Consciousness question

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Consciousness question

Post by Dimebag » Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:49 am

A simple question.

Are there any conscious states which have no relation to bodily sensations in some way?

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11982
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Consciousness question

Post by OlegTheBatty » Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:14 pm

Dimebag wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:49 am
A simple question.

Are there any conscious states which have no relation to bodily sensations in some way?
All sensory input comes from body parts. QED.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Consciousness question

Post by Dimebag » Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:55 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:14 pm
Dimebag wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:49 am
A simple question.

Are there any conscious states which have no relation to bodily sensations in some way?
All sensory input comes from body parts. QED.
Okay, even abstract thoughts? My answer would be yes, thoughts are to do with the mouth and ears.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27888
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Consciousness question

Post by scrmbldggs » Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:18 pm

I'd think with everything one experienced.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Io
Poster
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Consciousness question

Post by Io » Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:52 am

I suspect that even abstract thought, which might possibly occur without any physical sensory input (or at least regardless of it), would only occur due to the impression that physical sensory input had previously left on the mind. Musings ripe for the AI proponents.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11982
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Consciousness question

Post by OlegTheBatty » Thu Apr 18, 2019 3:56 pm

Dimebag wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:55 pm
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:14 pm
Dimebag wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:49 am
A simple question.

Are there any conscious states which have no relation to bodily sensations in some way?
All sensory input comes from body parts. QED.
Okay, even abstract thoughts? My answer would be yes, thoughts are to do with the mouth and ears.
The brain is a body part. Synapses, axons, neurotransmitters are all parts of the physical body.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Consciousness question

Post by Dimebag » Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:16 am

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 3:56 pm
Dimebag wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:55 pm
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:14 pm
Dimebag wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:49 am
A simple question.

Are there any conscious states which have no relation to bodily sensations in some way?
All sensory input comes from body parts. QED.
Okay, even abstract thoughts? My answer would be yes, thoughts are to do with the mouth and ears.
The brain is a body part. Synapses, axons, neurotransmitters are all parts of the physical body.
Not really what I was getting at, what I meant was, all consciousness is some combination of sensory transduction or memory and manipulation of such.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Consciousness question

Post by Scott Mayers » Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:24 am

Dimebag wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:16 am
...what I meant was, all consciousness is some combination of sensory transduction or memory and manipulation of such.
Agreed in part. Consciousness is at least this but is based on only the 'senses' initially that then evolve in our experience to thoughts as to what you mentioned about the physical manifestation of speech. Add to that the other senses that then associatively get assigned a 'link' we begin to think of in words we learned to use to communicate.

More than that, consciousness is an unusual 'quantum-like' phenomena: we experience multiple points in space simultaneously during consciousness. That is, we don't have one unique place in the brain that acts as some link to an other-world soul or place as Descartes had guessed. Rather, we experience the net effect of 'transactions' of all information exchanges of a common form with common neuron-types that define conscious states. We are only 'aware' of the forms of consciousness associated with specific neuron types along with their present activity. And since they are not localized, we sense any activity of the defined set of neuronal exchanges simultaneously even though they occur in different places simultaneously.

It suggests that consciousness in general is any 'logical' relationship of common physical structures activated at the same time and in the same way (like some unique frequency, for instance) and we experience it even BEFORE it is 'confirmed' (information reaching its endpoints in their paths in the brain) but ONLY if it is 'confirmed' in the future.

This is odd at first to think of but seems rational with some careful thought.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 992
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Consciousness question

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:53 pm

Dimebag wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:49 am
A simple question.

Are there any conscious states which have no relation to bodily sensations in some way?
I try to stick with Sensory experiences, because things for example like the Sensation of understanding something is more difficult to analyze. Take a simple example of understanding such as 1 plus 1 equals 2. I think there is a certain Feel and Conscious Experience to understanding this. Of course there is a vague visualization of two things each of which is one thing. It's not as easily analyzed as Sensory perception. I understand 1 + 1 = 2 but I think I am a little uncertain as to how I do it.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Consciousness question

Post by Dimebag » Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:36 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:24 am
Dimebag wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:16 am
...what I meant was, all consciousness is some combination of sensory transduction or memory and manipulation of such.
Agreed in part. Consciousness is at least this but is based on only the 'senses' initially that then evolve in our experience to thoughts as to what you mentioned about the physical manifestation of speech. Add to that the other senses that then associatively get assigned a 'link' we begin to think of in words we learned to use to communicate.

