Philosophy, Science, & The Unexplained - Main Thread

[trainedobserver]

An MRI works by using magnetic fields to align your molecules so that when they bounce radio waves off of them they can differentiate them much like spectrography only using the magnetic resonance of the molecule rather than its optical qualities. MRIs do not measure the magnetization or magnetic fields in blood.

Quite honestly I haven't a clue what a virtual photon is supposed to be other than a theoretical device used to describe something in quantum physics. Unfortunately I suspect that I have neither the time, interest, or intelligence to become conversant in the complicated mathematical theoretical world of quantum physics. I know reading a couple of wiki pages, a paper or two, or a book on quantum physics written for a layman isn't going to get me there. I don't think its necessary to go there.

As far as I understand things, consciousness is what you get when the chemical state machine known as the human nervous system functions properly. Consciousness cannot be properly viewed as something standing apart from the chemical and physical configuration of the body being it. That is why a person's consciousness will never be "recorded" or "downloaded" into a machine.

 

[Randall]

An MRI works by using magnetic fields to align your molecules so that when they bounce radio waves off of them they can differentiate them much like spectrography only using the magnetic resonance of the molecule rather than its optical qualities. MRIs do not measure the magnetization our magnetic fields in your blood.

Your sort of right, just not complete. The machine you used in your post was a FMRI ( Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging ), and "the procedure is similar to MRI but uses "the change in magnetization between oxygen-rich and oxygen-poor blood as its basic measure." See the Wikipedia article. "Deoxygenated hemoglobin (dHb) is more magnetic (paramagnetic) than oxygenated hemoglobin (Hb), which is virtually resistant to magnetism (diamagnetic). This difference leads to an improved MR signal since the diamagnetic blood interferes with the magnetic MR signal less. This improvement can be mapped to show which neurons are active at a time." So although you are right when you say that it "works by using magnetic fields to align your molecules", you're only describing part of the process, and in fact the magnetic fields of the blood are exactly what are being measured.

Quite honestly I haven't a clue what a virtual photon is supposed to be other than a theoretical device used to describe something in quantum physics. Unfortunately I suspect that I have neither the time, interest, or intelligence to become conversant in the complicated mathematical theoretical world of quantum physics. I know reading a couple of wiki pages, a paper or two, or a book on quantum physics written for a layman isn't going to get me there. I don't think its necessary to go there.

Or you could go back to the video on magnetism I posted. Simply put, virtual photons are what are theorized to be the carriers of magnetism.

• Philosophy, Science, and the Unexplained | Page 6 | The Paracast Community Forums
• Philosophy, Science, and the Unexplained | Page 5 | The Paracast Community Forums

As far as I understand things, consciousness is what you get when the chemical state machine known as the human nervous system functions properly. Consciousness cannot be properly viewed as something standing apart from the chemical and physical configuration of the body being it.

Well sort of. I'm an advocate of the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of a normally functioning brain/body system in its waking state, and therefore although it is separate from brain matter is dependent on it for its existence.

 

[trainedobserver]

Your sort of right, just not complete.

Well, I stand corrected then.

 

[Randall]

Well, I stand corrected then.

Only sort of .

 

[trainedobserver]

If consciousness were the brain, we would certainly expect to find a measurable difference in the manner we experience reality as the brain itself physically morphs via the evolutionary beckoning of nature.

Evolution takes so much ...time. You can accelerate the experiment by changing the chemical and or physical configuration of the brain and see if you see changes in consciousness. The consciousness, even the personality of a human being, can be radically and permanently altered through chemical or physical trauma. Certainly the process of aging changes how we experience reality in many different ways and some do argue that the consciousness of the species has changed over time.

Here is a fine reagent for the consciousness altering experiment.

 

[smcder]

I don't think we can be so sure of that. The evidence seems to be mounting that the fields we measure that are produced by the brain are an integral part of brain function, and that it is the brain that gives rise to consciousness. Therefore saying it's true that there is no need for a field is highly premature. In fact the idea of a field seems to be the at the leading edge of exploration into this subject.

Just a quick clarification and then I hope to dig into all of this more deeply this evening - I was quoting: "The truth is there is no need for a field." from TrainedObserver's post - I'm not at all sure that there is no need for a field, I'm pretty open to the role it may play and the evidence for it - I was really just making an observation about how the hard problem splits into a couple of views - maybe three as Jeff Davis brought in something like the "radio receiver" analogy.

