Edits complete. [WARNING]Wait. I reread what I wrote below and see errors in syntax and grammar that don't make sense. So while you can respond to this if you follow what I'm saying as is, but I will be editing it for better clarity. Thanks Will.
uwot wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 10:10 am
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:58 pmThe '
structure' of some organ like the brain that creates the conscious phenomena are 'cellular' logical machines that collectively permit consciousness as being based upon a particular set of energy exchanges of these atomic units (the cells) during some functional event. As such, the '
energy' when the neurons are active AND in sync, create the conscious phenomena but masks or ignores the physical structure it is dependent upon. The conscious state is a dynamic logic that rides over its relatively non-dynamic structure but does not
require 'feeling' the structure it is dependent upon.
So although consciousness is dependent upon its physical sub-structure, our sense of being conscious does not have to have the identical structure it relies on because it is the logic that makes the sensation of consciousness.
As far as I can tell Scott, you have given a description of how brains and other structures work, without addressing what David Chalmers calls the hard problem. Medical science can peer into brains and watch them working, so yes, we can describe brains and their functions, but while I can see how "the '
energy'" or "the logic" creates the sensation, I don't see how they
are the sensation.
I disagree with Chalmers' hard problem. But disagreeing isn't disproving, right. So....
I initiated most of my interest to seek a physics theory due to thinking about consciousness. The question I had begun on was "How is it that I can I sense anything distinctly in many different points of space simultaneously, like the separated activity of the neurons in the brain, given it would require a form of 'entanglement' for all the active ones involved in whatever 'consciousness' may be?" Adding to this, there is no 'local' point or points that consciousness exists at as Decartes presumed (his pituitary guess that I know you know).
When conscious, we feel the sensation of awareness as one Being, even if the activity is in isolated remote parts of the brain in any moment. But given this true, it implies that consciousness has to be related to the very activity, the energy of information exchange, and not the neurons' physical 'structure' it depends upon. It's the change of position of something that is felt, not the thing itself.
This activity is NOT completely independent if the all the neurons in the brain were equally active at any given moment. That would be inefficient use of energy (and would likely be hallucinogenic too). In other words, the initial sensations of consciousness begins when the particular cell is actively exchanging information when in some frequent shared behavior. Yet, since we have 'proof' of downtime, sleep or unconscious periods, in which we have no present sensation of conscious activity in the brain during these times, this proves DEFINITIVELY that the neurons themselves ARE able to be distinct phenomena from the energy it exchanges.
The neurons require distinct functional activity at different times. Sleep, for instance,
closes the highways, so-to-speak and goes into different operating modes or alternative cyclic routines that are needed to 'fix' short term memory markers into longer term ones or remove unused ones.
I learned most of the basics of neurology and thus learned the structural logic that you'd presume is the 'soft problem'. That last paragraph is an example of different functional modes I learned from that.
NOW, ...I am a twin, something you and others don't know about me. And we are identical too. Thus, I thought, given I have the same kind of neurons as my twin, how am I unable to 'feel' him as I do with the rest of my own consciousness? Then I learned of the brain damaged patients, especially those with epilepsy, who often had their two halves of the brain separated in a major way. The patients seemed to have two distinct conscious realities and for some, the side that lacks the contemporary direct control can get frustrated at what it cannot do and literally expresses this using its domain of control.
For instance, a patient may see only the left part of their vision (active communicative side) where the other side sees the right part of vision for each eye. But the 'proof' for the patient of this distinction comes about when the subdominant communicating half begins using the fist of the arm it has power over to punch his opponent half's side of the head....attempting to get the attention of the other side along with any frustration it has in communicating unsuccessfully.
This suggests that a connection for energy exchange MUST exist for conscious states between the active neurons. YET we already established that the brain can have ANY part of the brain 'conscious' in which for EACH neuron involved, it CAN be 'off'. But to 'feel' simultaneous events like we can even if the inbetween neurons are not YET able to exchange their energy, this implies that the links do not have to exist at the instant we are feeling but EXPECTED to exchange AFTER the simultaneous event.