More than that, consciousness is an unusual 'quantum-like' phenomena: we experience multiple points in space simultaneously during consciousness. That is, we don't have one unique place in the brain that acts as some link to an other-world soul or place as Descartes had guessed. Rather, we experience the net effect of 'transactions' of all information exchanges of a common form with common neuron-types that define conscious states. We are only 'aware' of the forms of consciousness associated with specific neuron types along with their present activity. And since they are not localized, we sense any activity of the defined set of neuronal exchanges simultaneously even though they occur in different places simultaneously.

It suggests that consciousness in general is any 'logical' relationship of common physical structures activated at the same time and in the same way (like some unique frequency, for instance) and we experience it even BEFORE it is 'confirmed' (information reaching its endpoints in their paths in the brain) but ONLY if it is 'confirmed' in the future.

This is odd at first to think of but seems rational with some careful thought.
I’m not sure about the quantum-like phenomena you describe. I think you are referring to the binding problem, that is, how do individual features of consciousness, such as colour, shape, movement, “combine” to form a whole with the same properties. It has something to do with synchronised firing, we know that much. If two areas of the visual cortex are detecting features of the same object, such as colour and movement, they will fire with the same frequency compared to other activity not associated with that object. This doesn’t actually explain how binding takes place, but it is a property of bound experiences. It operates in a similar way to optic fibre transmission; the problem, how do you transmit large amounts of information through a single cable? The solution is to use different frequencies of light which can pass through the cable simultaneously, and therefore transmit multiple signals without interference.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Consciousness question

Post by Dimebag » Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:39 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:53 pm
Dimebag wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:49 am
A simple question.

Are there any conscious states which have no relation to bodily sensations in some way?
I try to stick with Sensory experiences, because things for example like the Sensation of understanding something is more difficult to analyze. Take a simple example of understanding such as 1 plus 1 equals 2. I think there is a certain Feel and Conscious Experience to understanding this. Of course there is a vague visualization of two things each of which is one thing. It's not as easily analyzed as Sensory perception. I understand 1 + 1 = 2 but I think I am a little uncertain as to how I do it.
My instinct is that problems such as 1+1 aren’t consciously perceived, but rather we have a visual input and see the numbers 1+1, and this is a pattern we recognise which is associated with the number 2. All of this can be accomplished via visual and or audible input and output, I.e. it’s to do with the eyes and ears.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9949
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: Consciousness question

Post by Pyrrho » Sat Apr 20, 2019 11:30 am

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/91 ... ness&faf=1
Our consciousness is a brain-generated neurologic illusion. Our brain creates representations of reality, self, other people, objects, set designs, and landscape, which correspond quite accurately to reality. It is, however, not reality, but simulations.

Our consciousness also encompasses the entire scope of the human narrative, developing step by step as our experience is mapped into memory from our beginnings as a fetus until death. Through our experience, the brain links together neuronal maps from all its areas. It builds higher and higher levels of cortical order into our memory.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 992
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Consciousness question

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:30 pm

Dimebag wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:39 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:53 pm
Dimebag wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:49 am
A simple question.

