It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

How do you define consciousness?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 12:26 AM
I define consciousness this way:

Consciousness is the agency that allows biological systems to see the different states of a quantum systems.

So consciousness is more fundamental than matter. Matter is like playdough that takes on observable properties when observed by consciousness. There was just a test on macrorealism that showed an object with comparable size to a human hair doesn't take a definite position when not observed and violates Leggett–Garg (LG) inequality.

If macrorealism were true, repeated measurements, at different times, of a single macroscopic system would only be statistically correlated up to a certain degree, giving what they called the Leggett–Garg (LG) inequality.

"According to [macrorealism], the [object] always moves on a specific trajectory, independent of our observation," says Andrea Alberti at the University of Bonn, Germany.

By carrying out this "null result" measurement technique in the middle step, the researchers could determine the atom's location without directly interacting with it. By repeating this experiment many times, and seeing when the fluorescence is detected, the researchers can tell which wave the atom was in (and therefore its position) and also that the atom was not disturbed in any way. If macrorealism was true, the null measurement would not affect the outcome of the final fluorescence measurement, and the total amount of correlation of the atom's position in time could be explained classically – but this is not the case. Indeed, the blurring that happens in the quantum walk leads to a stronger total correlation than is possible under macrorealism. This is mathematically demonstrated via the LG inequality violation, clearly showing that macrorealism cannot apply to the caesium atom.

The results of Alberti's experiment seem to nail down for sure that a caesium atom obeys the laws of quantum mechanics, and that macrorealism does not apply. In the future, similar experiments with even larger masses and with longer superposition times will help to either narrow down the inherent boundary that lies between the quantum and classical world, or banish it once and for all and lay the foundations for a more advanced quantum theory.

I think it's fascinating that macroscopic objects can be put into superposition or be shown to violate macrorealism. This points to the fact a material objective reality may not exist. They will have to do more test at different distances and with bigger objects but the fact that this occurs on a macroscopic level at all is pretty amazing.

So what we call "reality" is simply a product of consciousness. Without consciousness, everything would just be a blurry mess. Consciousness doesn't observe the blurriness and so gives definition to what we perceive as "reality."

I think there's hierarchies of consciousness. So you can have human consciousness or animal consciousness. This consciousness becomes entangled with an integrated system like the brain. The more a system is integrated, the more they will be conscious. So a human is self conscious.

I think this could also point to things like reincarnation. I think this universe and the people on earth will be born again and again ad infinitum. The next time though, your body may be operated by a different consciousness.

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 12:41 AM
The part of self that is; self-awareness, reason, explores thought, observing, experiencing within its realities.

That's my definition anyways.

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 12:53 AM
a reply to: neoholographic

I have no clue why you think the article has anything to do with consciousness.
Would you maybe explain? It is about the observational mechanics and the scale of an object before it's behaviour switches from uncertainty to LG?
Why? Because they got cat pictures as example? I am seriously confused? What or who would be conscious in this experiment? The caesium? The quanta from the caesium? The observer, that's true, but they weren't exactly experimenting on their perception.

If, instead, it is in spin-down state, it is transported far off so that its further evolution until the final position measurement is made cannot possibly influence the evolution of a particle that was left undisturbed. If the atom then fails to light up when the final fluorescence measurement is made, we know that the atom was in the spin-down state and was therefore discarded.

Because it has evolution in it? Do you think the atom makes a conscious descission which way to spin? Could you please explain?

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 01:03 AM
a reply to: neoholographic

Consciousness = mind, awareness

actual Life = love, care, compassion

Everyone is conscious but not everyone is ALIVE (consciously living through Spirit/Love).

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 01:04 AM
It has been suggested by others more intelligent than myself that given the fractal nature of the Cosmos, consciousness is merely the Universes way of viewing and learning about itself.

I'm inclined to agree....( and it also makes for a really trippy black light poster).

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 01:08 AM
a reply to: GENERAL EYES

Oh beautiful, if you translate universum, it says I am the one truth. Isn't this a Hindu story? God splitted into many fragments and went out to find the answer to the question what is the meaning of life?

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 01:18 AM
a reply to: Peeple

uni (one) ver (truth) sum (I am).

That's probably a coincidence though

govern (control) ment (mind)

... that's probably also a coincidence

edit on 3-3-2015 by arpgme because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 01:22 AM
a reply to: Peeple

You answered your own question.

The observer, that's true

How could you carry out this experiment without the observers consciousness?

How do you know the atom has spin without a conscious experimenter telling you it has spin?

They found that the atom moves in a non-classical way, behaving as a quantum superposition that occupies more than one location at any given time.

How do you know the atom has any location outside human consciousness perceiving a location for the atom?

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 01:24 AM
a reply to: Peeple

One of my favorite creation myths is that of Hindu Cosmology - we are but the Dream of the Gods, and the Gods are but the Dream of Man. Carl Sagan summed it up beautifully in that episode of Cosmos, and that story has stuck with me ever since.

When the Gods sleep, the universe collapses back upon itself to be born anew when they awaken.

The same could be true of individual human consciousness.

Were it not for our written histories, who is to prove the past ever truly was to begin with?

