Consciousness and the mind/brain problem

[ronchamblin]

Post by Stephen Dare:

“Meh.  If we are going to have a discussion about this, then I think we should identify the leaps of faith that you would like for us to take in accepting your seemingly factual assertion about consciousness.

I for one, would be glad to listen to some objective discussion that there is 'higher' consciousness' that is separate from simple 'consciousness'.

Ron, Im afraid that I consider these unfactual statements as a bit of a religious belief, personally.

How exactly are you gauging 'consciousness' as opposed to 'processing power'”

Since the mind/brain/consciousness/AI/robotics interests of the two threads with keywords Caltech and IBM have drifted to the subject of consciousness, I hope nobody minds if I have started a new thread titled as shown, while referring to some posts from these two earlier threads.

Hopefully Stephen, by way of good communication we can lessen the need for leaps of faith, because to engage it too much might tend to weaken our ability to understand.  Of course we cannot “touch” consciousness or obtain an “image” of it.  But let’s see where some discussion leads.

Although I do not at this stage believe that a “higher” consciousness exists, let’s engage the idea now, since your interest lies there, before getting into what you call simple consciousness.  First, I presume that by “simple consciousness” you are referring to the consciousness within an individual, such as a human.  And I assume also that by “higher” consciousness, you are referring to a consciousness located outside of the individual human.   

Before we go too far, and to insure that we are on the same page, let’s agree upon a quick description of the idea of consciousness, as related to the human individual.  Then we can talk about your interest of “higher” consciousness.

Consciousness can be described as both a state and a process.  Whatever an individual is aware of during any one moment exists within one’s consciousness.  If an energy scenario representing a particular image does not exist within one’s consciousness during a particular moment, then one is not aware of the image during that moment.  In other words, if you are aware of something during any one moment, the energy scenario representing that “something” exists within your consciousness during that moment.  For now, let’s end our admittedly inadequate and short description of consciousness so that we might discuss why I think that the idea of a “higher” consciousness allows me to say that the idea results from one’s wish to enjoy the mysterious, and has no basis in fact.

Whereas I have some understanding of the nature of our individual consciousness, including the related attributes of memory and recall, I must admit that I have no evidence of the existence of any kind of “higher consciousness”, and therefore have only very few thoughts about it. 

If we were to agree that the location of individual consciousness is located within our brains, and that any “higher” consciousness is not, then we might ask the question as to where it is.  Surely, if it existed, it would lie outside of the human body, and could conceivably exist at a point of great distance from the human body, or in one of the otherworldly mysterious places having to do with multiverses or other worlds or other space/time realities, etc.

Whereas our own consciousness emerges by way of the electrochemical neuronal activity within our brains, thereby giving the location of our consciousness, the idea of a higher consciousness allows me to ask not only about its location, but to also ask about the method of transmitting any meaningful energies between any higher consciousness and our consciousness.  I must say that at present I cannot understand the method of energy transmission within or between any entities involved in a “higher” consciousness; that is, if any kind of “higher” consciousness existed. 

We should not be satisfied with assuming that communication is accomplished by some mysterious means, outside of the physical laws we’ve come to anticipate and understand so well.  We know that to have useful communication between two entities, we must not only transmit and receive energy across space, but the energy must carry, or have upon it, some kind of meaningful data which means the same thing to both entities involved in communicating; in our example, both the “higher” consciousness and the individual consciousness.

As an analogy, in radio terms we give meaning to the RF energy transmitted from the radio station by placing upon it, before sending it on its way, a voice modulation of some kind, either Morse code (non voice), amplitude modulation (AM), or frequency modulation (FM).  Therefore, on this radio wave, traveling to any radio receiver, is meaningful information. Upon receiving the radio wave energy, the receiver then “demodulates” the radio wave energy, thereby completing the task of transmitting information from “A” to “B”.

My reason for illustrating this radio process is to offer my insistence that for any “meaningful” information to be transmitted from “A” to “B”, both must understand the same language.  If there is to be any interaction between any “higher” consciousness and our individual consciousness, there must be a common language.  Otherwise, what means something to one, will be noise to another.

To suggest some mysterious transmission from some “higher” consciousness to “us” is interesting for all to contemplate, and quite believable to those who wish and need engagement with some otherworldly essence.  But until someone can explain to me the method of transmission of “meaningful” data, over distance, between two entities that have no method of interpreting the same meaning from the transmitted energy, I will simply avoid contemplating it with any seriousness.