Are there any conscious states which have no relation to bodily sensations in some way?
I try to stick with Sensory experiences, because things for example like the Sensation of understanding something is more difficult to analyze. Take a simple example of understanding such as 1 plus 1 equals 2. I think there is a certain Feel and Conscious Experience to understanding this. Of course there is a vague visualization of two things each of which is one thing. It's not as easily analyzed as Sensory perception. I understand 1 + 1 = 2 but I think I am a little uncertain as to how I do it.
My instinct is that problems such as 1+1 aren’t consciously perceived, but rather we have a visual input and see the numbers 1+1, and this is a pattern we recognise which is associated with the number 2. All of this can be accomplished via visual and or audible input and output, I.e. it’s to do with the eyes and ears.
Could be. But I am not sure about things like understanding. Ill stick with trying to understand the Redness of the color Red.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Consciousness question

Post by Scott Mayers » Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:33 pm

Dimebag wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:36 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:24 am
Dimebag wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:16 am
...what I meant was, all consciousness is some combination of sensory transduction or memory and manipulation of such.
Agreed in part. Consciousness is at least this but is based on only the 'senses' initially that then evolve in our experience to thoughts as to what you mentioned about the physical manifestation of speech. Add to that the other senses that then associatively get assigned a 'link' we begin to think of in words we learned to use to communicate.

More than that, consciousness is an unusual 'quantum-like' phenomena: we experience multiple points in space simultaneously during consciousness. That is, we don't have one unique place in the brain that acts as some link to an other-world soul or place as Descartes had guessed. Rather, we experience the net effect of 'transactions' of all information exchanges of a common form with common neuron-types that define conscious states. We are only 'aware' of the forms of consciousness associated with specific neuron types along with their present activity. And since they are not localized, we sense any activity of the defined set of neuronal exchanges simultaneously even though they occur in different places simultaneously.

It suggests that consciousness in general is any 'logical' relationship of common physical structures activated at the same time and in the same way (like some unique frequency, for instance) and we experience it even BEFORE it is 'confirmed' (information reaching its endpoints in their paths in the brain) but ONLY if it is 'confirmed' in the future.

This is odd at first to think of but seems rational with some careful thought.
I’m not sure about the quantum-like phenomena you describe. I think you are referring to the binding problem, that is, how do individual features of consciousness, such as colour, shape, movement, “combine” to form a whole with the same properties. It has something to do with synchronised firing, we know that much. If two areas of the visual cortex are detecting features of the same object, such as colour and movement, they will fire with the same frequency compared to other activity not associated with that object. This doesn’t actually explain how binding takes place, but it is a property of bound experiences. It operates in a similar way to optic fibre transmission; the problem, how do you transmit large amounts of information through a single cable? The solution is to use different frequencies of light which can pass through the cable simultaneously, and therefore transmit multiple signals without interference.
This is likely related. I'm not aware of the particular terminology that some have opted to use. But what I mean is consciousness acts like an 'entangled' whole of events occurring in different parts of space that only has the common denominator of a type of common atomic units (particular neuron or cellular design structure TYPE) PLUS a common dynamic process that occurs in the same time, which defines the sensation of consciousness as the activity of the physical TYPE to include its present activity.

For example, two identical twins can have some common identity in their neurons even though they are two different beings. The activity of both occurring simultaneously are a defined reality with respect to Nature, even though we don't interpret this as meaning they can read each other's thoughts. BUT, when in the presence of one another, they can communicate their thoughts using language and the act of this received by both CONFIRM the prior thoughts they held distinctly.

This, to me is the concept "consciousness" on a logical level. It means, by extension, that all things in reality can have this 'sensation'. Two electrons separated in space anywhere then would be defined as 'conscious' in that they share a common physical set of 'laws' of structure. That they can coexist simultaneously in some larger space, like the universe as a whole, means that the FACT that they exist in the same larger space in the same time, makes them share in common something more than say, an electron, in some other time interval. The closer in common each structure is that includes time as a dimensional factor, the more 'conscious' they are of one another. This still doesn't define OUR kind of consciousness in that the fact of them coexisting cannot 'know' of the other until they contact each other.

But when the contact occurs, the history of both paths are 'linked' in a logical way such that they 'confirm' their prior places going backwards in time. The 'confirmation' is our kind of sensation of consciousness.