Ah, to sleep...and perchance to dream.

edit on 3/3/15 by GENERAL EYES because: formatting...for even perfection must come one step at a time

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 01:42 AM
a reply to: neoholographic

That's a fail mate. The same would be true for a person starring at an object sliding down an inclined plane...

a reply to: arpgme

I don't know, i somehow have issues believing in coincidences.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

Yes that's the same metaphor I heard. 8 endless eights circling through the zero point and extracting back outwards. Nice dreams.

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 01:52 AM
a reply to: Peeple

Nope, it's exactly what the experiments said.

They found that the atom moves in a non-classical way, behaving as a quantum superposition that occupies more than one location at any given time.

It's consciousness that gives it a location. Here's more:

In explicit contrast with quantum theory, the theorists posited that in the worldview of macroscopic realism, large objects must be in one determinate macroscopic state at any given time, allowing for no superposition or blurriness in the system.

Without consciousness perceiving a location there's nothing to take away the blurriness absent a conscious observer who doesn't perceive the blurriness.

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 01:57 AM
a reply to: neoholographic

the blurriness is the uncertainty relation, Heissenberg, you know, that's ancient news and has nothing to do whatsoever with consciousness. The experiment was actually focusing on the scale of the object, till which the "blurriness" occurs.
Why do you read and quote things you obviously don't understand? Is your consciousness drawn to blur?
Is that where the need for bold letters comes from?

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 02:00 AM
a reply to: Peeple

Of course you didn't answer the questions so hears some more bold for you:

Without consciousness perceiving a location there's nothing to take away the blurriness absent a conscious observer who doesn't perceive the blurriness. Where does the blurriness go without the perception of the conscious observer?
edit on 3-3-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 02:12 AM
a reply to: neoholographic

I bet the conscious observer in this case was an electronic microscope, or most likely a computer based one. Are you saying our computers have consciousness?

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 02:45 AM
Consciousness or the self,your (soul) it is the User if you will...your brain is the computer with its own built in memory your body the vehicle to carry out the tasks the User or consciousness wills...

the computer is needed to moderate the functions of the vehicle and enable your conscience to grow and learn to experience if you will...

now your sub conscious is soft ware which the user or your conscience has uploaded into the computer and can be full of glitches or a seamless install... So the Consciousness should take great care on the software it chooses to install...

I have succeeded in confusing myself even, but there is truth to what I stated...
edit on 3-3-2015 by 5StarOracle because: ...

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 02:48 AM
a reply to: neoholographic

Confidence Trick.

Goes for anything beginning in CON

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 03:38 AM
a reply to: neoholographic

I believe that consciousness is the souls brain. It stays with the soul as it leaves the body for a new one. Gathering knowledge from each life that reincarnates as the new vessels ideology. Socialism(known as other names, Liberal,Nazism,Democrat) in countries far apart in both time, and distance have always ended up doing the exact same thing, thinking the same way(without having to be taught it). They all end up stripping their nations guns and murdering millions of their people, while sharing the same views as seen on the Georgia Guide stones. They seem to have a hatred for other ideologies that has carried for 1,000 years. Even noticing around the world groups such as Egyptians,Hopi Native Americans,Mayans,Cambodia made structures all aligned with constellation Orion, while others built structures aligned with Pleiades constellation(Washington monument is one in USA) These people thousands of years apart yet all had the same idea! Some people believe astral projection is separating your consciousness from your body. Trans-humanists want to upload their conscious into a computer and thus trap the soul forever.(Seems Evil) Some animals are self-aware like elephants, primates and others like us while others don't(reptiles,rats), so it must be in species with a neomamalian brain.

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 04:19 AM
I think that "consciousness" is one of the most misused/misunderstood terms in all of philosophy and religion. The problem is simply that people suppose that "consciousness" is something, and so people set out to investigate what this something is. However, consciousness could not possibly be anything! Trying to examine "consciousness" is like trying to look straight into your own eyes, because consciousness, as of itself, doesn't exist. You cannot separate consciousness from what you are conscious of (may it be a stream of thoughts, a hot chick, the taste of an apple, etc). You are ALWAYS conscious of something, except when you're in deep sleep. But it is impossible to be aware of deep sleep because there's NOTHING you can be aware of when you're unconscious, and this is why "time passes quickly" when you sleep.

It is only possible to know something in comparison to what it's not. You know white because you know black, you know hot because you know cold and so on. But it is impossible to compare "consciousness" with "unconsciousness" because it's impossible to know what "unconsciousness" is like.

Some scientists hope to "demystify" the notion of consciousness by searching for its source in the biology of the human body, but that's just completely pointless and blatantly stupid since consciousness cannot possibly be something as of itself.

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 06:00 AM
Drink a liter of tequila. When you wake up you will know what absence of consciousness is.
Consciousness is the opposite of that.

posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 06:12 AM
For me consciousness is the ability of knowing that we are a living energy (spirit) that can manipulate this fleshy body. To really know and see beyond the boundaries of the physical world. Like a lucid dream, you know you are dreaming and as soon as you know it you begin to gain the ability to alter that dream.

As far as I can say about the scientific observation; reality become to exist as soon as I lay eyes on it. Anything behind me is there but blurred or without form (maybe has a basic form, not much detailed) and when I looked at it then it takes form, color, texture, etc.

My reality is not the same reality of everybody else. May look similar.

Our reality is limited by what our bodies can perceive.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in