Free Will

[David Quinn]

Troglodytes wrote:

DQ: Molecules and matter are states of consciousness too, so I'm not sure where you going with this line of thought.
[. . .]
Salt molecules are as much a mental property as saltiness is.

T: Is it really very helpful here to lump all things together on the basis that they are all states of consciousness? Surely we're headed down Beingof1's road if we do that. Whilst concepts (such as molecules and matter) are just as much states of consciousness as are sensations (such as light and saltiness), they nonetheless refer to things that are not states of consciousness. Ok, I'm skating on thin ice here: you'll probably tell me that ultimately all things are products of our minds drawing boundaries and so forth, but surely there is a distinction worth making within the context of this discussion.

Well, it is this very distinction you insist on making which is contributing to your difficulties in imagining how consciousness comes from matter. In reality, matter isn't just lumps of solid, inert stuff that exists independently of consciousness. Matter is part of the field of consciousness, just as the taste of saltiness is. There is no difference between them in this regard. They are both direct manifestations of consciousness. Beingof1 is completely correct on this point.

Your perception of matter as solid, inert stuff existing independently of consciousness is mental in nature and obviously limited because of the problems you are having in imagining how it can create consciousness. You need to reevaluate this perception.

T: As I see it, photons become the phenomenon we know as 'light' when they interact with the receptors in our eyes and are 'translated' by our brain into a visual phenomenon that we experience.

DQ: Sure, but it is still a case of dark matter "mysteriously" producing light. When we strike a match in the dark and a flame flares into being, it's as though light is suddenly being produced from nowhere.

T: The sudden emergence of light from 'dark matter' when a match is struck only seems mysterious because of how my visual system (eyes, visual cortex, etc) 'reads' or 'displays' the events taking place. If the events are 'seen' through other means (such as scientific instruments and theories), the mystery vanishes as we discover that nothing is being created or destroyed: all that is happening is that the atoms, photons, electrons, energy etc comprising the match and surrounding air are moving about, rearranging and recombining, and some of them radiate at certain wavelengths towards my eye, triggering the sensation of bright light.

Likewise neuroscientists, psychiatrists, psychologists, biologists, etc, are currently providing the same kind of evidence to demonstrate the linkages between brain-processes and states of consciousness. Granted, the research is still in is infancy, but the evidence is already overwhelming.

So the 'discrete difference' that is perceived can be revealed as a trick of the eye/mind, and the mystery can be dissolved. To me, the discrete difference between matter and consciousness seems to be of a different level entirely. As with the striking of the match, I'd like to be able to say, "The sudden emergence of consciousness from matter only seems mysterious because _________" . . . but I just can't fill in the blank. Suggestions are welcome!

How about "because I falsely perceive consciousness and matter to be opposites for no real reason other than force of habit"......?

T: These provide clear evidence that consciousness has material causes, but they are not the kind of commonalities that I am seeking -- as you probably realise. I guess I want to see something that can 'join the dots' from matter to consciousness, rather than just evidence that the dots are indeed joined.

DQ: I think you may be wanting something which doesn't exist.

T: Perhaps. So would you say that the path from matter to mind is a causal process that might never be mapped?

The countless causal linkages between brain-chemistry and consciousness will eventually be mapped, and we may even reach the stage where consciousness can be created at will in the lab. But even if we do reach that stage there will always be an insurmountable gap between consciousness and matter, unless we change our underlying perception of them.

As Leyla says, it's not a scientific issue. It's a philosophic one.

-

[Troglodytes]

OK, thanks, guys. I'll ruminate over all this for a while before continuing any further.

[Jamesh]

These provide clear evidence that consciousness has material causes, but they are not the kind of commonalities that I am seeking -- as you probably realise. I guess I want to see something that can 'join the dots' from matter to consciousness, rather than just evidence that the dots are indeed joined.

From my perspective 1Being and Troggy are missing the fact that all things must have awareness, otherwise they COULD not exist. Consciousness is NOT fundamentally different from any other type of awareness, it just gives the appearance of being so, due to the need for humans to have an ego. Consciousness is just a more complex form of physical awareness – it has many layers of patterns of awareness, each pattern being a dualistic ‘thing’ that as an effect or appearance is more than the sum of its parts, but only because these parts combine in a complementary pattern, the sum of the activity of the parts form a whole.