An example proof of this is the brain separation operations undergone by some with epilepsy. When the brain is separated by the connections of two halves, they two halves seem to have distinct consciousnesses. This split is only due to the fact they cannot communicate with each other, right? But it is more. If they cannot communicate directly in this way, the 'conscious' state relative to that connection is split. There is, however, a larger logical 'consciousness' that DOES eventually do this for these people though after one half of the brain uses other indirect means to communicate, such as the left-side controlling the right arm to 'confirm' or 'deny' something expressed by the right-side controlling the sensations of the left side of the body. For instance, if the right-side doesn't like something the left side did, it might smack the body that is in touch with the right-side. While this demonstrates a separate identity, once this communication by one or both sides occurs, the state of 'consciousness' is confirmed backwards in time and 'felt' as though it were still one essence.

So, consciousness is 'weird' because we don't have any local single point in space where this is 'felt'. To me this says that 'consciousness' is of these three factors: (1)common structure, (2)common activity, and (3)confirmation by meeting up the energy of each of its parts at some later time. The closer the time interval of confirmation, the MORE conscious these things are. The more common their structure, the more conscious they are, and the more common their activity is in to the 'objective' simultaneous events, the more 'conscious' they are.

It also means that consciousness is a relative factor. Each of our organs, for instance, may have common syncopated 'consciousness' or awareness among its cells for having the same structure. Take the heart, for instance, the brain may signal some local part of it to initiate the distinct cells of the heart to get into common frequency. Once this state occurs, the heart that pumps in sync, their common cellular function, AND the fact that they CAN communicate to each other as the energy of each are closely connected, suggest that the heart acts as a 'conscious' entity during these times. During a heart attack such as that which makes it defibrillate out of sync, the heart loses 'consciousness'.

Our brain turns off the conscious state of that which we assume is who we are when we sleep, for instance, because they separate their timing to do 'cleanup' functions that close off any emphasis of external phenomena. The cells then become distinct multiple self-conscious entities but NOT of our normal awakened state. We might even be 'aware' of the extended phenomena of our senses peripheral to the brain during consciousness as well during wakeful states and can be similar to one who might 'feel' the extended state of their car on the road when they get well accustomed to driving it.

This is my interpretation of consciousness. I don't find it 'weird' in a logical sense because the larger universe itself holds the facts of reality as its own 'memory' and knowledge of its structures of its parts, etc.

EDIT addition: AND....there can be distinct 'consciousnesses' of the same things too. So we may have a conscious 'being' that only interprets its reality as all it can 'feel' not knowing of the other. When we sleep, we may have a complex conjoining type of consciousness also. For instance, the dream-states we have could be a mixed consciousness. Certainly when we feel these dreams as they are occurring, it often seems 'sensible' to us until we fully awaken and look back wondering how we could presume something 'normal' about our partial thinking during the dream.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Consciousness question

Post by Dimebag » Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:46 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:33 pm
This is likely related. I'm not aware of the particular terminology that some have opted to use. But what I mean is consciousness acts like an 'entangled' whole of events occurring in different parts of space that only has the common denominator of a type of common atomic units (particular neuron or cellular design structure TYPE) PLUS a common dynamic process that occurs in the same time, which defines the sensation of consciousness as the activity of the physical TYPE to include its present activity.
Okay, so your concept of what underlies the unity of consciousness is common Neuron types (we know of many now), combined with a common dynamic process I.e. common content. When these two factors are satisfied, this allows some kind of communication to occur, binding the two together, and the result is a subjective conscious event.

Does this binding require a direct or indirect connection between the two processes via an axon communicating action potentials, or can this occur without any communication medium? I’m trying to understand if you are trying to implicate quantum non-locality or entanglement into this explanation. If what you mean is the two processes have a shared firing pattern communicate via axons I think that’s correct. If you mean the two firing patterns don’t require some kind of direct or indirect connection via axons to synchronise their firing patterns, as far as I know there is no evidence of this yet. We know the brain also uses neurotransmitters to make broader changes to large areas of the brain which don’t require direct connection, but I don’t think that’s what you are getting at.
“Scott Mayers” wrote:Two electrons separated in space anywhere then would be defined as 'conscious' in that they share a common physical set of 'laws' of structure. That they can coexist simultaneously in some larger space, like the universe as a whole, means that the FACT that they exist in the same larger space in the same time, makes them share in common something more than say, an electron, in some other time interval. The closer in common each structure is that includes time as a dimensional factor, the more 'conscious' they are of one another. This still doesn't define OUR kind of consciousness in that the fact of them coexisting cannot 'know' of the other until they contact each other.
So are you saying here you think all electrons are somehow entangled? From my limited knowledge of quantum physics, I thought for two electrons to be entangled the must have been in direct contact previously to become entangled. Furthermore, once they become entangled their property of spins will be found to be opposite, not the same. So they are connected in that they are two direct opposites of each other. I’m not sure how this analogy translates to the Neuron explanation previously.