And besides, there is absolutely no evidence of any transmissions between any individual and an entity outside of the individual, other than through our normal senses of sight, sound, tactile etc, as used in our everyday lives.

The failure of communicating between an individual and any “higher” consciousness, or some kind of “god” is a result of the absence of any physical principle allowing it.  We can look into the sky and wish it upon us; that is, the communication to or from some mysterious consciousness or “god”, but there has never been any evidence of it happening, and it has never happened because the principles of physics will not allow it. 

We “can” transmit and receive meaningful information via radio wave energy, and via energy throughout most of the electromagnetic spectrum.  However, this is only because we have modulated voice or other data on the transmitting end, and stand ready to demodulate on the receiving end, thereby successfully transmitting meaningful information, music etc.

Let me put it this way.  We humans receive meaningful data in the form of light wave energy, in the form of sound vibrations, by our sense of smell, by our tactile abilities etc.  Once this sensory input enters into our unique system, our central nervous system, and our brains, it assumes a structure, or energy pattern, that is “unique” to our central nervous system, our brain, our “self”, and unintelligible to all other entities.  Because the energy patterns representing meaningful data are unique to a particular individual, it is no longer accessible by any other entity.  It is private to us.  Our thoughts are ours only, thank goodness.  And when we choose to allow others to know of what we’ve been thinking, or what we’ve just interpreted from some sensory input, we do so willfully by way of our voice ability, or by way or physical movements.

So, please Stephen, if you can do so, explain to me the method of transmission of “meaningful information” between us humans; that is, our consciousness, and any imagined entity such as a “higher” consciousness, or some kind of “god”.  Because without any evidence of the existence of a kind of communication you might anticipate regarding a “higher” consciousness, and without any explanation of a possible “method” of placing “meaningful information” on any “carrier energy” conveyed between us and any other entity, I will have to remain in my current state of unbelieving the existence of a “higher” consciousness, or any form of “god” in the mysterious outer world; that is, with which we can communicate on any level.  In other words, what good is a “higher” consciousness if there is no method of communication with it.  What good is a “god” if there is no method of communication with it.  We can wish and hope all day.  We can delude ourselves all day.  The preachers can delude themselves and their church members all day. 

Can we assume that there is a “higher” consciousness, or a god up there somewhere, even though we have never communicated with one (both ways), nor experienced any evidence of any of it?  Sure we could believe in the existence of a higher consciousness or a god, as indeed many people continue to do.  Is it good for mankind to do so?  Is it productive or useful? Or is it wasteful?  Or is it dangerous?  And does it for the most part ultimately cause suffering?  If we wish hard enough, we can believe almost anything.  If our needs and desperation is powerful enough, we can accomplish relief by any means, including the belief that our relief and comfort is the result of our talking to our god, or the result or our engaging some “higher” consciousness. 

These otherworldly engagements are fun and almost exciting for some, and almost a necessity to others, as it allows them to achieve and maintain a reasonably sound world view, and a reasonable level of comfort and stability of mind.  However, I admire most those who seek comfort and stability by engaging rational thought and objectivity, which not only allows for greater ability to solve more of the important problems in our world, but it also allows avoidance of the waste in time, energy, and money that others spend as they support entities engaged in perpetuating superstitions, fictions and delusions; all of which are of course directly opposed to rational thought, and rational behavior.

But, who am I to judge how one should think about things?  It is somewhat scary though when one thinks about how many of those individuals tending toward superstitions and delusions, and thereby obviously less inclined to rational and objective thought, are in our governments and in high positions of power.         
 
In summary, communication between two entities not only requires energy transmission, but the energy must be embedded with meaningful data.  Noise is not enough.

Sorry Stephen, about the digression into my ignorance about any “higher” consciousness.  We can return to the idea of individual consciousness later.  And I will attempt to answer your other issues.   

[SuZi-Rok]

I'm with stephen 

[ronchamblin]

Thanks  Ron for your thoughtful opening.

Im actually thinking in the opposite direction, insofar as your remarks addressed to my posts are concerned.

It is difficult to see any real difference in terms of 'consciousness' between humans and trees.

It is easy to assume that they are alive and self aware since they share life with us, and I personally do not make the assumption that consciousness resides solely in the developed brains of Humans, primates, Cephalopods, elephants, pigs or dolphins.

Now this is a separate issue from intelligence or perhaps even sentience.

But to your question, I certainly believe that there is room in the cosmos for a much greater intelligence, a higher consciousness---perhaps gifted with sensory powers beyond the scope of our imagination ---that can exist in the multiverses simultaneously or at least perceive them.