Just as salt could not be formed into salt without sodium and chlorine atoms each having an awareness of ‘other’, of that which is not themselves, and of that which can be drawn together - so to does your body know that there is ‘other’. If consciousness was not like this, but separate in some fashion to matter, somehow non-physical, then we would be aware of all things, not a limited subset of things.

It is this awareness that is intrinsic in things, it is the true universal consciousness. Essentially it is whatever gravity is. Gravity is the awareness of other things. Our consciousness is a flowing, changing pattern of gravity within an infinity of competing gravity patterns. Like gravity it is totally dependant on its temporary existence by what immediately surrounds it (which in turn is affected by what immediately surrounds it and so on infinitely).

A consciousness is a bit like the eye of a storm - without the winds of experience circling around the eye, the eye of the storm would not exist. As the storm moves so does the eye – but can the eye really be said to exist? It would not if it were not for the storm, and so it is for our consciousness within our body.

The consciousness is the funnel of experience. All external experiences affecting one in the present are channelled through a central point within the brain. The brain is a series of experience sieves. It takes lumpy things like light, pressure, body chemical reactions and grades this information tossing out the rough redundant or unnecessary material, leaving a fine dust of experience that is relevant to humans. This dust is in the form of electric current. This current is then funnelled through the electro-magnetic turbine of the frontal lobes and comes out as thought energy, which then feeds back into the bodies engine, namely the brain, which then drives the body to perform certain tasks.

And they all exist within your single consciousness. Can you have more than one consciousness?

Absolutely, I have had a plethora of consciousnesses, almost an infinity. This is because consciousness is just the centre ‘point’ of a flow of causes and effects. My pattern of consciousness adapts and flows as a result of the experiences my body experiences and like any flowing thing, namely all things, there is no point in which from one moment to the next, that this thing is exactly as it was before.

The change in consciousness from drugs, knowledge of reality, sleep or brain damage clearly shows that consciousness is not stable, not unchanging, not intrinsic. What is intrinsic (until death or insanity, ie multiple personalities) in consciousness is the abstract configuration of one’s memory, the sum of things that have not significantly changed from one point to the next.

You will never know anything but your own consciousness. If you take the time to get to know this, you will know everything.

There exists nothing else but consciousness, that is all there is, has been, or ever will be.

While it is true that one can only experience the universe themselves and that we cannot know the consciousness of others, this does not mean we can “know” our own consciousness, we can only sense its existence. We already know the main causes of our consciousness, namely a functioning human body and an environment that allows this body to exist and experience. Like any thing, we can only ever know the abstract causes of the parts that work together to create consciousness – precisely because the “sum of the thing does not separately exist”, so there is actually nothing to see, nothing to know.

You can only be aware of nature by and through your consciousness. Your consciousness is the source of all things and the reality you experience.

If you consider “you” to include the body then it is continually and unceasingly aware of the universe. Consciousness is not the source, but the effect.

Btw. To our brain all effects or things are essentially dead, static, lifeless, they only exist in the past, only causes exist in the now. In effect effects do not exist, they are an illusion caused by the need for life to define static reference points for mental calulation. Only causes exist. We are all already dead.

[Blair]

Btw. To our brain all effects or things are essentially dead, static, lifeless, they only exist in the past, only causes exist in the now. In effect effects do not exist, they are an illusion caused by the need for life to define static reference points for mental calulation. Only causes exist. We are all already dead.

A common perception, but ultimately incorrect. The brain can't reference static points, since it is non-static by nature, it can only delude itself into referencing them, being shifting virtual reality points of reference. The only reasoned way out of this paradox is to accept the change as constant, therefore unvariable and looping to infinity.

[David Quinn]

Troglodytes wrote:

OK, thanks, guys. I'll ruminate over all this for a while before continuing any further.

No worries. It's been a good discussion.

I wonder if what you are looking for is the discovery of "particles of consciousness" that can somehow be physically or mathematically linked to electrons, photons, quarks, and the like. "Conscions", if you will. That seems to be the only way you can currently conceive of consciousness and matter interlinking.

The trouble is, we could then ask: How do these "conscions" relate to our own subjective experience of consciousness? The same core problem will still be there - that of trying to link objects of consciousness with consciousness itself. Nothing will have changed.

-

[Troglodytes]

I wonder if what you are looking for is the discovery of "particles of consciousness" that can somehow be physically or mathematically linked to electrons, photons, quarks, and the like. "Conscions", if you will. That seems to be the only way you can currently conceive of consciousness and matter interlinking.