 

[Randall]

Just a quick clarification and then I hope to dig into all of this more deeply this evening - I was quoting: "The truth is there is no need for a field." from TrainedObserver's post - I'm not at all sure that there is no need for a field, I'm pretty open to the role it may play and the evidence for it - I was really just making an observation about how the hard problem splits into a couple of views - maybe three as Jeff Davis brought in something like the "radio receiver" analogy.

OK. Thanks for clarifying. I was confused because I'm used to seeing quotes inside the quote boxes. To make one just use the word "quote" ( without the quotes ) between square brackets, and to end a quote use "/quote" ( without the quotes ) inside square brackets.

Jeff and I have tried to hash out the radio receiver analogy, but it always gets muddled down. I don't think consciousness is like the brain tapping into an EM field emitted by something analogous to a radio tower external to ourselves. But I do think ( and this is where the connection to the unexplained kicks in ), is that because the brain can emit and receive EM waves, perhaps some form of communication can take place that involves the subtle interactions of these fields.

 

[smcder]

IMO, according to my own intuition, the corresponding activity in the brain does not create anything. It's an interpreter for that which already is.

Hi Jeff - you might enjoy the Skeptiko podcast - Skeptiko - Science at the Tipping Point the current episode is a re-introduction to the show with clips to illustrate what it is about and where it's been, so it would be a good to decide if it's useful to you.

It's very relevant to the mind/body questions on this thread - there have been a lot of good guests, Persinger, Dean Radin, lot of NDEs, some UFO stuff - debunkers/skeptics, atheists and true believers all make an appearance.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Your sort of right, just not complete. The machine you used in your post was a FMRI ( Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging ), and "the procedure is similar to MRI but uses "the change in magnetization between oxygen-rich and oxygen-poor blood as its basic measure." See the Wikipedia article. "Deoxygenated hemoglobin (dHb) is more magnetic (paramagnetic) than oxygenated hemoglobin (Hb), which is virtually resistant to magnetism (diamagnetic). This difference leads to an improved MR signal since the diamagnetic blood interferes with the magnetic MR signal less. This improvement can be mapped to show which neurons are active at a time." So although you are right when you say that it "works by using magnetic fields to align your molecules", you're only describing part of the process, and in fact the magnetic fields of the blood are exactly what are being measured.

Or you could go back to the video on magnetism I posted. Simply put, virtual photons are what are theorized to be the carriers of magnetism.

• Philosophy, Science, and the Unexplained | Page 6 | The Paracast Community Forums
• Philosophy, Science, and the Unexplained | Page 5 | The Paracast Community Forums

Well sort of. I'm an advocate of the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of a normally functioning brain/body system in its waking state, and therefore although it is separate from brain matter is dependent on it for its existence.

Ufology,
Something is not right here. Not in what you are putting forth precisely, but rather in what we are being accepting of as that which *is* defined as consciousness. Consciousness is not merely the property consituting being "awake". It's being aware of being aware. That's consciousness. Cognition is not consciousness, and consciousness is not even necessary to think, reason, or learn. . We have a myriad of actions we perform every hour of every day that we are alive in which consciousness is not present or active.

Consciousness is an extremely specific interactive mind set. Cognition reacts to it.

Consciousness is not a state of general mental activity while we are awake. Not at all. We should clarify this before going forward, otherwise this whole thing will be awash in paradoxical contradictions.

Consciousness must be clearly defined here.

Edit: Just to be more clear along the lines of my thinking. Here is where I am coming from with respect to the waking mind and consciousness as being sometimes in the same space, but not always. The Consciousness of Consciousness | The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind | Julian Jaynes Society

 

[Jeff Davis]

Hi Jeff - you might enjoy the Skeptiko podcast - Skeptiko - Science at the Tipping Point the current episode is a re-introduction to the show with clips to illustrate what it is about and where it's been, so it would be a good to decide if it's useful to you.

It's very relevant to the mind/body questions on this thread - there have been a lot of good guests, Persinger, Dean Radin, lot of NDEs, some UFO stuff - debunkers/skeptics, atheists and true believers all make an appearance.

Alex is ALWAYS good! Will check it out.

Edit: Holy mother of pearl! I just saw that last week's show was about Alien Abduction. Another one of my curiousities concerning consciousness.

 

[smcder]

Alex is ALWAYS good! Will check it out.

Edit: Holy mother of pearl! I just saw that last week's show was about Alien Abduction. Another one of my curiousities concerning consciousness.

