of them working in unison. If it were truley functionally equivalent in reality, yes.

Quoting Garrett Travers

All states, short of illnesses of certain types, are produced by the brain. Mental states are a result of neural activity in association with chemicals that are part of the intrinsic function of the brain.

You seem to be talking about causation where the brain causes mental states. How exactly does a physical brain produce the mental state of visual depth? When I view the world, I don't experience the neural signals and chemical interactions inside of my brain that I see when looking at other people's mental states. I experience a sensory model of the world. So any good theory needs to explain how it is that I experience my mental states so differently than I experience other people's mental states (as brains).

Quoting Garrett Travers

Through chemical interactions across 80 billion neurons.

How does that work? Why do chemical interactions across 80 billion neurons produce consciousness, but chemical reactions in other organs don't? What is so special about neurons? Would a brain with 70 billion neurons produce consciousness? 7 billion? 7 thousand?

Consciousness is actually NOT only associated with some parts of the brain, but all of them working in unison.

But damage to the brain (e.g., minor stroke) doesn't always result in a change in consciousness. And some damage to the brain causes extreme changes in consciousness. Some parts of the brain are clearly more involved in consciousness than others. And some brain activity is completely unconscious. Why is that?

If it were truley functionally equivalent in reality, yes.

So suppose we set up a huge system of pumps, valves, and running water and it was functionally equivalent to a working brain, and we ran it for a second. Would it be conscious? If so, how is that not magical thinking?

What about a simulation of a working brain? Would that be conscious? Can computers be conscious? Are any computers today conscious? How would you test for computer consciousness?

Quoting Harry Hindu

You seem to be talking about causation where the brain causes mental states. How exactly does a physical brain produce the mental state of visual depth? When I view the world, I don't experience the neural signals and chemical interactions inside of my brain that I see when looking at other people's mental states. I experience a sensory model of the world. So any good theory needs to explain how it is that I experience my mental states so differently than I experience other people's mental states (as brains).

You don't experience other people's mental states. You are confined to the experience of your brain. You absolutely are experiencing those neural signals and chemical interactions, that's what allows you to see. How does the brain do this producing of mental states? Through many, many complex processes. You need to familiarize yourself with modern neuroscience. The explanations you seek are far too complex to put in a forum. There are hundreds of research papers published every year on this topic, and every detail they've discovered that goes into the processes.

Quoting RogueAI

How does that work? Why do chemical interactions across 80 billion neurons produce consciousness, but chemical reactions in other organs don't? What is so special about neurons? Would a brain with 70 billion neurons produce consciousness? 7 billion? 7 thousand?

How it works was told to you. Why it works, is an anthropomorphization of reality. There is no why, there is only how. Organs are themselves specialized structures not designed to produce such activity. The way those organs were specialized through genetic information exchange and adaptation, is the same process by which the brain is specialized through genetic information exchange and adaptation. The result of billions of years of chemical interactions.

As far as these questions: What is so special about neurons? Would a brain with 70 billion neurons produce consciousness? 7 billion? 7 thousand?

What's not special about neurons? What brain has only 70 billion? Do they have consciousness? These are questions for you to answer with the info you've been given, and the info broadly available to you. I'm a philosopher, in particular an ethicist, not a neuroscientist. You're asking the wrong person.

Reply to Garrett Travers
I have read many papers on the topic, but none of them address the question I asked you. If you could direct me to some paper that does, I'd be grateful.

Even with that said, it seems like you're missing my point or are a p-zombie.

1. If you dont experience other people's mental states then how do you know about them? What form does your knowledge of other people's mental states take?

2. I am not confined to my experience of my brain. Like I said, I don't experience my brain. I experience a sensory model of the world. I experience brains when looking at other people's mental states.

Maybe it would help if you define "experience".

Quoting Harry Hindu

1. If you dont experience other people's mental states then how do you know about them? What form does your knowledge of other people's mental states take?

I don't know about them. Other people have to tell me about them. Same as everyone.

Quoting Harry Hindu

I am not confined to my experience of my brain. Like I said, I don't experience my brain. I experience a sensory model of the world. I experience brains when looking at other people's mental states.

This is mystical woo. You only ever experience what your brain produces for you as experience. Absolutely nothing else, ever. This sensory model of the world is actually data accrued and organized by the brain it recieved from the world. And no, you don't look at other people's mental states, that would be telepathic. What you experience is the presence of other humans WITH mental states just like yours, but to which each is exclusively bound to, respectively.