I think it is ludicrous to believe ourselves the highest form of consciousness by merit of our successful strategies in breeding and energy transmission.

"It is difficult to see any real difference in terms of 'consciousness' between humans and trees."

Given that both of you; that is, Stephen and SuZi-Rok, admit to the above statement, I find myself in the position of wanting to assist you both in understanding the difference.  First of all, do you both understand what a neuron is; that is, its basic structure and what it does? 

[SuZi-Rok]

not really. i'm kind of dut-ta-duh. i do think that there is a a higher consciousness. that's why i'm with stephen. 

[ronchamblin]

Thanks for being honest SuZi-Rok, in admitting that you are ignorant about something.  That’s an indication that you are not stupid.  I do know that I am ignorant about too many things.

You’ve said that you were “with Stephen” in believing that there is some kind of higher consciousness or intelligence.  I realize that you’ve not indicated your position about the human vs tree consciousness, as stated by Stephen, but I will assume for the time being that you agree with him on this question also.

Stephen’s Quote:
“It is difficult to see any real difference in terms of ‘consciousness’ between humans and trees.”

The reason I brought up the question of the neuron is because it forms a very important part of the central nervous system, within which lies our brains.  The neuron serves not only to transmit sensory inputs to the brain, and motor outputs to the muscles, but the neurons within the brain configure massive and complex switching networks, which of course allows us to think, to store and recall our memories.  The brain consists of about 100 billion neurons of several hundred types.  Each neuron has many extensions which make synaptic connections with other neurons, forming something similar to a gigantic computer.  There are about 1,000 trillion synaptic connections between all the neurons in the brain, thus allowing this complexity to produce the mind, and the attribute of consciousness, which “is” us.

Have you two ever seen a neuron, or any similar structure that might convey impulses or information, or might configure switching networks, in a tree?  Have you seen a tree exhibit any behavior indicating it is conscious of its surroundings; to the degree that it interacts with its environment as does a conscious person?  Have you seen any evidence that a tree sees a threat, and then reacts to it?  If there is any type of minuscule consciousness in a tree, then won’t you agree that it is so small in relation to that of a human, that it is absurd to make a statement such as: “It is difficult to see any real difference in terms of ‘consciousness’ between humans and trees.”?  If a statement like this is actually believed by an individual, it indicates a lack in the knowledge of the sciences.
   
But …….. onward to another statement made by both Stephen and SuZi-Rok, basically stating that “I believe that there is some kind of a higher consciousness or intelligence in the universe or multiverses.”

I “can” believe that there is a high probability of a higher intelligence somewhere in the universe.  For this to be true requires only that another solar system has been in existence for a few hundred million years more than ours.  So there is no argument there.

But my problem lies with the statement about there being a higher consciousness somewhere in the universe, or one of the possible universes.  Most individuals used to critical and rational thinking must have some evidence of something in order to believe it is true.  Anyone believing in a higher form of consciousness will tend to believe that “anything” is possible.

I agree also that it is possible for “anything” to exist, but I like to factor in the “probability” of something existing so that I can limit my beliefs to the higher probabilities.  Knowledge of the sciences allows one to factor in the “probability” of something existing or not existing.

Gentlemen (and ladies assuming SuZi-Rok is a female of the species), we are not in the dark ages or living in the time of the caveman.  These people had a good excuse to believe “anything” was possible, as they had no knowledge of the sciences.  It is understandable for these ancients to believe in a god, or gods, or many gods in some cases.  And, if one thinks about it, a god, even the most common god in vogue in this country, could be considered to be a form of a higher consciousness.  After all, it is rumored that some individuals, mostly preachers and priests, and a few of the more able church members, are able to communicate with this higher consciousness, even against the laws of physics, as we discussed earlier in this thread.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, frequently at the encouragement of the church systems, thousands of women were burned as witches because many god fearing people, by their ignorance, tended to believe “anything was possible”.  These same people believed in a god, in a higher consciousness.

So…..  Stephen and SuZi-Rok, I must admit that I am disappointed that both of you can subscribe to the human/tree/consciousness statement above, as it indicates to me that you are, by way of ignorance, allowing yourselves to be in some respects “like” the early cultures who believed in many gods, and that women who acted funny, were witches.

