|
cubedryeguy
Stranger


Registered: 07/24/15
Posts: 537
|
Re: What is the biological origin of consciousness? [Re: sudly]
#22074005 - 08/10/15 10:06 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: "Bodies are vehicles which our consciousness created to be able to live a life like we do."
We know that consciousness doesn't create anything physical on it's own so there's that.
Unless consciousness created the big bang and is now using the human body that it created indirectly to create physical things here on earth! Mystery solved people, you're welcome.
|
cubedryeguy
Stranger


Registered: 07/24/15
Posts: 537
|
Re: What is the biological origin of consciousness? [Re: nooneman]
#22074037 - 08/10/15 10:11 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
nooneman said: My own personal pet theory is that the brain is constantly in a super position of many different states, and somehow consciousness is involved in the collapse of those states into a single state. That's just wild speculation though, and I'm almost certainly wrong.
Consciousness being like a filter, focusing on certain brain states?
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
|
Re: What is the biological origin of consciousness? [Re: DividedQuantum]
#22074070 - 08/10/15 10:17 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Centuries of evidence and testing have proven that you can't think an apple into existence.
You can try it if you want to.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: What is the biological origin of consciousness? [Re: sudly]
#22074168 - 08/10/15 10:35 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
consciousness is the machinery of progress. energies break down into more usable materials to be recycled, and those energies are used to create more machinery to compel the re-use of more materials. we're alive to feed the machine of consciousness, and the origin of said consciousness is energy.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
|
Re: What is the biological origin of consciousness? [Re: akira_akuma]
#22074315 - 08/10/15 11:05 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Ok let's break down what you said.
consciousness is the machinery of progress. Technically yes, our conscious ability allows us think and progress our technologies etc.
energies break down into more usable materials to be recycled, Energy can become matter but it requires a hell of a lot of energy, no where near enough used in the brain. How exactly does energy break down into material?
and those energies are used to create more machinery to compel the re-use of more materials. The brain uses energy, humans use consciousness to think and control their actions which in turn builds new materials from existing ones.
we're alive to feed the machine of consciousness, We're alive because evolution was given billions of years on a stable planet to produce a variety of life, humans included.
and the origin of said consciousness is energy. The fuel of consciousness is energy provided through metabolic processes that extract the energy from food which is gathered by plants from the sun. That does not mean consciousness itself is energy, it is merely the result of energy being processed.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
MajickMuffin
Edible Cult


Registered: 05/28/14
Posts: 4,345
Loc: North
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
|
Re: What is the biological origin of consciousness? [Re: DividedQuantum]
#22074948 - 08/11/15 05:52 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I was saying that conciousness created biology in the begining. And im not speaking about an all powerful God, i am speaking about a group of entities who had a goal in mind to create this Universe, who created this simulation.
This simulation was created by a group of entities like ourselfs in spirit form. Just like a human would create a Truck, it took a long fucking time, but once that truck was built, now that Human could drive in the Truck.
We as humans have a specific type of spirit; a human spirit. We have 2 forms, our spirit form and a human form. We can only inhabit a human body, or our original form, spirit. The human body was created specifically for human spirits.
Just like a Dog body was created specifically for dog spirit, and so on.
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: Sudly, you patronize MajickMuffin as if you have a real clue. I've grown weary of some of the smugness in this thread. If anyone has any actual evidence, please share. I'm sure the scientific community would love to hear it. Otherwise, realize that what you think is no more than an opinion (however seemingly well educated), and treat others' views accordingly.
This is most certainly my OPINION. I have gained it through speculation of the world that I see and the world I have experienced. Assisted through others knowledge aswell. It makes sense to me, it is the only thing that makes sense out of all other things I have speculated.
I have experienced the spirit world throughout my life so myself, I cannot deny it.
