Physicist Claims To Have Solved the Mystery of Consciousness

a reply to: The GUT

foolish talking about it like Lahav & Neemeh.

As I said, I lean toward the absurdist view. Prove my outlook inferior.

A friend of mine got to ask the Dalai Lama a question. His question was, "What is consciousness?"

The Dalai Lama told him that the answer is all in his mind. It's one of my friends' favorite stories that gets told over and over again. The point I took away from the answer though, is that consciousness is nothing but what our mind makes of it.

Think of all that junk chromosomes we were told that we have, but now we're told that it's all those pieces of chromosomes that make us who and what we are. Our brains send untold amounts of signals throughout our neuro network just to keep our organs alive, all the points that get crossed have to do something other than just carry a massage so why not study to see if those signals are what creates our consciousness? Seems like a no brainer given that it would explain why certain head injuries and chemical exposures not only damage the brain but also can affect a person's behavior.

In the end though, I feel that the answer for what consciousness really is will only be answered by a philosopher given that it's outside of the law of science and more it the realm of interpretations.

a reply to: SLAYER69
I see our body as a transmitter and receiver ... The body is an interface for our soul/spirit to operate in this reality ... Much like trying to understand the movie being played on your tv by disecting and studying the tv itself ....

originally posted by: Phage

As I said, I lean toward the absurdist view. Prove my outlook inferior.

But I don't like to play dumb. Usually anyway. But on the off chance you'd actually like to proffer philosophical "Absurdism" as some kind of response, you have to relate said philosophy to the topic "Consciousness."

Proffering "My soul is in my left big toe. Prove me wrong" might be an argument you'd like to make along the way but it's not appropriate to the whole.

I mean, we are reasonably certain "consciousness" exists. That we can't measure it--at least thus far--is intellectually, philosophically and scientifically evocative.

I can see why the topic bothers materialists so much. It must be uncomfortable.

a reply to: The GUT

It doesn't bother me a bit because the whole question is, in and of itself, absurd.

Who the # cares? It is what it is. How does it affect anyone's actual life in any way at all?

I don't care if my "consciousness" is in my big toe or my brain or spread throughout the entire universe. Why do you?

originally posted by: Phage

It doesn't bother me a bit because the whole question is, in and of itself, absurd.

Okay, mate. Sounds like you're a repressed nihilist comforting yourself with absurdism while finding the subject of consciousness absurd. Guess what? You couldn't have even formulated that fuddy-duddy attitude without the facility of abstraction which is the hallmark of consciousness.

Who the # cares? It is what it is.

Dude...is that you? Or Phage 3.0?

a reply to: The GUT

Sounds like you're a repressed nihilist

Incorrect. As I have explicitly stated, I lean toward absurdist. Nihilism is pointless (as is solipsism).

Guess what? You couldn't have even formulated that fuddy-duddy attitude without the facility of abstraction which is the hallmark of consciousness.

Did I say that I am not conscious? Where, pray tell, did I say that?

What I said was, and I quote "Who the # cares" what the location of that consciousness is. What difference does it make in your life?

a reply to: SLAYER69

The question then becomes will it eventually be able to be programmable?

That article talked in circles. But from what I gathered the theory would not suggest that consciousness can be programmed.

But rather the theory would suggest that the manner in wich we might someday "hack" consciousness would be by synchronizing each others frame of reference to consciousness.

Maybe this would open the door to abilities such as telepathy. Or group dreaming.

I can jive with the thought that we are self programming biological machines operating on prestablished principles, able to interpret and modify sensory information and create a completely unique perspective and worldview previously unknown.

Makes my respect for our Creator(s) all the more profound.

I do believe we are an Engineering Marvel.

Simply blows my little human mind into a state of wonder.

W could of course begin the arguement into whether or not we have a Material Godhead(s) of if it's simply an evolutionary byproduct of natural forces fundamental to the Universe that coaleased and organized under natural conditions though billions of years of trial and error but really, it's so freakin' amazing that we are here now and experiencing these insights and scientific blends of philosophy and science and able to meditate and share insights in this discussion that it would be a shame to lose the flow by arguing over trivial matters.