Correct me if I’m missing something here.
“Scott Mayers” wrote:But when the contact occurs, the history of both paths are 'linked' in a logical way such that they 'confirm' their prior places going backwards in time. The 'confirmation' is our kind of sensation of consciousness.
Okay, now this is getting weird, I know quantum physics is weird, but what you do next kind of mystifies me in an intriguing way.
“Scott Mayers” wrote:An example proof of this is the brain separation operations undergone by some with epilepsy. When the brain is separated by the connections of two halves, they two halves seem to have distinct consciousnesses. This split is only due to the fact they cannot communicate with each other, right? But it is more. If they cannot communicate directly in this way, the 'conscious' state relative to that connection is split. There is, however, a larger logical 'consciousness' that DOES eventually do this for these people though after one half of the brain uses other indirect means to communicate, such as the left-side controlling the right arm to 'confirm' or 'deny' something expressed by the right-side controlling the sensations of the left side of the body. For instance, if the right-side doesn't like something the left side did, it might smack the body that is in touch with the right-side. While this demonstrates a separate identity, once this communication by one or both sides occurs, the state of 'consciousness' is confirmed backwards in time and 'felt' as though it were still one essence.
Now this is pretty weird, what you are implicating here is some kind of quantum collapse which occurs between separated brain areas, and the way the collapse is initiated between two separate brain areas is via contact from one hand to the other, which somehow “completes the circuit” between the separate halves via the indirect path from brain half to nerve to arm, to other arm, travelling back up the other arm and back to the other separate half hemisphere? And once the contact occurs, the separate conscious experiences then collapse into a single whole, backwards in time (so as to erase any evidence of the separate experiences)? Like I said, intriguing, but a bit to science fiction for my liking. You are implicating some seriously quantum properties to a system which has not shown to possess such things. I hope you understand my criticism. The creativity you display in your theory is wonderful, however I’m not sure it’s grounded in reality. I think you will have to expand a bit more for us.

So what entangled those two separated halves? They don’t share common process or identity? Why should they be entangled? Previously in the first example it was the common or identical processes which caused the entanglement, so this seems inconsistent to that example.

It’s interesting because this shares concepts with Daniel Dennett’s multiple drafts theory, where later information can affect previous information, however I don’t think he was implying backwards causality, but rathe the way they brain creates time snapshots, and can update information between those snapshots. But I think here you are implying more than that.

I’m not going to go into the rest of your post till you shed a bit more light here. Once again, I appreciate your post, but confess I am somewhat bewildered.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Consciousness question

Post by Scott Mayers » Sun Apr 21, 2019 1:30 am

Dimebag wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:46 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:33 pm
This is likely related. I'm not aware of the particular terminology that some have opted to use. But what I mean is consciousness acts like an 'entangled' whole of events occurring in different parts of space that only has the common denominator of a type of common atomic units (particular neuron or cellular design structure TYPE) PLUS a common dynamic process that occurs in the same time, which defines the sensation of consciousness as the activity of the physical TYPE to include its present activity.
Okay, so your concept of what underlies the unity of consciousness is common Neuron types (we know of many now), combined with a common dynamic process I.e. common content. When these two factors are satisfied, this allows some kind of communication to occur, binding the two together, and the result is a subjective conscious event.