Experience: practical contact with and observation of facts or events.

This is not something applicable between mental states. This is the sensory data recieved by the brain to create that model of the world of yours.

Reply to Garrett Travers Quoting Garrett Travers

How it works was told to you. Why it works, is an anthropomorphization of reality. There is no why, there is only how. Organs are themselves specialized structures not designed to produce such activity. The way those organs were specialized through genetic information exchange and adaptation, is the same process by which the brain is specialized through genetic information exchange and adaptation. The result of billions of years of chemical interactions.

As far as these questions: What is so special about neurons? Would a brain with 70 billion neurons produce consciousness? 7 billion? 7 thousand?

What's not special about neurons? What brain has only 70 billion? Do they have consciousness? These are questions for you to answer with the info you've been given, and the info broadly available to you. I'm a philosopher, in particular an ethicist, not a neuroscientist. You're asking the wrong person.

Let's focus on computers. Would a computer running a simulation of a working brain be conscious? Are computers ever going to be conscious? Are any computers now conscious? How would you test for computer consciousness?

Quoting RogueAI

Let's focus on computers. Would a computer running a simulation of a working brain be conscious?

Simulation and consciousness are mutually exclusive terms.

Quoting RogueAI

Are computers ever going to be conscious?

Not anytime soon, but possibly.

Quoting RogueAI

Are any computers now conscious?

No.

Quoting RogueAI

How would you test for computer consciousness?

Independent concept generation for sole the purpose of behavioral refinement in accordance with the inviolable conditions of the material reality within which they were suspended, or as we call in the philosophical world, Ethics. However, if we created a computer that could independently recognize itself as sparate from other entities of action, I'd be willing to call that consciousness.

Quoting Garrett Travers

Are computers ever going to be conscious?
— RogueAI

Not anytime soon, but possibly.

So you believe computer consciousness is possible. That is to say that it is possible that a collection of electronic switches is conscious. Is that correct?

Quoting RogueAI

So you believe computer consciousness is possible.

So, yes, scientists have determined that it's possible, but would take the kind of production that is beyond human capacity right now.

Quoting RogueAI

That is to say that it is possible that a collection of electronic switches is conscious.

........ No. That's not what I'm saying. Not in any conceivable manner could I possibly have been misconstrued to have said such a thing.

Spiritual energy is derived from the energy of the body, which is always extant, as the contemporary idea of time and entropy are an illusion.

Quoting Garrett Travers

No. That's not what I'm saying. Not in any conceivable manner could I possibly have been misconstrued to have said such a thing.

A computer is not a collection of electronic switches?

Quoting RogueAI

A computer is not a collection of electronic switches?

Not in any conceivable way. To even suggest as much means that you have simply never been exposed to the inside of a computer chassis. No kidding.

Reply to Garrett Travers What do you mean by "computer"?

Quoting RogueAI

What do you mean by "computer"?

Not that I brought up computers, or anything, but the definition of the word will do just fine: an electronic device for storing and processing data, typically in binary form, according to instructions given to it in a variable program.

You know, not switches and stuff.

Quoting Garrett Travers

You know, not switches and stuff.

Transistors?

Quoting RogueAI

Transistors?

Am I really supposed to be taking this line of inquiry seriously? Do you have a damn point about material reality to make, or are you going to continue to demostrate your lack of knowledge in association with computational electronics?

Reply to Garrett Travers Really now, Garrett. Are you claiming transistors have nothing to do with computers?

Reply to Garrett Travers At the heart of a computer is the microprocessor, which is a collection of transistors, which is to say that the heart of a computer is a bunch of tiny switches.

Hey, you're the one that said computer consciousness is possible.

Quoting RogueAI

Really now, Garrett. Are you claiming transistors have nothing to do with computers?

No, I'm claiming that you are not equipped for this conversation, mister transistor. The logical equivalent of your line of inquiry is asking me if I'm talking about heat-sinks, or circuits. It's nonsense, man. Let's move on. Make a real point and I'll be happy to address it, but I don't do detours of bullshit in an attempt to negate reality. You're going to have to find a magi for that, there's plenty here for you, if that's what you want.

Reply to Garrett Travers Ok, let's move away from switches, since they obviously have nothing to do with computing :roll:

Check this out:
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/505:_A_Bunch_of_Rocks

What part do you disagree with?