Its my opinion, and I speak it to open others minds, for others consideration, not to force it upon anyone.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
|
Re: What is the biological origin of consciousness? [Re: MajickMuffin]
#22075230 - 08/11/15 08:03 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
As I respect your right to have an opinion, I hope you respect my right to have one too. The idea itself intrigues me and it's an interesting thing to imaging but realistically it's not. Experience is not falsifiable and cannot be verified by another. It's a subjective claim.
"Objective truth is something that is really true, it corresponds with reality, and can in principle be verified by others. Subjective truth, on the other hand, may be true for you but not for me, and cannot be verified by another. “Dogs have four legs” is an objective truth, but “I like dogs” is subjective."
I appreciate that you've said it was only your opinion, which consequently makes it subjective.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (08/11/15 08:22 AM)
|
MajickMuffin
Edible Cult


Registered: 05/28/14
Posts: 4,345
Loc: North
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
|
Re: What is the biological origin of consciousness? [Re: sudly]
#22075401 - 08/11/15 08:56 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: As I respect your right to have an opinion, I hope you respect my right to have one too. The idea itself intrigues me and it's an interesting thing to imaging but realistically it's not. Experience is not falsifiable and cannot be verified by another. It's a subjective claim.
"Objective truth is something that is really true, it corresponds with reality, and can in principle be verified by others. Subjective truth, on the other hand, may be true for you but not for me, and cannot be verified by another. “Dogs have four legs” is an objective truth, but “I like dogs” is subjective."
I appreciate that you've said it was only your opinion, which consequently makes it subjective.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: What is the biological origin of consciousness? [Re: sudly]
#22075720 - 08/11/15 10:09 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: Ok let's break down what you said.
consciousness is the machinery of progress. Technically yes, our conscious ability allows us think and progress our technologies etc.
energies break down into more usable materials to be recycled, Energy can become matter but it requires a hell of a lot of energy, no where near enough used in the brain. How exactly does energy break down into material?
and those energies are used to create more machinery to compel the re-use of more materials. The brain uses energy, humans use consciousness to think and control their actions which in turn builds new materials from existing ones.
we're alive to feed the machine of consciousness, We're alive because evolution was given billions of years on a stable planet to produce a variety of life, humans included.
and the origin of said consciousness is energy. The fuel of consciousness is energy provided through metabolic processes that extract the energy from food which is gathered by plants from the sun. That does not mean consciousness itself is energy, it is merely the result of energy being processed.
there ya go.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: What is the biological origin of consciousness? [Re: nooneman]
#22075932 - 08/11/15 11:08 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
nooneman said: My own personal pet theory is that the brain is constantly in a super position of many different states, and somehow consciousness is involved in the collapse of those states into a single state. That's just wild speculation though, and I'm almost certainly wrong.
nooneman, I think you are on the right track with this. I have often felt very much the same way, and you put it quite succinctly. 
Quote:
I do believe that consciousness has a physical (as in physics) component, and that eventually science will figure out what it is.
Without getting into the semantic baggage of physical vs. metaphysical, I agree and can see no reason why humans cannot understand consciousness someday. Feynman once asked whether frogs and symphonies come out of the wave function or not, and noted that at this point we cannot know, so for the time being we can all hold strong opinions either way!
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
|
Re: What is the biological origin of consciousness? [Re: akira_akuma]
#22077410 - 08/11/15 05:18 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
What was the point of saying that?
In essence the only meaningful thing you've said is 'Consciousness is the result of chemical energy being processed by the brain.'
That doesn't prove anything or make a point, it's a basic statement.