Does this binding require a direct or indirect connection between the two processes via an axon communicating action potentials, or can this occur without any communication medium? I’m trying to understand if you are trying to implicate quantum non-locality or entanglement into this explanation. If what you mean is the two processes have a shared firing pattern communicate via axons I think that’s correct. If you mean the two firing patterns don’t require some kind of direct or indirect connection via axons to synchronise their firing patterns, as far as I know there is no evidence of this yet. We know the brain also uses neurotransmitters to make broader changes to large areas of the brain which don’t require direct connection, but I don’t think that’s what you are getting at.
You are correctly interpreting me in your words. But you seem to be confused at the nature of the concept of 'confirmation' being the primary means to assure the consciousness occurred in the past. I already read your whole post and so am answering to some of the other points. First, I agree to the Daniel Dennett's explanation but prefer my own without the excess of jargon already pre-established. I find it confusing to favor another's specific definitions within the field without the needed investment to read all the relevant sources, something I find unnecessary when I think I already understand it.

With respect to reality, time itself is accessible both forward and backwards as they are 'deterministically' linked. The 'indeterminacy' can be resolved by a multi-verse rather than a collapsed state of the Copenhagen interpretation. As such, I think that the paths through time are what connects them either forward or backwards. If all possibilities exist where universes exist in parallel, they don't just diverge as we already assume, but converge. The lines through time are just what connect them logically and what I believe makes them relate 'backwards'.

There is a study whereby people are asked to answer distinct multiple question (binary ones, I believe?) such that they timed the responses. What was deemed to have occurred was that the responses seemed to be prior to that actual thought which suggests a backwards 'confirmation' that I'm thinking of. The timing has to be closer in time as it is in space. (proximal)

For a more clear example was a study of two identically constructed clocks placed on a wall. This likely was observed by accident at first. The phenomena was described such that no matter how you set the initial timing of the clocks, when on the same wall, the pendulum of each ends up swinging in sync and in opposite phase. I'd like to see this done with multiple clocks and other such experiments to be more certain of how. This should answer to you that I agree that the distinct events don't require being identically in phase but require having the same amplitude. I guess you might think of lasers doing this in the creation of the beam where they bounce back and forth light of the same frequency until they align, strengthen and reach the point of overcoming the reflective component of the mirror. [I'm not sure of the transister's laser but to the original versions using glass with one side having a half mirror that requires enough intensity to pass through.]
Dimebag wrote:
“Scott Mayers” wrote:Two electrons separated in space anywhere then would be defined as 'conscious' in that they share a common physical set of 'laws' of structure. That they can coexist simultaneously in some larger space, like the universe as a whole, means that the FACT that they exist in the same larger space in the same time, makes them share in common something more than say, an electron, in some other time interval. The closer in common each structure is that includes time as a dimensional factor, the more 'conscious' they are of one another. This still doesn't define OUR kind of consciousness in that the fact of them coexisting cannot 'know' of the other until they contact each other.
So are you saying here you think all electrons are somehow entangled? From my limited knowledge of quantum physics, I thought for two electrons to be entangled the must have been in direct contact previously to become entangled. Furthermore, once they become entangled their property of spins will be found to be opposite, not the same. So they are connected in that they are two direct opposites of each other. I’m not sure how this analogy translates to the Neuron explanation previously.

Correct me if I’m missing something here.