We adults should do all we can to discourage a culture wherein people believe that “anything” is possible, such as communicating with some “higher consciousness” or some “god”, when the laws of the universe make it impossible to do so.  Our troubled times requires rational thought, objectivity, and our feet on the ground.  We certainly do not need more people encouraging others to “believe anything is possible”; that is, without qualifying beliefs by measuring the probabilities of that belief, because a failure to do so only stagnates our society, preventing its improvement, and even takes us backwards, toward the stone age.
 
This is the 21st century.  We are in trouble.  Our country, our world, is in trouble, and it is not because too many people have sinned against some god, or that anyone has turned from any god.  It is because of the excess of ignorance and greed in too many of us fine human types.  We do not need as voters, as politicians â€" irrational and ignorant individuals who “believe anything is possible”.

Is there any evidence that anyone, anywhere, at any time in the past, ever communicated with a higher consciousness, or with a god?  The bible might say so, but as most rational people know, it is a book full of myths, inaccuracies and untruths.   
 

[ChriswUfGator]

You guys are really arguing over where the line is on the scale of functional capacity between merely functioning and actual consciousness. I don't think there's an answer on what amount of processing power is required to support consciousness. Obviously we have not made it there with modern computers, which I suspect are woefully inadequate. As to whether there's a "higher consciousness" and whether we can create it in a theoretical sense, of course we can. What else do you think is happening when a baby pops out? The stork didn't drop it off, a human made it. I see no reason why you couldn't create non-biological consciousness, absent technological limitations.

[ChriswUfGator]

Ron, let me ask you something, do you have a dog?

[ronchamblin]

You guys are really arguing over where the line is on the scale of functional capacity between merely functioning and actual consciousness. I don't think there's an answer on what amount of processing power is required to support consciousness. Obviously we have not made it there with modern computers, which I suspect are woefully inadequate. As to whether there's a "higher consciousness" and whether we can create it in a theoretical sense, of course we can. What else do you think is happening when a baby pops out? The stork didn't drop it off, a human made it. I see no reason why you couldn't create non-biological consciousness, absent technological limitations.

Correct.  I see no gain in discussing the consciousness of a tree at this point, primarily because it has no “actual” consciousness as compared to the higher animals; an opinion expressed by you.  Thank you.

And I agree that there is not much gain in discussing how much processing power is required to support consciousness other than to suggest that it is much higher than that offered by a tree.

I assume you mean that when there is a birth, then a “new” consciousness, not a “higher” consciousness, is created.  I agree that we humans in one sense “made” the new birth by the normal association between the sexes, but of course, the creation of the new birth, the new consciousness, is the result of the natural process of the chemical and biological mechanisms at work over many millions of years of evolution.

I’ve thought for years that it will be possible to create a non-biological consciousness, but it will be decades down the road.

But… my other interest and concern.  I’ve attempted to convince some that to engage excessively and carelessly, not just on this forum, but all over this country, the offering of high flights of imagination and into the world of “anything is possible”, without the restraint of the probabilities as given by one’s knowledge of the sciences, could be contributing to the encouragement of mediocrity in this forum and, if one wished to extend the influence, to the cultivation of mediocrity of thought in our population, and thus contributing to many of our problems in this country. 

We should not promote or encourage a type of thinking that ignores science, as to do so will encourage the cultivation of a spreading population of sheep who, by way of their ignorance, are able and willing to follow and support politicians who are charismatic idiots, and any charismatic evangelical charlatans of the likes of the former high riding Jimmy Swaggart, the former Jerry Falwell, and the current Joel Osteen and Pat Robertson, to name only a few of the many.

But, no..... I have no dog at the moment, only a cat.  And he doesn't think.

But…….. back to the idea of the consciousness of the individual.  I will rest for the moment on the subject.

[SuZi-Rok]

There ya go dude! This is a good book I read
http://www.vonward.com/images/GG_C_PVWOverview_.pdf

[ronchamblin]

Thanks SuZi-Rok.  I read the author’s overview.  As I’ve mentioned earlier, I place the probability of there being extraterrestrials, or Advanced Beings (AB’s) pretty high, as it is highly probable that another planet, in another solar system, around another sun, either in our galaxy or in another, will have started its evolution of atmosphere and animal life perhaps tens of millions of years before ours began.  Imagine where our science and technology will be in 40 million years.  Therefore, it is highly probable that these beings, having the 40 million year head start, will have achieved intergalactic travel abilities.  All of these apparent “sightings” of UFO’s and related phenomena may actually be some of these “visitors”.
   