Quoting Garrett Travers

The logical equivalent of your line of inquiry is asking me if I'm talking about heat-sinks, or circuits.

"In the digital world, a transistor is a binary switch and the fundamental building block of computer circuitry."
https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/transistor#:~:text=In%20the%20digital%20world%2C%20a,or%20even%20billions%20of%20transistors.

Quoting RogueAI

What part do you disagree with?

Everything. This is an elaborate strawman of reality that does not take into acount anything to do with chemical reactions that take place within the context of natural laws, combinations, recombinations, replications, electricity, electromagnetic induction, nothing. This is complete nonsense from start to finish. You cannot have a computer without the things I just enumerated.

Quoting RogueAI

In the digital world, a transistor is a binary switch and the fundamental building block of computer circuitry."

Yep, I'm aware. You seem to be leaving out, oh I don't know, every single other part that plays a role in the operation of transistors within the context of computation electronics. Just like your sill strawman cartoon left out everything we know about the laws of the material universe.

Reply to Garrett Travers I'm an immaterialist. I don't agree the comic, but I've had discussions with computationalists who do. Your position sounds like computationalism, but you seem uncomfortable exploring what a conscious computer would entail.

Let's talk about functional equivalents. Suppose we make a functional equivalent to a working brain out of transistors, rheostats, and other electronics. Would it be conscious?

Quoting RogueAI

I'm an immaterialist.

No, you're not. You just say you are using instruments made out of material we both share. It's lie you all tell yourselves to hide from reality. A fabricated make-believe, you see. What you are is, like many people here, an anti-realityist. But reality doesn't care what you say you are, it will make you submit any way you cut the pie.

Quoting RogueAI

I don't agree the comic, but I've had discussions with computationalists who do.

That's because they're not thinking properly.

Quoting RogueAI

Your position sounds like computationalism, but you seem uncomfortable exploring what a conscious computer would entail.

I'm fully comfortable to do so. What I'm not comfortable with is entertaining the relegation of conscious computers to switches, that's called stupidity.

Quoting RogueAI

Suppose we make a functional equivalent to a working brain out of transistors, rheostats, and other electronics. Would it be conscious?

No. There are many brains that lack self-awareness and concept generation. Now, we could probably assume that, were we successful, the entity could perhaps self-execute action. The problem there is, action, and consciousness for that matter, isn't something that is straightforward. Conceptual framework have to be provided to the entity in regards to the motivation behind action. In our case, you're looking at genetic coding that provides a framework of self-sustaining and self-replicating action, same as animals. With computers, such would have to be programmed into them via software.

Quoting Garrett Travers

Suppose we make a functional equivalent to a working brain out of transistors, rheostats, and other electronics. Would it be conscious?
— RogueAI

No.

ETA: Scratch what I just said.

Reply to Garrett Travers [i]Gradual uploading: Here the most widely-discussed method is that of
nanotransfer. One or more nanotechnology devices (perhaps tiny robots) are
inserted into the brain and each attaches itself to a single neuron, learning to
simulate the behavior of the associated neuron and also learning about its
connectivity. Once it simulates the neuron’s behavior well enough, it takes the
place of the original neuron, perhaps leaving receptors and effectors in place and
uploading the relevant processing to a computer via radio transmitters. It then
moves to other neurons and repeats the procedure, until eventually every neuron
has been replaced by an emulation, and perhaps all processing has been uploaded
to a computer[/i]
http://consc.net/papers/uploading.pdf

What do you think would happen to your consciousness if you had that done to you?

Quoting RogueAI

What do you think would happen to your consciousness if you had that done to you?

Now, that, is interesting. I don't know. It's not something I can rationally formulate an opinion on just yet. I'll need time to integrate more data. Plus, we're no where near this kind of thing yet. With maybe the exception of neural link, but we won't have updates on that until later this year.

Reply to Garrett Travers Fair enough. I enjoyed our conversation!

Quoting RogueAI

Fair enough. I enjoyed our conversation!

Me too, pal.

Quoting Garrett Travers

1. If you dont experience other people's mental states then how do you know about them? What form does your knowledge of other people's mental states take?
— Harry Hindu
I don't know about them. Other people have to tell me about them. Same as everyone.

If you don't know about mental states, then doesn't that pull the rug out from under your arguments? How can you talk about something that you don't know?