Yes - he said he had several UFO shows coming up. He wanted to re-set the show and re-orient for new listeners so it's a good time for folks to get on board. They re-did their forums and I re-credentialed but haven't posted over there.

I'm going to check the Julian Jaynes link out - been a while since I visited that one - thank you!

 

[Randall]

Ufology,
Something is not right here. Not in what you are putting forth precisely, but rather in what we are being accepting of as that which *is* defined as consciousness. Consciousness is not merely the property consituting being "awake". It's being aware of being aware. That's consciousness. Cognition is not consciousness, and consciousness is not even necessary to think, reason, or learn. . We have a myriad of actions we perform every hour of every day that we are alive in which consciousness is not present or active.

Consciousness is an extremely specific interactive mind set. Cognition reacts to it.

Consciousness is not a state of general mental activity while we are awake. Not at all. We should clarify this before going forward, otherwise this whole thing will be awash in paradoxical contradictions.

Consciousness must be clearly defined here.

Edit: Just to be more clear along the lines of my thinking. Here is where I am coming from with respect to the waking mind and consciousness as being sometimes in the same space, but not always. The Consciousness of Consciousness | The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind | Julian Jaynes Society

Thanks for the link. I think you make a good point that we need to be on the same page regarding what it is we're discussing, but I also think there are problems with Jaynes' paper. Without getting into specifics, consciousness as we're discussing it here is a state of subjective awareness ( experience ) of one's thoughts, actions, and perceptions. It's what allows us to recognize that we're in or relating to an environment. That environment may be subjective ( like the red Ferarri in our imagination ) or objective ( like the driveway outside where I park my Buick because I have no red Ferrari ). You are also correct to point out that's it's not simply a matter of performing actions that make us appear to be awake ( as in Jaynes' somnambulist example ).

So to be clear, I use the phrase "waking state" only to indicate that when we are not awake, consciousness is not a factor and when we are awake it is. This doesn't include the conversation we could get into about in-between states ( like lucid dreaming ), but I just don't want to have to write a paper every time I give a brief description of what we're talking about. For all intent and purposes, your description to quote:, "... the property constituting being 'awake'." is actually just fine. We can either be awake in the here and now, or be "awake in a dream". Either is an acceptable state of consciousness. However if we're not awake anyplace, there's no evidence of consciousness. Hopefully this helps get us all on the same page.

 

[smcder]

Thanks for the link. I think you make a good point that we need to be on the same page regarding what it is we're discussing, but I also think there are problems with Jaynes' paper. Without getting into specifics, consciousness as we're discussing it here is a state of subjective awareness ( experience ) of one's thoughts, actions, and perceptions.

Ufology, did you get a take on Chalmers' idea of subjective experience as fundamental?

I suggest that a theory of consciousness should take experience as fundamental. We know that a theory of consciousness requires the addition of somethingfundamental to our ontology, as everything in physical theory is compatible with the absence of consciousness. We might add some entirely new nonphysical feature, from which experience can be derived, but it is hard to see what such a feature would be like. More likely, we will take experience itself as a fundamental feature of the world, alongside mass, charge, and space-time. If we take experience as fundamental, then we can go about the business of constructing a theory of experience.

with special attention to this:

(A technical note: Some philosophers argue that even though there is a conceptual gap between physical processes and experience, there need be no metaphysical gap, so that experience might in a certain sense still be physical (e.g. Hill 1991; Levine 1983; Loar 1990). Usually this line of argument is supported by an appeal to the notion of a posteriori necessity (Kripke 1980). I think that this position rests on a misunderstanding of a posteriori necessity, however, or else requires an entirely new sort of necessity that we have no reason to believe in; see Chalmers 1996 (also Jackson 1994 and Lewis 1994) for details. In any case, this position still concedes an explanatory gap between physical processes and experience. For example, the principles connecting the physical and the experiential will not be derivable from the laws of physics, so such principles must be taken as explanatorily fundamental. So even on this sort of view, the explanatory structure of a theory of consciousness will be much as I have described.)

 

[Randall]

Ufology, did you get a take on Chalmers' idea of subjective experience as fundamental?