Some say God(s), some say Conscious Universe, some say Evolution, Survival of the Fittest and Adaptation or Intelligent Design.

Same concepts, different terminology for different disciplines.

Whatever you believe or don't believe, it sure is freakin' cool to reflect upon and share insights.



Great thread!

Let's keep it coming!

Whoohooo!

originally posted by: Phage

What I said was, and I quote "Who the # cares" what the location of that consciousness is.

#-ing A you did---twice!

And I agree, have you not been paying attention? As a matter of fact what participation there is here so far seems to lean towards that very same sentiment I reckon: Nobody can, to include Lahav & Neemeh, locate it anywhere to include the physical mass of jelly-plus we call the brain. Which leads to bigger questions not so absurd.

So, I guess, if you're the uncurious type or metaphysical discussion makes you feel uncomfortable or you just like to talk about "science" when you're explaining the difference between Physics & Philosophy to folk who already know the difference then carry on.

a reply to: The GUT

Oh, I'm curious. About things that actually matter.

From whence my consciousness arises does not fall into that category. But I am glad that it exists. Sort of like the question "what is the meaning of life?"

There is no answer. Asking the question makes no sense. It's absurd. Just dig it. Or don't. Your choice.

Tell me, if you knew "the answer" how would it affect your life?

a reply to: SLAYER69

I don't see the breakthrough to be honest? It's just using familiar concepts like relativity, Bob & Alice and states kind of the obvious we already knew: Bob observing Alice's representation of her brainactivity on a screen doesn't share the experience she has.
That's just true.
But I still don't learn anything about how electricity in the squishy grey matter of 60% fat & 40% water, protein, carbohydrates and salts creates the ability of Bob to ponder what he observes or Alice's experience of consciousness.
I mean I get it in as far as it's all a matter of the network of neurons interacting, but the issue to me is, even if Alice would meditate and Bob couldn't observe much about her brain activity Alice would still remain the complex consciousness entity that is Alice even if temporarily 'dormant'.

I don't know, I think 'solved' is kind of a stretch. But it's for sure always a good thing to put it in new frames for discussion.


a reply to: Phage

Tell me, if you knew "the answer" how would it affect your life?

I think the dream is like with everything we explore: unlock new ways of application?

There is:

1. Conscious
2. Conscious Thought/Mind
3. Consciousness

All 3 are separate mechanics. All of which are necessary, for the ability to self-reflect, and form awareness (of self)

You can't examine this reflection, without getting lost in a redundant loop of, examining that which examines

Unless, you relate all three parts as existing within a phase relationship to each other

Physically, in "Illumination" these are:

1. The unseen mind (closed eye) / The sun
2. The manifest mind (the open eye) / The body
3. The illumination / The world around you

Which is also the world within you, in negative polarity

3. The illumination / The world within you
-2. The negative polarity illumination. Venus, Jesus, or Emotion
-1. The planet of crossing/reversal. Saturn, Satan or Reason

*Within the negative polarity layer, everything is also reversed as a negative-negative of itself, again. So, 2 is 1, 1 is 2, 2 is 3, 3 is 2, 1 is 3, and 3 is 1. And so forth, passed on throughout all the next (and subsequent) levels of manifestation, both inwards and outwards. This is the basis of vector equilibrium. Fractal recurrence within propagation and decay, which is equal to the relative internal and external parts which manifested*

No one part, can be examined, without examining the relationship between all three of the primary parts

In Sumerian, there is:

Enki – Conscious
Enki Ea – Conscious Thought (Or Mind)
Enlil – Consciousness

In the Bible, there is:

The Father – Conscious
The Son – Conscious Thought (Or Mind)
The Holy Spirit – Consciousness

Conscious thought or mind, is related to “Emotion”
In the New Testament emotion is Jesus/Joshua
In the Old Testament, emotion is Samuel

In the Om, there is:

The Core – Conscious - A
The Corona – Conscious Thought (Or Mind) – U
The Emanation – Consciousness – M

In our number system, there is:

1 – The Core - That 'Within' - Un
2 – The Radius - That 'Without' – To
3 – The Dimension – That 'Between' – The

One, Two, Three – Un, To, The
Or
Un, To, Thee

In the Eleusinian Mysteries, the manifestation is the same as within other teachings of illumination. Except that things such “Emotion/Venus/Jesus” and “Reason/Saturn/Satan” are replaced with a simplified Perception/Persephone

Kore – The Core – Centre
Hades – The Radius – Outside
Demeter – The Dimension – That between

When Hades takes Kore from Demeter. She returns as Persephone
The same as;
When Radius takes the Core from Dimension. It returns perception

Self-reflection within a spectrum of phase, or vector equilibrium (El'ohim = Equilibrium)

Note the relationship between Kore/Jesus, both descending, only to be resurrected?

People seem to find it hard to understand perspective and the observer paradox

It is not “within” and it is not “without”. It is both, and the relationship between the two

A phase relationship which means, that it is both and neither at the same time

What they are doing is essentially trying to explain the trinity, using only one part

Or trying to explain a phase-relationship, using only one waveform

It is not possible. You need to examine at least three aspects of phase, to understand the relationship

When you pull a torus, centre of gravity, or focus, within the vector equilibrium of this “internal/external” phase, it creates polarity which is native to layers within the phase relationship of the vector equilibrium

This is what we refer to as fractal decay and propagation, which is responsible for all the various shapes and forms of life

This is literally what the first two books of the Bible (Torah, meaning 'Torus') explain when they are correctly translated

The polarity exchange is what is responsible for all directional reflection, which includes self-reflection

They can't see the forces of “consciousness” influencing the patterns of the “conscious”, because they have yet to understand the difference between what “conscious” and “consciousness” are, in terms of reflection within a spectrum of phase

What they are proposing, is “consciousness”. The collective field (manifested physically within the Earth), that allows the individual “conscious” (manifest within the body) to exist

The passage between two, within the fluid nature of any phase relationship, such as self-reflection, is what is referred to as “thought”, or “mind”, depending on the aspect from which you are reflecting upon it

If you are speaking from within the perspective of the individual“conscious” as the resonant emanation, it is “Thought”. If you are speaking from within the perspective of the collective “consciousness” as the resonant emanation, it is “Mind”

Sumerian Ea, Egyptian Ra, or ⊙ = mind

Egyptian Thoth, Norse Thor, or the Biblical Theos = Thought

The fluid nature of self-reflection

You cannot define the fluid aspect, without also understanding that the “internal” and “external” aspects which define it, and are parts of the same thing

This is why the Gnostic principle is so dangerous for the Churches. Because it means, if there is a God around us, you, as an internalised being, are the direct reflection and manifestation of that externalised God

The current Churches still use the teachings of these principles, but they exclude the part where the trinity refers to the individual person. Instead, telling us that we are a subject to the principles, without being connected to (or worthy of) them

originally posted by: The GUT

a classic example of academic mental masturbation and thinly-disguised doublespeak.

Ha yes it read that way to me as well.

Thought there was some relevant discussion in the two vids below (also some fair points made here).


1 / 2

originally posted by: Compendium
There is:

1. Conscious
2. Conscious Thought/Mind
3. Consciousness

All 3 are separate mechanics. All of which are necessary, for the ability to self-reflect, and form awareness (of self)

You can't examine this reflection, without getting lost in a redundant loop of, examining that which examines

Unless, you relate all three parts as existing within a phase relationship to each other

Physically, in "Illumination" these are:

1. The unseen mind (closed eye) / The sun
2. The manifest mind (the open eye) / The body
3. The illumination / The world around you

Which is also the world within you, in negative polarity

3. The illumination / The world within you
-2. The negative polarity illumination. Venus, Jesus, or Emotion
-1. The planet of crossing/reversal. Saturn, Satan or Reason