I am not confined to my experience of my brain. Like I said, I don't experience my brain. I experience a sensory model of the world. I experience brains when looking at other people's mental states.
— Harry Hindu

Quoting Garrett Travers

This is mystical woo. You only ever experience what your brain produces for you as experience. Absolutely nothing else, ever. This sensory model of the world is actually data accrued and organized by the brain it recieved from the world. And no, you don't look at other people's mental states, that would be telepathic. What you experience is the presence of other humans WITH mental states just like yours, but to which each is exclusively bound to, respectively.

Experience: practical contact with and observation of facts or events.

This is not something applicable between mental states. This is the sensory data recieved by the brain to create that model of the world of yours.

Now I'm disappointed. I thought you were going to provide some links to the research of how brains produce mental states. Instead I get an ad hominem. Please don't let my name fool you into thinking that I'm a mystical woo person.

What is "you" and where is "you" relative to your brain?

The issue here is that you can't seem to explain how a physical brain produces mental states, or even clarify what you mean by such a statement. You aren't even sure that mental states exist because you claim to not know about mental states, yet assert that they are produced by the brain. In what way are they produced?

If you only experience what your brain produces for you to experience, doesn't that mean other people's brains? How do you get at the states of the world via what your brain produces (mental states)?

Personally, I think it is wrong to imply causality to brain and mental states, as in they are produced. Instead, it's more helpful to think of brains and mental states as the same thing - just from different views (one is viewed and the other is the view - viewing the view, or thinking about thinking, or knowing that you know are sensory feedback loops (cartesian theatres).

I believe the answers will come from an amalgam of neurosicence, quantum physics and process philosophy. QM needs to get it's grip on explaining the observer effect.

Reply to Garrett Travers You claim that computer consciousness is a possibility, and you have an explanation for how computers might be conscious, but how would you verify whether that explanation is true or not? For example, you would claim that that computer over there is conscious because xyz, while I would claim that it's not conscious because abc. If both of our explanations are coherent, how do we determine who is correct?

Quoting Harry Hindu

1. If you dont experience other people's mental states then how do you know about them? What form does your knowledge of other people's mental states take?
— Harry Hindu
I don't know about them. Other people have to tell me about them. Same as everyone.
— Garrett Travers

If you don't know about mental states, then doesn't that pull the rug out from under your arguments? How can you talk about something that you don't know?

I am not confined to my experience of my brain. Like I said, I don't experience my brain. I experience a sensory model of the world. I experience brains when looking at other people's mental states.
— Harry Hindu

This is mystical woo. You only ever experience what your brain produces for you as experience. Absolutely nothing else, ever. This sensory model of the world is actually data accrued and organized by the brain it recieved from the world. And no, you don't look at other people's mental states, that would be telepathic. What you experience is the presence of other humans WITH mental states just like yours, but to which each is exclusively bound to, respectively.

Experience: practical contact with and observation of facts or events.

This is not something applicable between mental states. This is the sensory data recieved by the brain to create that model of the world of yours.
— Garrett Travers
Now I'm disappointed. I thought you were going to provide some links to the research of how brains produce mental states. Instead I get an ad hominem. Please don't let my name fool you into thinking that I'm a mystical woo person.

What is "you" and where is "you" relative to your brain?

The issue here is that you can't seem to explain how a physical brain produces mental states, or even clarify what you mean by such a statement. You aren't even sure that mental states exist because you claim to not know about mental states, yet assert that they are produced by the brain. In what way are they produced?

If you only experience what your brain produces for you to experience, doesn't that mean other people's brains? How do you get at the states of the world via what your brain produces (mental states)?

Personally, I think it is wrong to imply causality to brain and mental states, as in they are produced. Instead, it's more helpful to think of brains and mental states as the same thing - just from different views (one is viewed and the other is the view - viewing the view, or thinking about thinking, or knowing that you know are sensory feedback loops (cartesian theatres).

I believe the answers will come from an amalgam of neurosicence, quantum physics and process philosophy. QM needs to get it's grip on explaining the observer effect.

Every bit of this is complete, whim-based, anti-scientific nonsense. You want sources, got your back. Thoughts don't exist, they're computational concepts of non-copreal nature that are produced by the brain. That's why I can't retrieve them if I cut you open. Brain states are mental states. This thread is complete bullshit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroeconomics

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6043598/

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00359/full

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5586212/

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness

https://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_03/i_03_p/i_03_p_que/i_03_p_que.html

https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain/brain-functions/visual-perception

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542184/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10870199/

A good gish-gallop of sources showing you you're all full of shit.