So, Mr. Von Ward seems to be on a good track as far as I’m concerned.  He is suggesting that the evidence shows earlier visitations by Advanced Beings perhaps thousands of years ago. If I understand correctly he states that it is possible that many of the beliefs regarding the existence of the gods in vogue today could be the result of human interaction with these Advanced Beings, and that during the evolution of these memories, the history of the era has turned into myth.

It would be quite interesting to live during the time when one of these Advanced Beings actually decides to “make contact” with us in a formal way, other than the rumored “sightings” or “abductions”.  Perhaps they would be kind enough to inform us of their earlier contact with humans, or pre-humans.  We could then possibly verify the origins of some of the gods many of us currently worship.  We could perhaps verify which parts of the Christian bible are true, as I’m sure there are some parts that would survive comparison to what these AB’s would convey to us.

But.. back to the idea of communicating with an AB.  I presume at this point that even they, in spite of their 40 million year head start in science and technology, would have to abide by the laws of physics, or of the universe, and therefore would not be able to communicate with us via extrasensory means, but only by way of sound, or visual or physical methods.  Although I have in my life, at perhaps three instances, “heard voices”, although in a subdued and silent manner, and not being in the medium of the air so that others might also hear, I suspect that the “voice” was coming from within my own head, from my own ability to imagine and form words and thoughts.  Although there is a tendency for me to ascribe the voices to something outside of myself, to another being, I choose to believe it is only “me” â€" for the time being.

And I suspect that this “voice from the void” experience might have happened to the various religious prophets who concluded that the voice was from a higher being or a “god”.  But… who knows.  Perhaps many thousands of years ago, one of these Advanced Beings conveyed, by way of normal sound transmission, some of the material that ultimately was used to form certain aspects of the our various religions.  Was it a god, as many would like to believe, or, as suggested in some measure by Mr. Von Ward, simply an Advanced Being on a camping excursion from his spacecraft playing around with the Neanderthals or similar creatures?

[ronchamblin]

Thanks Stephen, for your engagement of the idea of consciousness.  I just viewed for the first time the video you posted titled “New Science: The Brain Recreated”.  Although somewhat interesting, it indicates that we still do not have a “model” of how the brain functions to allow the behavior of the mind.  The ideas in the video are the same as thrown around for decades, none of them offering a model of brain function into which we can place all the experimental results we’ve accumulated over decades of work.  The TED fellow, although sounding intelligent, has offered little new insight into brain function.  He is correct however in stressing the importance of discovering or forming a “model” of brain function.

My interest has been to use introspection and logic to arrive at some possible structures of brain function that can be used in forming the model we have sought over the past decades.  For now I am inclined to address some of your comments as below.

Your quote:

“oh come on ron.  If we are going to be newtonian 'real' here, what the heck do you think you are if not a hive intelligence in the first place?”

Your idea suggesting that we, as individuals, function by way of having some form of “hive intelligence” algorithm within us is interesting.  It seems to me however that whereas the concept and reality of hive intelligence applies easily to the behavior and accomplishments of flocks, schools, and swarms of separate individual animals such as birds, fish, and ants, and in certain computer algorithms in artificial intelligence applications, and even in groups of humans, I cannot yet see clearly the application of the dynamics of hive intelligence to the workings of the mind/brain in the human or in the other higher animals.
 
For clarification, we might establish that we are talking about independent systems such as a flock of birds, hives of bees, colonies of ants, swarms of insects, and “individual animals”, each existing as entities performing or causing certain behaviors or certain results.  The animal is a single entity, and for our purpose, the hive of bees or the colony of ants, or the robotic artificial intelligence, also represent single entities, all of which move in one direction at a time and, accepting for the most part the AI of a human designed robot, can perform only one major task during any one moment.  In other words, the hive intelligence emerging in a flock of birds, causes the flock to move in only one direction during any one moment.  The ant colony moves in only one direction, or accomplishes a certain goal or behavior as a result of its “swarm intelligence”. 

I admit that the behavior of these flocks and colonies is very impressive.  I assume that, especially for birds and fish, the communication between all members of the flock or school is accomplished by vision and physical movements, and by sound or sonic waves.  Is that your understanding, or do you suspect some other kind of communication, such as extrasensory, or some kind of energy transmission between the members that is out of the ordinary?

You are suggesting that I am, or any individual, is in some way a hive intelligence.  Are you saying that there is a hive intelligence functional method within the brain, perhaps forming part of a model of brain function?  Forgive me but I don’t know what you mean by this statement.  Could you explain what you mean?