*Within the negative polarity layer, everything is also reversed as a negative-negative of itself, again. So, 2 is 1, 1 is 2, 2 is 3, 3 is 2, 1 is 3, and 3 is 1. And so forth, passed on throughout all the next (and subsequent) levels of manifestation, both inwards and outwards. This is the basis of vector equilibrium. Fractal recurrence within propagation and decay, which is equal to the relative internal and external parts which manifested*

No one part, can be examined, without examining the relationship between all three of the primary parts

In Sumerian, there is:

Enki – Conscious
Enki Ea – Conscious Thought (Or Mind)
Enlil – Consciousness

In the Bible, there is:

The Father – Conscious
The Son – Conscious Thought (Or Mind)
The Holy Spirit – Consciousness

Conscious thought or mind, is related to “Emotion”
In the New Testament emotion is Jesus/Joshua
In the Old Testament, emotion is Samuel

In the Om, there is:

The Core – Conscious - A
The Corona – Conscious Thought (Or Mind) – U
The Emanation – Consciousness – M

In our number system, there is:

1 – The Core - That 'Within' - Un
2 – The Radius - That 'Without' – To
3 – The Dimension – That 'Between' – The

One, Two, Three – Un, To, The
Or
Un, To, Thee

In the Eleusinian Mysteries, the manifestation is the same as within other teachings of illumination. Except that things such “Emotion/Venus/Jesus” and “Reason/Saturn/Satan” are replaced with a simplified Perception/Persephone

Kore – The Core – Centre
Hades – The Radius – Outside
Demeter – The Dimension – That between

When Hades takes Kore from Demeter. She returns as Persephone
The same as;
When Radius takes the Core from Dimension. It returns perception

Self-reflection within a spectrum of phase, or vector equilibrium (El'ohim = Equilibrium)

Note the relationship between Kore/Jesus, both descending, only to be resurrected?

People seem to find it hard to understand perspective and the observer paradox

It is not “within” and it is not “without”. It is both, and the relationship between the two

A phase relationship which means, that it is both and neither at the same time

What they are doing is essentially trying to explain the trinity, using only one part

Or trying to explain a phase-relationship, using only one waveform

It is not possible. You need to examine at least three aspects of phase, to understand the relationship

When you pull a torus, centre of gravity, or focus, within the vector equilibrium of this “internal/external” phase, it creates polarity which is native to layers within the phase relationship of the vector equilibrium

This is what we refer to as fractal decay and propagation, which is responsible for all the various shapes and forms of life

This is literally what the first two books of the Bible (Torah, meaning 'Torus') explain when they are correctly translated

The polarity exchange is what is responsible for all directional reflection, which includes self-reflection

They can't see the forces of “consciousness” influencing the patterns of the “conscious”, because they have yet to understand the difference between what “conscious” and “consciousness” are, in terms of reflection within a spectrum of phase

What they are proposing, is “consciousness”. The collective field (manifested physically within the Earth), that allows the individual “conscious” (manifest within the body) to exist

The passage between two, within the fluid nature of any phase relationship, such as self-reflection, is what is referred to as “thought”, or “mind”, depending on the aspect from which you are reflecting upon it

If you are speaking from within the perspective of the individual“conscious” as the resonant emanation, it is “Thought”. If you are speaking from within the perspective of the collective “consciousness” as the resonant emanation, it is “Mind”

Sumerian Ea, Egyptian Ra, or ⊙ = mind

Egyptian Thoth, Norse Thor, or the Biblical Theos = Thought

The fluid nature of self-reflection

You cannot define the fluid aspect, without also understanding that the “internal” and “external” aspects which define it, and are parts of the same thing

This is why the Gnostic principle is so dangerous for the Churches. Because it means, if there is a God around us, you, as an internalised being, are the direct reflection and manifestation of that externalised God

The current Churches still use the teachings of these principles, but they exclude the part where the trinity refers to the individual person. Instead, telling us that we are a subject to the principles, without being connected to (or worthy of) them

insanity speaking .

a reply to: SLAYER69

Consciousness can only be explained along material lines, but contemporary science/physicalism will always fall short. Attributing its "final" cause to the brain is 20th century reductionist logic. Consciousness must necessarily be independent from brain matter/functionality. A person who explicitly identifies himself with his brain is not only cold and unfeeling, but instinctively crippled for life. Most "modern" philosophers can be considered concept cripples.