I heard of some experiments that suggested the brain knows some things AHEAD of our apparent consciousness of it and then....from physics on wall clocks, it was discovered that clocks of the same exact form or structure can have its pendulums set swinging initially random. But after a time, they move in sync as the energy exchange of the wall they are on affects each other until they are in sync, but for two clocks, they are off phase. This suggests that IF the phenomena of consciousness has a unique frequency of activity, the neurons get in sync during their waking. Once they are in sync, even though separate in space, the separate neurons, like the clocks are in a ready-state for activity. The phasic factor can represent their unique 'position' in a similar way that quantum mechanics interprets points in space as having 'probabilities' at specific points in space.
Thus, I concluded that consciousness requires...
(1) A set of distinct atomic structures in common, like how "elements" are represented by particular atoms of the same kind.
(2) A uniquely shared background frequency of potentially 'active' neurons 'ready' to be engaged. This means that the cellular function of the neurons could have multiple kinds of conscious states using different frequencies similar to tuning into a radio station. Each wavelength may not require a simple sinusoidal beat but could be complex like a drum pattern beat. Note that where (1) refers to similar
structure, (2) refers to similar cyclic
behavior, something that can be combined similar to General Relativity's treatment of time as just another 'static' dimension. We'll keep them separated here but just note that (1) is the static structure while (2) is the dynamic structure.
(3) A delayed connection or LINK between neurons that assures the exchange of the energy will occur a moment after it is felt. This is like requiring a road EXIST between two places in which different people at each place can predict the anticipated reality of the other at the exact same moment but must be confirmed as existing through the road between them some time after. It is like branch prediction in computing if you understand that.
[For my brother and I as twins, we used to be 'in sync' in behavior when in each other's presense and this "connection", though weaker than the literal space between neurons, permits the exchange to be met. We might respond identical to someone else's question to us by saying the same thing in the same way and pitch without preconsidering how to react. [instinctive]
The dynamic frequency of the neurons have to match its atomic parts in sync during this period. Then EACH neuron can 'anticipate' what some neuron at a relative uniquely distanct space 'should be' when neutral. Each neuron cannot CONTROL the other without the link formally communicating a moment later. The shorter the interval of any two neurons is, the more 'conscious' control they share and feel.
This is in essence ALL that it is. And I extended this later to all of physical reality. That is, electrons, for instance, should have some form of 'conscious' capacity between them all but require the same factors already mentioned above for neurons. Thus, the heart, as an organ, has its own 'consciousness, for instance. It may be 'dumb' compared to our brain's version, but it is logically capable of this behavior too. So we cannot EXCLUDE them. Our living 'conscious' state then is only an interface activity between the collection of cells that make up the body and its environment.
This may be hard for some to believe. But I am sufficiently confident in it. One requires some time to get used to it in their head but then can later intuitively understand it as you combine various different experiences together.
uwot wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 10:10 am
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:58 pmFor example, we can create a calculator that can be structurally made of component 'cells' based upon silicon transistors. But the same calculation can be made from a calculator based upon 'cells' based upon electrical relays or vaccuum tubes. The information of some particular calculation acts as a particular 'conscious' experience that does not require depending upon its cellular components and thus represents a type of
dualistic interpretation rationally.
So what is "information" in this example? It's a slippery term. In one sense a calculation such as 2+2=4 is information and it is independent of matter, but I don't see that acting as consciousness. I'm describing information as any feature on or in a medium, a ripple on a duck pond, or an excitation in a quantum field, but again, I don't see that as consciousness.
The weird thing is that consciousness is the only thing we know necessarily exists. It is tempting, in the spirit of parsimony, to infer that it is the only thing that
actually exists. Having said that, it is one of the few temptations I've had much success resisting. I still think the most plausible explanation for the conscious experience of a material world, is that there's a material world out there, which somehow we, as conscious beings, are connected to in a way we don't understand.
I think that it is essential to understand what I just explained. The description of the phenomena makes sense, literally, and doesn't require thinking in terms of the dualism of the religious form. However, it doesn't mean that I sufficiently expressed this in a way that couldn't be improved upon. Much of my thinking took many hours in meditative thought without a need to take notes at the time. I was also not concered about whether other people could be convinced. That needs political/social skills that I am less confident now to believe could be done.