Quoting Garrett Travers

Brain states are mental states.

Are you saying mental states are identical to brain states?

Quoting Garrett Travers

Brain states are mental states.

Imagine we have two ancient Greeks conversing about their mental states. They talk about being happy to see their kids grow up, and about the aches and pains of being old. You would agree they are exchanging meaningful information about their mental states with each other, right?

Now, let's stipulate that these ancient Greeks had no idea what the brain does. Even worse, they believe the function of the brain is to cool the blood. And yet, if mental states are brain states, and the two Greeks are meaningfully exchanging information about their mental states, it follows that they are also meaningfully exchanging information about their brain states. But that is clearly impossible, since they have no idea what brain states even are, and are clueless about what the function of the brain is.

Quoting RogueAI

Imagine we have two ancient Greeks conversing about their mental states. They talk about being happy to see their kids grow up, and about the aches and pains of being old. You would agree they are exchanging meaningful information about their mental states with each other, right?

Now, let's stipulate that these ancient Greeks had no idea what the brain does. Even worse, they believe the function of the brain is to cool the blood. And yet, if mental states are brain states, and the two Greeks are meaningfully exchanging information about their mental states, it follows that they are also meaningfully exchanging information about their brain states. But that is clearly impossible, since they have no idea what brain states even are, and are clueless about what the function of the brain is.

And?

This isn't a thought-experiment of any value. Awareness of the brain, or lack thereof, does not change the function of it. Brainstates are the source of mental states, period. Defer to the journals I left you, they explain it. Time to put this to bed.

Reply to Garrett Travers A disappointing response.

Quoting Garrett Travers

Thoughts don't exist,

You never mentioned whether you take issue with this formulation:

There are thoughts, I experience thoughts, but thoughts do not exist.

Quoting RogueAI

A disappointing response.

Post something relavent.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

There are thoughts, I experience thoughts, but thoughts do not exist.

That's correct. The computational processes that give rise to recollections of, or abstractions from data exist, but the thoughts do not themselves. That's why if I cut your brain open, I only find your brain. And it isn't that "you" experience them, the brain is an experiential entity. Consciousness is itself an experience of the brain, not of this detached "you" that people in this thread keep referring to.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

There are thoughts, I experience thoughts, but thoughts do not exist.

Quoting Garrett Travers

That's correct.

And if I remove the second clause?:

There are thoughts, but thoughts do not exist.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

There are thoughts, but thoughts do not exist.

The first clause is mistaken, as I have established. There are not thoughts. "Thoughts" is a word that has been applied to the experience of computational processes conducted by the brain, experienced by the executive function of the very same brain. It's why you can't know what I'm thinking, "thoughts" are brain relative because they do not exist. I posted a slew of neuroscience journals in a comment to Rouge AI's above, you guys really need to read those. Other wise, you're all just shooting out opinions, or irrelavent arguments on the subject.

Quoting Garrett Travers

I posted a slew of neuroscience journals in a comment to Rouge AI's above, you guys really need to read those.

Neuroscience is irrelevant here.

This is about how language is being used. When, to support your view, you say "there are no thoughts," it's a flagrant abuse of language.

Because - there are thoughts.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

Neuroscience is irrelevant here.

Neuroscience is the ONLY thing that is relavent here. If you don't understand that, you do not have a place in this discussion. Thoughts are neuronal processes, period, end of story. In other words, either you agree to accept the truth of that, which is established science, or we stop talking about magic.

Quoting Garrett Travers

Neuroscience is the ONLY thing that is relavent here.

Everyone knows that things happen in brains in correlation to thoughts.

And everyone knows there are thoughts.

If you hope to be a philosopher, your language should reflect what everyone knows: there are thoughts.

Quoting Garrett Travers

Thoughts are neuronal processes, period, end of story. In

If thoughts are X it follows that there are thoughts.

So, fundamentally, we don't know what the brain is, how it does what it does...at all...yet we know all there is to know about consciousness.

History will expand your mind beyond its current girth, guaranteed. You do not have the explanation, nor do you understand in the least what's happening here.

Just sayin. Maybe stop calling people stupid while making declarative statements on a subject matter that isn't even in its infancy.

Quoting Garrett Travers

If you don't understand that, you do not have a place in this discussion.