Maybe not ( exactly ). I would say that assuming I understand it "correctly", then in the context of consciousness existing as a field generated by the brain, then the field is as "fundamental" on a physical level as a magnetic field. Specifically, in the realm of the physics of the physical, there is some point at which although we know how things behave when organized and/or acted upon in a certain way, we still don't know why. Even more specifically, we can look to what are called the "fundamental forces of nature". These forces appear to be arbitrarily imparted on our existence and associated with what we call particles, but are less like "particles" and more like small regions of space that possess one or more of these properties. Working from this model consciousness is something that arises as a consequence of the way those regions are organized and acted upon, but the underlying question of the "existence" of these things still remains. Lastly, the "it from bit" scenario is something to consider and depending on how it's interpreted, is IMO the best explanation for the existence of our realm ( spacetime continuum ). However I think we need to be careful about how we use the word "information". Information is a subjective term that relays meaning to consciousness. Therefore the "bits" in the "it from bit" scenario aren't necessarily information. They are more likely nothing more than a consequence of how the rules play out in the great machine.

 

[smcder]

Maybe not ( exactly ). I would say that assuming I understand it "correctly", then in the context of consciousness existing as a field generated by the brain, then the field is as "fundamental" on a physical level as a magnetic field. Specifically, in the realm of the physics of the physical, there is some point at which although we know how things behave when organized and/or acted upon in a certain way, we still don't know why. Even more specifically, we can look to what are called the "fundamental forces of nature". These forces appear to be arbitrarily imparted on our existence and associated with what we call particles, but are less like "particles" and more like small regions of space that possess one or more of these properties. Working from this model consciousness is something that arises as a consequence of the way those regions are organized and acted upon, but the underlying question of the "existence" of these things still remains. Lastly, the "it from bit" scenario is something to consider and depending on how it's interpreted, is IMO the best explanation for the existence of our realm ( spacetime continuum ). However I think we need to be careful about how we use the word "information". Information is a subjective term that relays meaning to consciousness. Therefore the "bits" in the "it from bit" scenario aren't necessarily information. They are more likely nothing more than a consequence of how the rules play out in the great machine.

The key to me was naturalistic dualism that experience/consciousness is as fundamental as the laws of physics (with a "back-off" position that it is at least explanatorily fundamental)

This position qualifies as a variety of dualism, as it postulates basic properties over and above the properties invoked by physics. But it is an innocent version of dualism, entirely compatible with the scientific view of the world. Nothing in this approach contradicts anything in physical theory; we simply need to add further bridging principles to explain how experience arises from physical processes. There is nothing particularly spiritual or mystical about this theory - its overall shape is like that of a physical theory, with a few fundamental entities connected by fundamental laws. It expands the ontology slightly, to be sure, but Maxwell did the same thing. Indeed, the overall structure of this position is entirely naturalistic, allowing that ultimately the universe comes down to a network of basic entities obeying simple laws, and allowing that there may ultimately be a theory of consciousness cast in terms of such laws. If the position is to have a name, a good choice might be naturalistic dualism.

I'm reading a paper of his on panpsychism and that reinforces to me that he wants to go out a bit further.

Overall, I'm trying to sort out all the ideas on the table (not saying these are entirely independent or competing theories, just what we've been discussing) - here is what I have:

1. consciousness as field
2. TO's "computer analogy" - which seems to relate to epiphenomenalism/eliminative materialism
3. Jeff's "radio receiver" concept (is there a better name for this?)
4. Chalmers' naturalistic dualism / panpsychism

http://consc.net/papers/panpsychism.pdf

 

[trainedobserver]

Don't you guys think the problem of consciousness is largely a semantic one driven by our limited perspective? We are limited to the "experience" of our own personal consciousness in our attempts to quantify it. To experience consciousness requires a functioning brain which being the organ of consciousness, can only experience itself.

I wonder if there are any cases of twins born sharing lobes of the brain? Would they have a single or dual consciousness?

 

[Randall]

Don't you guys think the problem of consciousness is largely a semantic one driven by our limited perspective? We are limited to the "experience" of our own personal consciousness in our attempts to quantify it. To experience consciousness requires a functioning brain which being the organ of consciousness, can only experience itself.

I wonder if there are any cases of twins born sharing lobes of the brain? Would they have a single or dual consciousness?

There's no doubt that there's a semantics problem when it comes to exploring the topic of consciousness. The same words seem to mean different things to different people depending on the point they're trying to make, and what's more, because the same words can mean more than one thing, sometimes two people can be saying two different things with exactly the same words, or saying exactly the same thing with different words. That's why one almost needs to be in the swim of the discussion or they can find themselves completely lost.

