Consciousness

[Reivax]

After re-thinking about this quote from Bill Hicks, from Sane Man, I've been pondering consciousness:

"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration – that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather."

While Bill Hicks was a comedian, and not a scientist, I still find this to be a profound quote. However, the main goal of the quote was not to preach how reality really is, but was instead making a statement about drugs and their negative and selective portrayal in the media.

Anyway, keeping in mind the law of conservation of energy, that energy and/or matter can be created nor destroyed, we can say that consciousness is a complex rearrangement of matter or energy. So when we die, technically nothing is being destroyed, but rather 'we' are being rearranged. I don't think many of this forum would argue this much.

When we look at matter on a large scale, we can see that there are billions of beings that have very complicated brains, and consciousness emerges from this complexity as a sort of passive or bonus property, we have both a complex network of neurons that are made from matter that descends in complexity and size, but we also have human consciousness. It is often explained as: 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts'. This consciousness can be realized as long as a certain level of complexity is achieved in a particular way.

When I die, like most people, I wish there was some kind of afterlife or continuation of my soul, whether this be in a bizarre realm or perhaps here on earth through a process such as reincarnation. But my goal is truth, not kind fantasy. But there is definitely something magical about this 'essence'.

Where do these additional 'bonus' properties come from? Am I mistaken, and they are always there to begin with, but I just can't fathom them? Or is language to fault for simply failing to acknowledge the constant transition of forms and trying to pigeonhole things for convenience? What do we currently know about the origin and emergence of consciousness, is there still a lot to discover, or have we got the basics down?

Could we compare this emergence to say the emergence of a water molecule when two hydrogen atoms bind with large oxygen atom?

Thanks in advance for replies

 

[yy2bggggs]

Anyway, keeping in mind the law of conservation of energy, that energy and/or matter can be created nor destroyed, we can say that consciousness is a complex rearrangement of matter or energy. So when we die, technically nothing is being destroyed, but rather 'we' are being rearranged. I don't think many of this forum would argue this much.

Actually, I would argue with this. Energy and matter flow through us, more like a river. For a brief moment some of the energy flow becomes a part of my brain, but after that, the energy simply becomes other things--like the heat that contributes to my body temperature. The conscious mind then isn't so much a rearrangement of energy as it is a particular rearranging of energy.

It is often explained as: 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts'. This consciousness can be realized as long as a certain level of complexity is achieved in a particular way.

And here I would think that the term "level of complexity" is highly misleading. It suggests that consciousness is a degree of complexity, and I don't think it is. I would suggest rather that it's not the level of complexity that achieves consciousness, but it is the type of complex interactions. In other words, consciousness isn't the result of complexity; it is rather a result of particular machine that happens to have the property of being complex (and likely requires being complicated in particular ways to produce consciousness).

But there is definitely something magical about this 'essence'.

Where do these additional 'bonus' properties come from?

These questions seem a bit vague and all encompassing. Are there particular things about consciousness that might have a better chance at being tractable that you're wondering about? If you're lucky, someone might actually have an answer to a tractable particular.

 

[Dancing David]

Consciousness is a runric applied to discrete brain processes. The emergent property of 'consciousness' is not transcendant of material brains, in anyway that has yet to be shown.

 

[slingblade]

After re-thinking about this quote from Bill Hicks, from Sane Man, I've been pondering consciousness:

"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration – that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather."

While Bill Hicks was a comedian, and not a scientist, I still find this to be a profound quote.

I don't find it profound, though. I find it largely useless as a tool with which to manipulate reality. In other words: dude, that's heavy, but how can I apply it to paying my rent? No doubt it sounds cool. But even if true, I still have to live my life as if paying my rent matters, don't I?

However, the main goal of the quote was not to preach how reality really is, but was instead making a statement about drugs and their negative and selective portrayal in the media.

It may not have been the main goal, but it does accomplish a point or two about reality, or perhaps more precisely, points about "materialist" reality.

Anyway, keeping in mind the law of conservation of energy, that energy and/or matter can be created nor destroyed, we can say that consciousness is a complex rearrangement of matter or energy.