"Conscions" -- what a neat term!

I'm beginning to see the dilemma I'm in.

Would there be any difference between this 'particle' approach to the problem and an approach proposing consciousness as an emergent property of matter rather than some kind of particle that is common or related to it? I'm assuming that we'd eventually hit the same brick wall either way, but at least we might hit it from different directions.

[Blair]

I don't believe a direct causal link between smoking and cancer has yet been proven, although there is an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence.

Smoking is an excellent example of questionable evidence becoming law. Statistics on lung cancer show that there is no relation, and in fact, the countries with the highest percentage of smokers, Japan and Greece, also have the lowest rates of lung cancer, and have longer life spans than the average westerner.

In the 1960's, health research discovered a sharp upsurge in lung cancer in certain parts of the United States, due to air pollution. The results were tampered with by the U.S government before such results were made public. Cigarette smoking was made out to be the culprit, as a coverup.

[Beingof1]

David:

here is no question that consciousness arises from non-consciousness (i.e. matter). This is an indisputable fact.

Its the other way around - regardless David, I think we agree far more than not and I do appreciate your devotion to spirituality. I, like Kevin and yourself, have devoted my life to the pursuit of truth. We can only expand together as we are in the same realm of consciousness.
Funny how I see reflections from myself; must be why we experience flux - eh. It was a good discussion indeed.
So few live in the realm of God`s thought. Iron does sharpen iron. This is a good thing and we will expand.
"As Leyla says, it's not a scientific issue. It's a philosophic one."

"conscions"

What a cool term, mind if I use it? I will give you credit ;)


Jamesh:

From my perspective 1Being and Troggy are missing the fact that all things must have awareness, otherwise they COULD not exist.

With all due respect, you do not understand my posts. Try reading them again and see if I still disagree with your statement.

BO: And they all exist within your single consciousness. Can you have more than one consciousness?

Jamesh: Absolutely, I have had a plethora of consciousnesses, almost an infinity.

Dude, in the very next sentence "This is because consciousness is just the centre ‘point’ of a flow of causes and effects."
Usually it takes a paragraph or two.
Take your time and think it , let it saturate, and then let it go.
When you reach a place when you no longer have to 'think' but the thought just flows through your mind. You will experience profound thought and a higher state of 'consciousness' I might add.

If you consider “you” to include the body then it is continually and unceasingly aware of the universe. Consciousness is not the source, but the effect.

I not only include my body - I include you, the world, and the universe. The universe is my body.

We are all already dead.

I used to experience death, it helped me become the eternal.


prince:

[/quote]Smoking is an excellent example of questionable evidence becoming law. Statistics on lung cancer show that there is no relation, and in fact, the countries with the highest percentage of smokers, Japan and Greece, also have the lowest rates of lung cancer, and have longer life spans than the average westerner. [/quote]

Excellent point and true. It shows us that no matter what the theory, it will never be true until experiences validates the conclusion.

[Leyla Shen]

DQ: How about "because I falsely perceive consciousness and matter to be opposites for no real reason other than force of habit"......?

DQ: There is no question that consciousness arises from non-consciousness (i.e. matter). This is an indisputable fact.

And...

Beingof1: Its the other way around - ...

What is the meaning of this?

How infinitely dualistic!

I disagree with both of you.

[Leyla Shen]

I wonder if what you are looking for is the discovery of "particles of consciousness" that can somehow be physically or mathematically linked to electrons, photons, quarks, and the like. "Conscions", if you will. That seems to be the only way you can currently conceive of consciousness and matter interlinking.

This, however, was indeed rather brilliant. :)

[sevens]

Since all Matter is Energy --

We are really Energy, inhabiting Energy.

Where is the line to be drawn, between Conscious and

Consciousness.

All is Conscious.

Digital Ash, In a Digital Urn.

--

The ability to localize the building blocks of Nature is for Human Creation

-- Understanding - Well-Being (Once Spirit combines with Science).

Stars, Dust, Plants, Sun, Everything - Communicates, with our

Consciousness. Therefore, Matter must be Conscious. This is where the

Buddha conceived of Infinite Worlds - Once the Mind Awakens To Infinity,

So Does Everything Else.

--

Within this Realm, the ability to program - actively communicate with the

Universe - construct a Reality - is possible. Causality becomes a canvas -

where Creativity enables new information to manifest through 'Scanning'

or 'Reading' your Environment -- Your Environment becomes an

interactive Virtual, Reality.