You mean the one-sided discussion you're having with yourself? Oh shucks, what a loss!

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

Everyone knows that things happen in brains in correlation to thoughts.

And everyone knows there are thoughts.

If you hope to be a philosopher, your language should reflect what everyone knows: there are thoughts.

I am a philosopher whether I hope for it or not. In fact, I am what one would call a neurophilosopher. As far as thoughts go, no, that is not the case. Brains do not have thought correlates, brains are the causal factor in thought. Which is to say, thoughts are really just a vast and complex neuronal process across numerous structures of the most sophisticated computational entity in the history of the known universe. A process that your pattern-seeking executive function notices; which is also a brain product. That's it.

Quoting Aaron R

You mean the one-sided discussion you're having with yourself? Oh shucks, what a loss!

No, I mean established neuroscience that everyone keeps fallaciously disregarding and not getting away with on my account. But, nice try. You got an argument in there somewhere?

Quoting Garrett Travers

brains are the causal factor in thought.

If "brains are the causal factors in thought" then there are thoughts. Your language should reflect that.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

If "brains are the causal factors in thought" then there are thoughts. Your language should reflect that.

No, "thoughts" in how you're using the term. They don't exist, the brain simply is operating, nothing more. "Thoughts" is just the spook term used for the recognition of neuronal computational activity on the part of frontal cortex executive function that we've only recently been understanding with greater clarity. I don't fault the existence of the word, I am denying it's truth value.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

If thoughts are X it follows that there are thoughts.

Not if x is being mistaken for y.

Quoting Garrett Travers

"Thoughts" is just the spook term used for the recognition of neuronal computational activity on the part of frontal cortex executive function

So reductionism, like I quoted above(and you rejected). Here it is again:

In the context of physicalism, the reductions referred to are of a "linguistic" nature, allowing discussions of, say, mental phenomena to be translated into discussions of physics.

Wiki


Your preference for physicalist language is precisely the reductionism I accused you of. It's the only thing at work here. You prefer physicalist terminology.

Quoting Garrett Travers

Not if x is being mistaken for y.

If thoughts are y but taken to be x, there are thoughts.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

So reductionism, like I quoted above(and you rejected). Here it is again:

In the context of physicalism, the reductions referred to are of a "linguistic" nature, allowing discussions of, say, mental phenomena to be translated into discussions of physics.

Again, that isn't what I am doing. This reductionism here is in the context of a particular philosophy, as I already explained to you that I do not share, or subscribe to. And reductionism as a fallacy does not apply to the person providing an explanation of something via the most complex system in the universe, that applies to those of you employing the disregard of established science fallacy, which you have presented ad nauseum and needs to stop. Not once have you addressed anything from ANY of the journals I have sent you. This is an anti-scientific, anti-philosophical, multi-fallacious approach at debate, and I won't stand for it.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

Your preference for physicalist language is precisely the reductionism I accused you of. It's the only thing at work here. You prefer physicalist terminology.

Give whatever name you need to in the pursuit of the apprehension of established science. As long as you apprehend it, that's all that matters. For what it's worth, I am not coming from any perspective other than my own. Call it what you wish, you're still wrong.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

If thoughts are y but taken to be x, there are thoughts.

If can is being mistaken for rock, does rock exist?

Quoting Garrett Travers

Again, that isn't what I am doing.

I'm afraid you're not understanding what you're doing.

I don't see anything productive ahead in this exchange so I'll leave it here. Good chatting! :smile:

Quoting Garrett Travers

the disregard of established science fallacy

Not at all. I'm not disregarding the science. My focus is on the way you're using language.

I accept the science and reject your use of language.

It's been fun. :smile:

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

Not at all. I'm not disregarding the science.

I can't read this over your other statements and assertions that have disregarded the science.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

My focus is on the way you're using language.

Yes, accurately, clearly, and no ambiguity.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

I accept the science and reject your use of language.

No, you reject my using the term correctly.

Thoughts: an idea or opinion produced by thinking, or occurring suddenly in the mind. This is all dependent on neuronal activity and is encapsulated by those material functions.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

It's been fun. :smile:

Well, I suppose it has, old chap. I really do encourage you to read those articles though, for real. You'll be mind-blown, I swear.

Quoting Garrett Travers

No, you reject my using the term correctly.

Egocentric absolutism.

Take care.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

Egocentric absolutism.

Epithets are neither an argument, nor a proper way to characterize correct usage of langague to describe established science, as I have demonstrated.