Yes, we can say that, but from what I understand about what we so far understand, we don't really know that.

We know consciousness is produced by that complex arrangement of matter/energy. But I don't think anyone can yet definitively say what a "thought" is. Thoughts aren't material: they have no mass. Is a thought, itself, energy? Or is it a manifestation of energy, but having none of its own?

So when we die, technically nothing is being destroyed,

The material unit that produces the consciousness has been, as far as we are able to tell, destroyed. There is no reason, as yet, to assume consciousness exists apart from its production unit, the brain. When the production stops, the output stops.

but rather 'we' are being rearranged. I don't think many of this forum would argue this much.

I think I just did.

When we look at matter on a large scale, we can see that there are billions of beings that have very complicated brains, and consciousness emerges from this complexity as a sort of passive or bonus property, we have both a complex network of neurons that are made from matter that descends in complexity and size, but we also have human consciousness. It is often explained as: 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts'. This consciousness can be realized as long as a certain level of complexity is achieved in a particular way.

I imagine that's one way of putting it. I don't think we yet know how that level of complexity is produced, nor do we know the extent of the conscious activity of brains with which we cannot communicate. The conscious abilities of "lesser animals" are almost certainly greater than we currently suppose. How much greater, we don't yet know.

When I die, like most people, I wish there was some kind of afterlife or continuation of my soul, whether this be in a bizarre realm or perhaps here on earth through a process such as reincarnation. But my goal is truth, not kind fantasy. But there is definitely something magical about this 'essence'.

Dangerous territory. "Magical?"

"Magical" is just another word for "inexplicable." But it comes with a lot more baggage than "inexplicable" carries, and I don't have any desire to haul it around. That I don't yet know how something works doesn't make it magic, and if you don't see cavemen hooting and bouncing on their haunches, and beating clubs on the cave floor at the mere thought, I think you should.

Where do these additional 'bonus' properties come from? Am I mistaken, and they are always there to begin with, but I just can't fathom them? Or is language to fault for simply failing to acknowledge the constant transition of forms and trying to pigeonhole things for convenience? What do we currently know about the origin and emergence of consciousness, is there still a lot to discover, or have we got the basics down?

From what I've read, we've barely scratched the surface in our understanding of the emergent properties and the origins of consciousness.

Could we compare this emergence to say the emergence of a water molecule when two hydrogen atoms bind with large oxygen atom?

Not a clue. I'm not a molecular scientist.

 

[Dessi]

Quest for Consciousness. Read it

I have a copy. To put it nicely, its a bit too far over my head to be readily accessible, but the parts I could understand were explained very well and made a very interesting read.

The whole book is in pursuit of the minimal number of "neuronal correlates of consciousness" required to create a perception. Among other things:

- Interestingly, many behaviors performed day to day occur without any direct dependence on consciousness perception, even complex behaviors, like an actual realized p-zombie.

- The the handful of interesting actions that "are" consciousness don't appear to correlate well with anything; is consciousness the strength of a neuron firing, or the frequency, is it the difference in calcium potentials that occur along side neuron activity?

- Actions such as recalling a persons name occur without any conscious input whatsoever. Many parts of the brain parts of the brain try to recall the same name, they compete against one another, and whatever name you become aware of just happens to be a result of the name with the strongest neuronal signal. If you've ever had a hard time recalling a name, then no signal can overcome the others. These processes happen on the order of several fractions of a second before you're consciously aware of the name at all.

- The book includes plenty of interesting information on optical illusions, how the brain fills in details that aren't there, etc.

 

[Lowpro]

Yea I love peddlin' Christof Koch's book. It's fantastic

 

[Wowbagger]

As long as we're peddling books:

Self Comes to Mind, by Antonio Damasio, describes one of the clearest evolutionary pathways to consciousness I've ever read, so far.

He breaks down human consciousness into models of "selves" that grow increasingly complex, and he even points to where they are mapped... all the way up to models that are held, for momentary periods of time, as conscious awareness.