--

[Diebert van Rhijn]

As a sidenote, the closest thing to a research into these 'particles of consciousness' would be the work of Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose on so-called 'microtubules'. Hameroff's site is called: Quantum Consciousness.

But when I read The emperor’s new mind by Sir Roger Penrose in 1991 I realized that consciousness may be a specific process on the edge between the quantum and classical worlds. Roger and I teamed up to develop a theory of consciousness based on quantum computation in microtubules within neurons. Roger’s mechanism for an objective threshold for quantum state reduction connects us to the most basic, “funda-mental” level of the universe at the Planck scale, and is called objective reduction (OR). Our suggestion for biological feedback to microtubule quantum states is orchestration (Orch), hence our model is called orchestrated objective reduction, Orch OR.

"Mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of the universe" - Freeman Dyson

In recent years I have concluded that such a connection to the basic proto-conscious level of reality where Platonic values are embedded is strikingly similar to Buddhist concepts, and may account for spirituality.

It's an interesting hypothesis but still not to be confused with philosophy which takes on the subject of consciousness in a broader sense.

[sevens]

Just the other day, I glanced the word 'fundamental' on a blackboard. Thought to myself, 'funda-mental' -- kinda cool. Well, here's the link. To my mind, it appears that 'microtubules' are the 'einstein-ion' area of our brain, while neurons and synapses are the 'newton-ion' area -- each communicating thought, and feeling -- "consciousness" -- in a separate, but inter-related manner.

The brain is a computer - it requires programming. These 'microtubules' (link to a 'quantum brain') are active all the time, but require 'a conscious activation' to communicate with -- to understand. Neurons and synapses are the link to a mind that runs on 'wave patterns' - at the speed of light. Both can run -- independently, or in conjunction -- heightening the Reality of the Mind.

Once 'microtubules' are activated and communicated with, the Cosmos is activated within the Mind - an abstract Cosmos - 'Cosmic Consciousness'. Forms of communication become 'Quantum' -- highly abstract, much like painting, drawing - any expressionistic manifestation of the Unconscious Mind. The next step in Evolution, will be The Quantum Mind.

A Charting of The Cosmos, soon.

[Becoming One - with your Mind and Environment -- 'Data Link', is The Activation of 'Microtubules' and 'Neuro-Synapses']

[DHodges]

But when I read The emperor’s new mind by Sir Roger Penrose in 1991 I realized that consciousness may be a specific process on the edge between the quantum and classical worlds.

In my humble opinion - and it is extra-humble because I have not read the book, and don't intend to - Roger Penrose's work is worthless. That's just based on the reviews of the book on Amazon.

Waving vaguely at quantum theory just doesn't help understand consciousness.

[Troglodytes]

Quantum physics seems to be the answer for everything that we don't understand these days (consciousness, psychokinesis, out-of-body experiences, telepathy, you name it). Could that be because we don't understand quantum physics either?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

In my humble opinion - and it is extra-humble because I have not read the book, and don't intend to - Roger Penrose's work is worthless. That's just based on the reviews of the book on Amazon.

Waving vaguely at quantum theory just doesn't help understand consciousness.

So... instead of commenting on the articles of the research of Hameroff (some done together with Penrose) you comment on an older book by Penrose written way before the research mentioned on the site even started and that only by reading Amazon reviews of it?

And then you talk about 'waving vaguely'... LOL!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Quantum physics seems to be the answer for everything that we don't understand these days (consciousness, psychokinesis, out-of-body experiences, telepathy, you name it). Could that be because we don't understand quantum physics either?

True enough. I should add that the models as proposed on the website I gave are about very specific measurable quantum effects in microtubules inside neurons. A theory which is falsifiable and some labs are trying to get enough data to move further with these ideas. For the other 'paranormal' phenomenons you mention such research does not exist or is not generaly accepted because of a lack in, or incompatibility with, scientific standards.

[Troglodytes]

For the other 'paranormal' phenomenons you mention such research does not exist or is not generaly accepted because of a lack in, or incompatibility with, scientific standards.

Undoubtedly. I'm just pointing out that because quantum physics -- at least in the popular imagination -- deals with the unknown, the mysterious, the counterintuitive and the just plain weird, people are quick to cling to it when they want to propose a quasi-scientific explanation for seemingly inexplicable phenomena (or for paranormal nonsense, as the case may be).

