Why Great Minds Can't Grasp Consciousness

LiveScience.com ^ | 8-8-05 | Ker Than

[mlo]

Shoot, I've already got this figured out. But I'm not telling those guys.

[HangnJudge]

Part of the mystery and excitement about consciousness is that scientists don't know what form the final answer will take.

Part of the basic conundrum of reason
We understand the Universe through reason but
a basic tenet of logic is that a thing can not be used to explain itself
reason cannot explain itself

[tallhappy]

Erwin Schrodinger's Mind and Matter is an early work in this field -- ie a speculative essay.

Crick and Koch tried to look at this, but generally seemed to more be examining perception than consciousness.

The point about mind vs consciousness is a very good point and central to the problem in this field -- what is actually being studied to be understtod isn't defined.

[hinckley buzzard]

Classical systems theory postulates that there is a hierarchy of levels of systemic complexity, and that each higher level will have emergent properties which cannot be predicted or explained by the principles which operate at lower levels.

By this reckoning, consciousness as an attribute of the human nervous system is likely an emergent property which cannot be explained except at a level of complexity higher still--whatever that might be.

[Getready]

That's correct, you cannot explain (in western logical
empirical ways) some phenomena by incorporating that same
phenomena in the explanation.

If all(and I mean ALL) of your thoughts, emotions, perceptions,
etc. can be explained by the movements/interactions/"essence"/
emergence of the physical universe how do you know those
thoughts, emotions, and perceptions are in any way TRUE?

If all(and I mean ALL) of your thoughts/emotions/perceptions(TEP) are a product
of the random fluctations of newtonian/quantum physical
processes, then how do you know if your TEPs about the
physical processes themselves are TRUE? If indeed, your TEPs about
the physical processare are CAUSED by the physical processes
themselves, then there can be no such thing as a proof.
You have proven that there is no such thing
as a proof!!! Which is absurd.

Obviously there is something "other" than the physical. Call it
a "soul" or "consciousness" or "being" but it's not
physical and I believe it cannot be explained ever by any
physical process. Unfortunately, that fact will lead some
to believe that there is no such thing as physical reality,
which can get you into trouble while using a flame thrower
to light your cigarette.

[tophat9000]

Roger Penrose, a mathematical physicist at Oxford University, believes that if a "theory of everything" is ever developed in physics to explain all the known phenomena in the universe, it should at least partially account for consciousness.

Shouldn't a "theory of everything" explain everything? ...after all from the physics perspective we are just a chunk of energy and matter in close formation that seems to be self directed and aware of it self

[HangnJudge]

I prefer to believe that the presence of Reason in our thoughts is one piece of evidence of miracle in our lives

[bubman]

Great article. Science cannot answer all the questions. Higher forms of conciousness (soul) may require instruments that are not the perview of science but of faith

[D Rider]

The classic example is the weight of an empty floppy disk is .8 ounce. But a completely full one is still .8 ounce. Software has no mass, but controls the way the machine operates.

[adorno]

Part of the mystery and excitement about consciousness is that scientists don't know what form the final answer will take.

---

Physicists have theorized about many different types of forces for matter. The strong force, the weak force, magnetism, gravity, and whatever else.

But, there might be another force which they haven't thought about or are afraid to postulate: that property of matter might be 'awareness' or consciousness. The most minute particle would possess that property and when interacting with a few or many particles, that 'consciousness' gets augmented. And depending upon the types of matter doing the interaction, the consciousness takes many different forms.

That consciousness property of matter could be called the "God' force.

[Publius6961]

Important for Greenfield's theory is a distinction between 'consciousness' and 'mind,' terms that she says many of her colleagues use interchangeably, but which she believes are two entirely different concepts.

A fascinating distinction that I wonder about regularly.
Each of my days begins with a couple of hours with just me and two critters, a cat and a dog.

I don't have to validate the notion that they both have consciousness, identical to mine, but no mind, in the sense that humans do.

However, I am convinced, empirically, that their "consciousness" have qualities that humans' do not. Heightened senses. Something, that in ourselves, we would deem ESP.

[marktwain]

If all(and I mean ALL) of your thoughts/emotions/perceptions(TEP) are a product of the random fluctations of newtonian/quantum physical processes, then how do you know if your TEPs about the physical processes themselves are TRUE?

As explained by your last paragraph, it is simple. If too many of your TEPs about physical process are false, you cease to exist.

I see no logic in your random thoughts.

Randomness is clearly limited and bounded. This is how the universe has order. You may see something mystical about this, but it by no means is obvious to me.

[Ken H]

Shouldn't a "theory of everything" explain everything?

Indeed it should. If it doesn't, then they should rename it "the theory of a lot of things".

[Mr_Moonlight]

the weight of an empty floppy disk is .8 ounce. But a completely full one is still .8 ounce. Software has no mass, but controls the way the machine operates.

The mass of the floppy disk is .8 ounce, and will remain .8 ounce regardless of whether its individual magnetic particles are charged in a positive or negative manner. It's the pattern of neg (0) and pos (1) polarity of the existing particles already on the disk that make up what we call "software", not whether the disk is empty (which it is not) or full (also, which it is not)

[little jeremiah]

Maybe later read, maybe later pingout.

I've got news for the scientists and philosophers, but since it's beautifully simple, and they didn't "think" of it, they won't like it.

[D Rider]

It's the pattern of neg (0) and pos (1) polarity of the existing particles already on the disk that make up what we call "software", not whether the disk is empty (which it is not) or full (also, which it is not)

exactly, software, ie.. information, is massless and therefore independent of space-time.

[dr_lew]

The hard problem for Chalmers is that of subjective experience.

Well, this Chalmers guy at least seems to be someone who "gets it". So many who are commited to objectivity are dismissive of the problem of the subjective. Probably because it's so excruciating.

My thought has been that we have a lot further to go on the "easy" problem of objective correlates of subjective expericence. Consider color. Schroedinger mentioned that "yellow" would be the stimulation of a certain set of nerves. But what could distinguish these nerves from the "blue" nerves? If there were "yellow" and "blue" nerves, otherwise physically identical, this would vindicate dualism. From my "readings on color" I see the indication that color perception involves qualitatively different neural patterns. But even then, why should various abstract patterns be associated with the variable subjective perceptions?

The question is excruciating.

[itsahoot]

exactly, software, ie.. information, is massless and therefore independent of space-time.

Are you perchance a Chuck Missler fan?

[tallhappy]

The classic example is the weight of an empty floppy disk is .8 ounce. But a completely full one is still .8 ounce. Software has no mass, but controls the way the machine operates.

Yeah. Good analogy. There are physical changes in a disk and in a brain, but it's elctricomagnetic or electochemical. At the same time the brain is more like firware.