On the twins question, I assume you mean a single head with four hemispheres, because if you just mean two bodies with a single head, it wouldn't be twins. I have heard of Siamese twins with attached heads and brain tissue connecting them. You might try looking them up. Freaky thought.

 

[Randall]

Overall, I'm trying to sort out all the ideas on the table (not saying these are entirely independent or competing theories, just what we've been discussing) - here is what I have:

1. consciousness as field
2. TO's "computer analogy" - which seems to relate to epiphenomenalism/eliminative materialism
3. Jeff's "radio receiver" concept (is there a better name for this?)
4. Chalmers' naturalistic dualism / panpsychism

First glance at panpsychism suggests it's logically flawed. Simply because some particular organization of material produces a phenomenon doesn't mean that that phenomenon is also a fundamental part of everything else composed of the same material. But then again the paper gets into Hegelian philosophy, which also has problems.

 

[smcder]

Don't you guys think the problem of consciousness is largely a semantic one driven by our limited perspective? We are limited to the "experience" of our own personal consciousness in our attempts to quantify it. To experience consciousness requires a functioning brain which being the organ of consciousness, can only experience itself.

I wonder if there are any cases of twins born sharing lobes of the brain? Would they have a single or dual consciousness?

I think that's the hard problem of talking about consciousness . . . but not the hard problem itself. ;-)

 

[Jeff Davis]

The key to me was naturalistic dualism that experience/consciousness is as fundamental as the laws of physics (with a "back-off" position that it is at least explanatorily fundamental)

This position qualifies as a variety of dualism, as it postulates basic properties over and above the properties invoked by physics. But it is an innocent version of dualism, entirely compatible with the scientific view of the world. Nothing in this approach contradicts anything in physical theory; we simply need to add further bridging principles to explain how experience arises from physical processes. There is nothing particularly spiritual or mystical about this theory - its overall shape is like that of a physical theory, with a few fundamental entities connected by fundamental laws. It expands the ontology slightly, to be sure, but Maxwell did the same thing. Indeed, the overall structure of this position is entirely naturalistic, allowing that ultimately the universe comes down to a network of basic entities obeying simple laws, and allowing that there may ultimately be a theory of consciousness cast in terms of such laws. If the position is to have a name, a good choice might be naturalistic dualism.

I'm reading a paper of his on panpsychism and that reinforces to me that he wants to go out a bit further.

Overall, I'm trying to sort out all the ideas on the table (not saying these are entirely independent or competing theories, just what we've been discussing) - here is what I have:

1. consciousness as field
2. TO's "computer analogy" - which seems to relate to epiphenomenalism/eliminative materialism
3. Jeff's "radio receiver" concept (is there a better name for this?)
4. Chalmers' naturalistic dualism / panpsychism

http://consc.net/papers/panpsychism.pdf

It was actually me that Used the computer analogy. I think it was frowned on by TO initially.

"Reception" is not the right word to define our participation with consciousness, even though, that is precisely the word I used here loosely among friends . I really consider this an attraction based electrical phenomenon that actuates in conjunction with optically induced photonic exchange.

Really, to underline my suspicions, I believe that we achieve what we refer to as universal relativity, via consciousness. I see consciousness as an environmentally relevant interface that we as a species have adapted to specifically via evolution.

Consciousness, as Ufology pointed out, is achieved in a waking state, but more precisely, it occurs when we self reflect, or when we search for information relevant to our past experiences. I apologize, but I do not believe that consciousness is synonymous with experience because experience can and does often reflect actions that we are not conscious of. The brain is a computer, and computers are analogously designed to replicate/mimic the most basic architecture of the brain itself, but is the computer *ever* aware of itself? The computer will sit there until it decays to dust if we don't supply it with electricity and information with which to process. This is like the brain and the many states that it can linger in minus consciousness.

Consciousness does not supply software to the brain computer. However it does seem to provide the language of sentient relevant experiential possibility that the software of experience is comprised of. So in this sense, consciousness is what provides the executable language of experiential data to the primary memory which cognition retrieves in the linear process of experiential determination. Consciousness ultimately equals the language and platform (field?) needed to initialize sentience, and further, to supplicate cognition with experiential information that the meat computer known as the brain cognitively formulates/translates to known/understood experience.

This is why when we remember events relative to direct experience we do not remember the direct experience. We see ourselves performing as much. This *is* sentient relevant experience via the secondary memory.

Consciousness = (as a result) Non Localized Self Relevant Experience