Granted, the explorations into consciousness are probably more respectable than the wishful thinking about alleged paranormal phenomena, but it's possible that the same mentality or 'escape route' might be called into play: "Gee, that's wierd, how can I explain that? . . . I know! It must be quantum physics!"

[DHodges]

So... instead of commenting on the articles of the research of Hameroff (some done together with Penrose) you comment on an older book by Penrose written way before the research mentioned on the site even started and that only by reading Amazon reviews of it?

Well... yeah.

Frankly I see Penrose's (and Hameroff's) ideas as so completely philosophically misguided that there isn't much point in digging into it much further, just like I see no need to keep up on the latest research on ESP or ghosts.


Stuart Hameroff writes:

Many view the idea of quantum consciousness (and Orch OR in particular) as unlikely. But I view it as a "speck on the horizon", a paradigm that will eventually dominate our view of brain, mind and reality. It is the only approach which seems capable of tying everything together. Moreover the connection to a Platonic fundamental reality provides a scientific avenue to spirituality.

That is:
(1) he has an underlying Platonic view of reality.
(2) he wants to justify his spirituality with science.

more Hameroff:

Orch OR is consistent not only with neurobiology and physics, but with spiritual traditions such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Kabbalah.

A Platonic view insists on "inherent existence" - things having essential properties - which is directly at odds with Buddhism.

Leaving Hameroff behind, I would go further and state that - in my humble opinion - a Platonic view is incoherent. Philosophically it is a dead end. Platonism is essentialism.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Dave Hodges,

Leaving Hameroff behind, I would go further and state that - in my humble opinion - a Platonic view is incoherent. Philosophically it is a dead end. Platonism is essentialism.

Hameroff's work is not philosophy, why are you trying it to make it into one so that you can 'leave it behind'? Lighten up, it's just a bunch of scientific theorizing, who knows where such research might lead?

But you're quite right to criticize the reference to a Platonic reality. This seems like a poor attempt of a scientist to be a philosopher for a minute. Plato is not just used here as essentialism, they use it here in the context of assuming an ultimate reality, some form of absolutism, including and I quote "mathematical truths, laws and relationships, as well as aesthetics and ethics our senses of beauty and morality". If they just had stopped with logical truths and relationships (like the law of identity) it would have been more promising.

Luckily a scientist doesn't have to be a philosopher to produce some meaningfull results in his specialism. But it might help him not to get lost!

[Leyla Shen]

[spring-kicks the air...right fist forward, left fist back...HYA!]

What's humility, anyway?

[analog57]

In reality, neither causes nor effects exist because everything is beginningless and endless. The entire Universe - past, present and future - is really just a single instantaneous event. There's no room for either cause or effect.

-

What precipitates the "single event"?

On the one hand, there is the principle of locality, which posits that causal events from point A to point B finitely propagate within the parameters of physical law, e.g. speed of light in vacuum. On the other hand there is also the non-local and apparently instantaneous communication at a distance that troubled Einstein so much.

The apparrent difficulty between these local and non-local types of causality, disappears once it is realized that perceptual reality is beholden to the laws of distributive identity, where any universal law, L, becomes applicable to both locales A and B, as a multiplicative identity:

L*[A + B] = L*A + L*B

Energy can only propagate between points via finite speeds set by the laws. The laws themselves are identities that hold for all points in the universe simultaneously.

Consciousness and awareness can only operate with respect to the laws.

One could argue that consciousness, and even the laws themselves, arose as an undirected sequence of accidental events, where the probabilities coalesced "just so" to as to allow for sentient conscious beings such as ourselves, to exist. But it cannot be true, because randomness is bound by the constraints set by the laws. The laws cannot follow from randomness, if randomness is also bound by those same logical laws. That is to say, if the laws arose randomly, then the randomness of the laws was parameterized by a "meta-law" ...and if that meta-law also was the result of randomness, then it too, was beholden to higher meta-systems ...etc...etc...etc.

Consequently, the universe exists - thanks to a "non-accidental" law.

An accident is logically defined as a "circumstance or attribute that is not essential to the nature of something". That means that consciousness and awareness are not accidents, but they fundamentally exist, as multiplicative attributes of reality.

[DHodges]

[spring-kicks the air...right fist forward, left fist back...HYA!]

Ouch!

[Leyla Shen]

You're welcome. :)

[DHodges]

Thanks.