Quoting Garrett Travers

Epithets

More a warning. Your tone has the ring of the dogmatist. The absolutist.

Ego and dogmatism can inhibit your philosophical development. Take care.





You may find you're mistaken about a great many things.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

Your tone has the ring of the dogmatist

And? I'm either correct, or not. I don't care about how you perceive my tone.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

Ego and dogmatism can inhibit your philosophical development.

No, they can't. Irrational ego and dogmatism can. I employ neither, so I'm all good.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

You may find you're mistaken about a great many things.

I sure might, Lord Sidious. But, much like the last Lord Sidious to say that to someone, tis indeed you who will find he has already demonstrated his mistaken views. Last one got completely yeeted, I won't do that to you, not my jive.

Quoting Garrett Travers

I'm either correct, or not.

I agree.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

I agree.

And, whereas I am the only one of the two of us that relayed an opinion that was derived from numerous up-to-date research journals on the subject, you understand that things aren't looking so good for anyone who hasn't, right? That'd be you I'm talking about. It's looking like I'm correct, and you're not correct. You noticing that, as well?

Quoting Garrett Travers

It's looking like I'm correct, and you're not correct.

It's very important for you to be correct. To win.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

It's very important for you to be correct. To win.

No, I'm just remarking on what has the most evidence to supprt itself. I actually value being wrong, as that produces a pathway for learning the correct view on a subject, which is virtuous and good for the Human Consciousness. However, it does seem important that you hold onto a position that clearly has no evidence for which to provide support. Is there a reason for that?

Quoting Garrett Travers

However, it does seem important that you hold onto a position that clearly has no evidence for which to provide support. Is there a reason for that?

My position is that it's acceptable to say there are thoughts.

Is there no evidence to support such a claim?

Quoting Garrett Travers

a position that clearly has no evidenc

You say there are no thoughts.

Are there sensations? Emotions? Feelings? Or do you prefer a terminology that reduces these, as well, to physical interactions?

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

You say there are no thoughts.

No, I say that what you understand to be "thoughts," are actually preceived functions of the brain by the brain. Meaning, thoughts don't exist, the functions of the brain do.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

Are there sensations? Emotions? Feelings? Or do you prefer a terminology that reduces these, as well, to physical interactions?

Same thing. All of this is neural function. And, I already explained how it is actually you doing the reducing, I am highlighting the operations of the most complex system ever to exist. But, you keep trying with that one, pal. You could just quit that shit and present evidence that supports your claims. Let's try that moving forward.

Quoting Garrett Travers

No, I say that what you understand to be "thoughts," are actually preceived functions of the brain by the brain.

The above is what's known as a walk-back.

Here you said:

Quoting Garrett Travers

There are not thoughts.

Consistency is a philosophical virtue.

Quoting Garrett Travers

Same thing. All of this is neural function. And, I already explained how it is actually you doing the reducing, I am highlighting the operations of the most complex system ever to exist. But, you keep trying with that one, pal. You could just quit that shit and present evidence that supports your claims. Let's try that moving forward.
8mReplyOptions

I'm afraid you don't understand what I'm saying.

Quoting Garrett Travers

No, I say that what you understand to be "thoughts," are actually preceived functions of the brain by the brain. Meaning, thoughts don't exist, the functions of the brain do.

Okay.

So considering a thought we have:

1. Neuronal functioning.

2. The experience of a thought.


1. I accept the existence of neuronal functioning. Of course. It's obvious. It's science.

2. I accept that we experience thoughts.


Our only positional difference is this:

I think it's acceptable to say my experience of a thought justifies my saying there are thoughts. My experience of a thought justifies saying thoughts exist. Further, my experience of pain, joy, discomfort, justifies my saying pain, joy and discomfort exist.


Is this really an unbridgeable gap?


P. S. I started a thread called "are there thoughts?" so you can hear what the town square has to say. As I mentioned, I don't believe there's anything constructive ahead for us.

Quoting Garrett Travers

There are not thoughts.

This above is what is known as a cherry-picking fallacy. You chose a quote from me, and didn't incorporate my explanation of what I meant by thoughts not being real. They do not exist, I have said that this entire time.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

Consistency is a philosophical virtue.

And something you don't seem too interested in employing, given the nature of the above explicated fallacy you produced as an argument.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

I'm afraid you don't understand what I'm saying.