Curling your finger uses energy too. Taking a step, jumping, picking up a ball. They all require energy from to body to be accomplished.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: What is the biological origin of consciousness? [Re: sudly] 2
#22078060 - 08/11/15 07:24 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
According to Integrated Information Theory, consciousness is a network effect based on the degree to which a system can take in information and integrate that information into a greater whole. This contrasts with, say, a digital camera, which is able to take in a lot of information in the form of light, but produces a product that is modular, composed of pixels that can be taken apart and examined independently. Our experience, on the other hand, is a totality that cannot be broken up in such a piecemeal manner. We experience qualia such as shapes and colors not as independent of one another, but as part of a single, unified experience. The degree of integration is designated by the variable Φ, which is the degree of subjective experience a system would have. It turns out that the number of nodes a network would need to have to produce a Φ-value is surprisingly small. Even quarks, which come in sets of threes, would qualify. So some form of proto-conscious subjectivity is present well below the level of biology. But what organisms are especially good at is integrating information from their environment, so we would see a huge acceleration of Φ-values with the emergence of the first organisms, even single-celled bacteria. The explosion of complexity in evolution from there would take care of the rest. It essentially confirms what Teilhard de Chardin called the Law of Complexity-Consciousness.
--------------------
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: What is the biological origin of consciousness? [Re: sudly]
#22078076 - 08/11/15 07:28 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: What was the point of saying that?
In essence the only meaningful thing you've said is 'Consciousness is the result of chemical energy being processed by the brain.'
That doesn't prove anything or make a point, it's a basic statement.
Curling your finger uses energy too. Taking a step, jumping, picking up a ball. They all require energy from to body to be accomplished.
no need to get all uppity. i'm saying you answered your own question by summing up my answer.
ta-da! no more need to ponder.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: What is the biological origin of consciousness? [Re: Silversoul]
#22078135 - 08/11/15 07:42 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: According to Integrated Information Theory, consciousness is a network effect based on the degree to which a system can take in information and integrate that information into a greater whole. This contrasts with, say, a digital camera, which is able to take in a lot of information in the form of light, but produces a product that is modular, composed of pixels that can be taken apart and examined independently. Our experience, on the other hand, is a totality that cannot be broken up in such a piecemeal manner. We experience qualia such as shapes and colors not as independent of one another, but as part of a single, unified experience. The degree of integration is designated by the variable Φ, which is the degree of subjective experience a system would have. It turns out that the number of nodes a network would need to have to produce a Φ-value is surprisingly small. Even quarks, which come in sets of threes, would qualify. So some form of proto-conscious subjectivity is present well below the level of biology. But what organisms are especially good at is integrating information from their environment, so we would see a huge acceleration of Φ-values with the emergence of the first organisms, even single-celled bacteria. The explosion of complexity in evolution from there would take care of the rest. It essentially confirms what Teilhard de Chardin called the Law of Complexity-Consciousness.
Yes. This has many resonances with David Bohm's postulate of the Implicate and explicate order. The notion of proto-consciousness is especially pertinent.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: What is the biological origin of consciousness? [Re: akira_akuma]
#22078139 - 08/11/15 07:43 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
let me clarify something:
if scientists haven't proposed a reasonable hypothesis of the origin of consciousness, then i propose it's for one of two reasons...either they don't know yet, meaning that some mini-philosophers on a drug forum aren't going to either, or it's a purely philosophical exercise and there is not a "real" origin of consciousness; which in that case, the answer to your question can be perfectly summed up in one sentence: the origin of consciousness is the energy receptive in the brain and CNS in the mammalian and arthropod and amphibian and reptile and fish ect, and the photosynthesis of plants, the signal transduction of cellular organisms, enzyme catalyzation, and other "divisions of labor" in genetics ie energy transforming and recycling itself into usable materials for self-preservation.
PS: clicking on the first URL link in Silversoul's post leads to this one, so i'd presume that the internet agrees with me, OP.
Edited by akira_akuma (08/11/15 08:15 PM)
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
|
Re: What is the biological origin of consciousness? [Re: akira_akuma]
#22078676 - 08/11/15 09:18 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
"the origin of consciousness is the energy receptive in the brain and CNS in the mammalian and arthropod and amphibian and reptile and fish ect"
What do you think is the difference in humans that allows us to have consciousness over animals? All brains are energy receptive.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: What is the biological origin of consciousness? [Re: sudly]
#22078716 - 08/11/15 09:24 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
our organs are more capable of extrapolating and communicating information.