This may be answered for you above. I need to point out that entangled particles are assumed to 'communicate' to each other instantaneously AFTER they are entangled. The Bell experiments were intended to show that. Einstein, along with Podolski and Rosen, were arguing what you just said...that the 'hidden' means were predetermined by their initial source. The Bell experiments, though I think there is an error on that, was meant to show that all options exist UNTIL you observe one of those entangled spins. As soon as this is discovered, the entangled partner no longer in connection, seem to 'communicate' to the other to spin in the opposing direction. [I did try to discuss this here before beginning with the concern with the math as exemplified by the Monty Hall problem and other statistical paradoxical puzzles. So you could search my content for that to start. At least if you understand the problem, you can then follow the Bell experiment that uses the exact same statistics to determine this.]
Dimebag wrote:
“Scott Mayers” wrote:But when the contact occurs, the history of both paths are 'linked' in a logical way such that they 'confirm' their prior places going backwards in time. The 'confirmation' is our kind of sensation of consciousness.
Okay, now this is getting weird, I know quantum physics is weird, but what you do next kind of mystifies me in an intriguing way.
“Scott Mayers” wrote:An example proof of this is the brain separation operations undergone by some with epilepsy. When the brain is separated by the connections of two halves, they two halves seem to have distinct consciousnesses. This split is only due to the fact they cannot communicate with each other, right? But it is more. If they cannot communicate directly in this way, the 'conscious' state relative to that connection is split. There is, however, a larger logical 'consciousness' that DOES eventually do this for these people though after one half of the brain uses other indirect means to communicate, such as the left-side controlling the right arm to 'confirm' or 'deny' something expressed by the right-side controlling the sensations of the left side of the body. For instance, if the right-side doesn't like something the left side did, it might smack the body that is in touch with the right-side. While this demonstrates a separate identity, once this communication by one or both sides occurs, the state of 'consciousness' is confirmed backwards in time and 'felt' as though it were still one essence.
Now this is pretty weird, what you are implicating here is some kind of quantum collapse which occurs between separated brain areas, and the way the collapse is initiated between two separate brain areas is via contact from one hand to the other, which somehow “completes the circuit” between the separate halves via the indirect path from brain half to nerve to arm, to other arm, travelling back up the other arm and back to the other separate half hemisphere? And once the contact occurs, the separate conscious experiences then collapse into a single whole, backwards in time (so as to erase any evidence of the separate experiences)? Like I said, intriguing, but a bit to science fiction for my liking. You are implicating some seriously quantum properties to a system which has not shown to possess such things. I hope you understand my criticism. The creativity you display in your theory is wonderful, however I’m not sure it’s grounded in reality. I think you will have to expand a bit more for us.

So what entangled those two separated halves? They don’t share common process or identity? Why should they be entangled? Previously in the first example it was the common or identical processes which caused the entanglement, so this seems inconsistent to that example.

It’s interesting because this shares concepts with Daniel Dennett’s multiple drafts theory, where later information can affect previous information, however I don’t think he was implying backwards causality, but rathe the way they brain creates time snapshots, and can update information between those snapshots. But I think here you are implying more than that.

I’m not going to go into the rest of your post till you shed a bit more light here. Once again, I appreciate your post, but confess I am somewhat bewildered.
As responded in the last point, you are correct that they had an initially shared origin somewhere. For electrons, this may be some common origin such as a Big Bang or simply by the fact of their cause by some common logical connection: the laws of the electron's formations.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Consciousness question

Post by Scott Mayers » Sun Apr 21, 2019 1:35 am

P.S. Note that I have not looked up the particular resources to link for you. I can try to do this but prefer to at least speak them without reference based on memory alone. I'm not a formally educated graduate and so lack the practice of research etiquette. So if you question these, start by checking yourself and if you can't find them, I'll try to check myself. As long as you're patient I'll try to back these up later post asserting them as 'factual'. I have a horrible memory of specifics but hold onto the theoretical underlying concepts fairly well.

Update: Huygens synchronization clock experiments. This is a source for the clocks that synchronize with each other when they have the same frequency and structure.

Another one link on the same is https://phys.org/news/2016-03-huygens-p ... ation.html
Note the last paragraph that mentions epilepsy here. I didn't know this but I'm sure it relates to my points. It says,
Epilepsy attacks

That such an effect has kept scientists fascinated for a good 350 years is partly due to the fact that many similar occurrences of synchronization are present in engineering and in nature, like imbalanced rotor motion or the human heartbeat. There are also indications that certain epileptic attacks are caused by the synchronization of neurons that takes place in the brain.
Maybe the surgery involving the epilepsy semi-hemispherectomy (spelling?) suggests something more than my point suggests alone. If they is too much activity 'in sync', maybe this acts like the laser's escape from the semi-reflective side. When the synchronized activity is too strong, such as for too much brain activity at once, the epileptic brain gets overloaded?
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.