Okay, fair enough. What are you saying?

Quoting Garrett Travers

Okay, fair enough. What are you saying?

My sense is that you're too entrenched in a position you feel is justified by science to catch a glimpse of my perspective.

My sense is that you're too far removed from my vista to understand me.

The end of the line.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

I think it's acceptable to say my experience of a thought justifies my saying there are thoughts. My experience of a thought justifies saying thoughts exist. Further, my experience of pain, joy, discomfort, justifies my saying pain, joy and discomfort exist.

What's cool about this, dude, is that our positions are compatible. We operate on the acceptance of thoughts being real, because they are functional, even if they are not actually what it is that is happening. It's the brain doing all of it. But, the brain is designed to produce abstractions from data (thoughts), for executive function to use in implementing behaviors that ensure homeostasis with greater proficiency. They don't have to be corporeal for us to embody them, you see? There is no argument between us other than the dismisal of the nature of the production of thoughts, not really anyway.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

My sense is that you're too entrenched in a position you feel is justified by science to catch a glimpse of my perspective.

My sense is that you're too far removed from my vista to understand me.

The end of the line.

I think I can whole-heartedly agree with this statement.

Quoting Garrett Travers

our positions are compatible

That's when I've been aiming at since the start of this exchange. Good.

Quoting Garrett Travers

cherry-picking fallacy

Wasn't trying to cherry pick. Trying to make sense of your saying there are thoughts but thoughts are X and also saying there are no thoughts and thoughts do not exist.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

Wasn't trying to cherry pick. Trying to make sense of your saying there are thoughts but thoughts are X and also saying there are no thoughts and thoughts do not exist.

It's very simple:

Thought is a word we ascribed to a prticular kind of perception, before understanding what the function and source of that perception was. That being the brain, which does the thinking, as well as the perceiving. That brain also happens to be the production center of behavior. It uses computation of sensory data to inform said behavior. That Computation is what we regard as thought, which can be embodied in behavior. Thus, the two seemingly opposed positions, are actually one and the same. They do not exist, but can be brought forth into existence as embodied behavior by the mind producing the computations that it has itself perceived as thoughts.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

That's when I've been aiming at since the start of this exchange. Good.

The price one pays, however, is that a full dismissal of either position renders the understanding incomplete, or reduced. It's a bit like Relativity and Quantum mechanics. The two are incompatible in relation to one another, but not to the fabric of reality that they both contribute to the emergence of. One must incorporate all known points of fact into their corpus of views, even if some of it seems contradictory from the point of individual ignorance. I don't have to understand bosons to know that I can smash them to pieces using macroscopic, materially constructed machines, built on classical and relativistic principles of physics. There's a compatibility to things that is awesome in our universe.

Quoting Garrett Travers

They do not exist

I get it. Your position is clear.

But your formulations need refinement.

The phrase "thoughts do not exist" misrepresents your position. The phrase is too strong. It's not accurate. I would recommend rethinking your language here to avoid pointless frustrating miscommunications.

But I get it and I'm happy we found some compatibility.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

The phrase "thoughts do not exist" misrepresents your position. The phrase is too strong. It's not accurate. I would recommend rethinking your language here to avoid pointless frustrating miscommunications.

Now, we're talking. See, from my mind, such was clear from language. However, you did not detect such. So, as the one who didn't detect such, what would have been more clear, linguistically? As in, relay to me an accurate account of my position for me, using only the type of language that would have been accessible to you, and I'll try to incorporate the lesson into my approach.

@Enrique Good post!

Quoting Garrett Travers

The price one pays, however, is that a full dismissal of either position renders the understanding incomplete, or reduced.

I don't see a reason to dismiss either side of the story.

Quoting Garrett Travers

...what would have been more clear, linguistically?

Let me take some time and get back to you.

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

Let me take some time and get back to you.

At your leisure, friend.

@Enrique, excellent post!

@Enrique Good job! :up:

Reply to Garrett Travers The fact that two people could exchange information about their minds without also exchanging information about their brains suggests minds aren't brains.

Quoting Garrett Travers

Now, we're talking. See, from my mind, such was clear from language. However, you did not detect such. So, as the one who didn't detect such, what would have been more clear, linguistically?

Instead of the phrase "thoughts do not exist" (which I think misrepresents your position) why not try something like: Thoughts exist but only in the form of X.

X will be something like neuronal interactions or however you want to say it. Not my field.