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is the biological origin of consciousness? [Re: akira_akuma]
#22078907 - 08/11/15 10:01 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I'm surprised that posters in this thread have had such a difficult time defining consciousness. I think the answer is quite straightforward, even if it is difficult to understand. Here is the most articulate explanation I've been able to find for what consciousness is:
Quote:
"In one of the most influential essays on consciousness ever written, the philosopher Thomas Nagel asks us to consider what it is like to be a bat. His interest isn't in bats but in how we define the concept of "consciousness." Nagel argues that an organism is conscious "if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism - something that it is like for the organism." ..... He is simply asking you to imagine trading places with a bat. If you would be left with any experience, however indescribable - some spectrum of sights, sounds, sensations, feelings - that is what consciousness is in the case of a bat. If being transformed into a bat were tantamount to annihilation, however, then bats are not conscious. Nagel's point is that whatever else consciousness may or may not entail in physical terms, the difference between it and unconsciousness is a matter of subjective experience. Either the lights are on, or they are not."
- Sam Harris
I don't know why a lot of you are appealing to information processing, or intention, or superposition. Each and every one of these has major explanatory gaps, or flaws.
Silversoul's appeal to information integration begs the very obvious question: What does information integration have to do with awareness? If we were to make a computer that could "integrate that information into a greater whole", wouldn't we still be open to question whether this machine is aware of anything? Whether the lights are on? Whether it is like something to be the computer? For all we know, such a computer could have the same inner life as that of a rock.
Quote:
Silversoul:
We experience qualia such as shapes and colors not as independent of one another, but as part of a single, unified experience. The degree of integration is designated by the variable Φ, which is the degree of subjective experience a system would have. It turns out that the number of nodes a network would need to have to produce a Φ-value is surprisingly small. Even quarks, which come in sets of threes, would qualify. So some form of proto-conscious subjectivity is present well below the level of biology.
It seems that you are suggesting that information integration implies the existence of subjective experience. However, you have yet to explain any reason why anybody should think this. Until we have a greater understanding as to what systems give rise to consciousness, we will never be able to know consciousness from a third party perspective. Again, I think a quote from Harris is apt:
Quote:
We know, of course, that human minds are the product of human brains. There is simply no question that your ability to decode and understand this sentence depends upon neuro-physiological events taking place inside your head tat this moment. But most of this mental work occurs entirely in the dark, and it is a mystery why any part of the process should be attended by consciousness. Nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would find no evidence for it in the universe - nor would we have any notion of the many experiential states that it gives rise to. The only proof that it is like something to be you at this moment is the fact (obvious only to you) that it is like something to be you.
- Sam Harris
I also think that nooneman and DQ are somewhat off the mark with their appeal to superposition. I know you guys aren't committing strongly to any specific theory regarding the relationship of consciousness and superposition, but even merely entertaining a feeling or intuition to relate the two doesn't seem wise.
How did you two arrive at this suspicion? Was it something like: Quantum physics is mysterious and hard to understand, with lots of explanatory gaps, and consciousness is mysterious and hard to understand, with lots of explanatory gaps, therefore they have something to do with one another? I just don't see how you can relate the two, given how poor of an understanding we have of both domains of inquiry. It's very likely that something about physical stuff gives rise to consciousness, and it is quite apparent just how deep our lack of understanding of physical stuff runs. But that doesn't mean that consciousness will one day be explained by filling in the gaps of our understanding of rudimentary physical stuff.
And as for an appeal to evolution as the process that gave rise to consciousness, this is undoubtedly likely, but any deeper suggestions beg even more questions. For example; if it is suggested that consciousness is a beneficial mutation, that would necessitate consciousness (a seemingly non-physical phenomenon) having a physical effect on the brain, or other matter (physical systems), which seems as preposterous as suggesting that any other non-physical thing has an effect on physical systems. No account of physics (to my knowledge) suggests the existence of a non-physical realm that is able to influence physical systems.
Moar Harris:
Quote:
However we propose to explain the emergence of consciousness - be it in biological, functional, computational, or any other terms - we have committed ourselves to this much: First there is a physical world, unconscious and seething with unperceived events; then, by virtue of some physical property or process, consciousness itself springs, or staggers, into being. This idea seems to me not merely strange but perfectly mysterious. That doesn't mean it isn't true. When we linger over the details, however, this notion of emergence seems merely a placeholder for a miracle. Consciousness - the seer fact that this universe is illuminated by sentience - is precisely what unconsciousness is not. And I believe that no description of unconscious complexity will fully account for it. To simply assert that consciousness arose at some point in the evolution of life, and that it results from a specific arrangement of neurons firing in concert within an individual brain, doesn't give us any inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle. However, this is not to say that some other thesis about consciousness must be true. Consciousness may very well be the lawful product of unconscious information processing. But I don't know what that sentence actually means - and I don't think anyone else does either.
This situation has bee characterized as an "explanatory gap" and as the "hard problem of consciousness," and it is surely both. Some philosophers have suggested that the relationship between mind and body will be understood only with reference to concepts that are neither physical nor mental but that are in some way "neutral." Others claim that consciousness can be known to be the product of physical causes but cannot be conceptually reduced to such causes. Still others have argued that the notion of a non-reductive physical account is incoherent. I am sympathetic with those who, like the philosopher Colin McGinn and the psychologist Steven Pinker, have suggested that perhaps the emergence of consciousness is simply incomprehensible in human terms. Every chain of explanation must end somewhere - generally with a brute fact that neglects to explain itself. Perhaps consciousness presents an impasse of this sort.
- Sam Harris
Obviously consciousness remains a deep mystery.
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
|
Re: What is the biological origin of consciousness? [Re: sudly]
#22078925 - 08/11/15 10:05 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
"the origin of consciousness is the energy receptive in the brain and CNS in the mammalian and arthropod and amphibian and reptile and fish ect"
What do you think is the difference in humans that allows us to have consciousness over animals? All brains are energy receptive.
I think that humans are quite obviously not the only conscious animals on the planet. What reason do you have to suggest that we are conscious, but chimpanzees, for example, are not?
We are smarter, and probably possess more potential for happiness, suffering, and other qualities of experience, but that doesn't mean we are the only animals that are conscious. Our consciousness is merely of more complexity than most, if not all animals. However, it's still quite obvious that it is like something to be a chimpanzee, or an elephant.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: What is the biological origin of consciousness? [Re: secondorder]
#22078996 - 08/11/15 10:15 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I also think that nooneman and DQ are somewhat off the mark with their appeal to superposition. I know you guys aren't committing strongly to any specific theory regarding the relationship of consciousness and superposition, but even merely entertaining a feeling or intuition to relate the two doesn't seem wise.
How did you two arrive at this suspicion? Was it something like: Quantum physics is mysterious and hard to understand, with lots of explanatory gaps, and consciousness is mysterious and hard to understand, with lots of explanatory gaps, therefore they have something to do with one another? I just don't see how you can relate the two, given how poor of an understanding we have of both domains of inquiry. It's very likely that something about physical stuff gives rise to consciousness, and it is quite apparent just how deep our lack of understanding of physical stuff runs. But that doesn't mean that consciousness will one day be explained by filling in the gaps of our understanding of rudimentary physical stuff.
Actually, in my case it is quite a subjective matter, and not some sort of ad hoc gleaning of elementary quantum theory. In reality, my views on the subject go quite a bit farther than this, but this is certainly one aspect of it, and I believe -- after a lot of thought -- that nooneman and I have some merit. This is not the place to go into it, but I would suggest you look into the writings of Dr. Henry Stapp, and you'll see there's actually quite a lot behind it. I don't appreciate the condescension, by the way. I would not hesitate to say that your cursory dismissal of something you, ironically, understand less of than you think seems unwise, as well. And your approach is rather typical, and dull. Can anyone think originally on this stuff?
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
|