The brain is merely a tool or a body part to be reined in, much like the tongue. A man can be reduced to a human vegetable or stuck in a coma, but he is still considered "alive" as long as his brain is intact. That makes no sense. Consciousness implies not only self-awareness, but also self-activity (willpower).

The 20th century monists arrived at the view that there was no difference between the organic and the inorganic, but they were discredited as either eugenicists or mystics.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Finally! A thread I can sink my teeth into! Even better, it is on a subject that offers me no real profit; I study it simply out of curiosity, so my interest is purely social comprehension.

Dr. Lahav and Dr. Neemeh (one a physicist, the other a philosopher, just to quickly address an ongoing side debate) seem to have stumbled onto essentially the same thought process to explain consciousness that I have. We use different language, of course, since we both arrived at our positions independently and have really no framework of established research to draw on. But different terminology does not define different results; words are not ideas, but simply boxes we put our ideas into to communicate.

What I wouldn't give to sit them down and have a serious conversation with them! I bet we could advance each other's understanding by leaps and bounds.

Simply put, our brains are integral with our bodies. At birth, we understand "pain" and "pleasure" as "movement toward a less optimal situation" and "movement toward a more optimal situation," respectively. Being hungry is a type of "pain"; being tired is a type of "pain"; disappointment is a type of "pain." "Pleasure" would be becoming satiated, resting, or feeling fulfilled.

That's why certain activities evoke a positive response in some people but not in others. Some achieve "pleasure" through academic means... learning, comprehension, the gaining of knowledge... while other may find the same "pleasure" through physical activity... exercise, excitement, or physical strength. It all depends on what that particular individual considers "pleasure" (which is also a "lessening of pain").

"Pleasure" and "pain" are basically constructs of the consciousness, based on sensory input from the body. As a human develops from conception through old age, these constructs change based on our sensory inputs. We are born with what I refer to as "instinctive" concepts... we all recognize hunger as "pain," we all recognize injury as "pain," and we all recognize the need for sleep as "pain." As we age, certain other things can replace those "instinctive" constructs. Most humans develop a response to their mother as "pleasure," since the mother becomes associated with a lessening of the "pain"of hunger. There are a myriad of sensory inputs that perform this recognition: visual identification, the sound of her voice, her smell, etc. Some we are aware of; others we are not. But all exist and all play a role in that recognition.

As we age, we find other things that provide that "pleasure" construct. It may be a day of hard work, the completion of a task, academic improvement, social interaction with friends, etc. All of these things form neural pathways based on a repetition of certain sensory inputs and the resulting neurochemical responses those constructs provide. Experience enough repetition of a sensory pattern that leads to "pleasure" and one will learn to associate the pattern itself with "pleasure." Similarly, experience enough of a sensory input that correlates consistently to neurochemical "pain" responses, and the person will learn to experience "pain" based solely on the sensory pattern.

I call that in my work the "Pavlovian" intelligence in honor of Ivan Pavlov, the Russian scientist who first demonstrated the concept of physical responses to a learned sensory pattern.

That explains almost all of the instinctive and learned responses of the animal world. However, there are certain aspects of human existence that it cannot fully explain. This leads me to my third and final classification of intelligence, the "spiritual." This is where imagination, planning, forethought, and goal-setting lie. I have found no reasonable expectation that this third type of intelligence originates in the couple of pounds of jelly inside our skulls, but it seems undeniable that it exists, at least in our consciousness, in that blob of jelly. Therefore I see this classification of intelligence as I would see a robotic response to a remote signal.

Simply put, I believe our brains do not contain our "mind" in a physical sense; instead our brain acts as a type of transceiver to our mind. Where that signal originates from seems to have no scientifically identifiable source; thus the name I chose. It is a transceiver because our physical experiences can and do affect our concepts of "pain" and "pleasure" just as surely as our "Pavlovian" learning affects those concepts. We can choose to experience "pain" in return for "pleasure" that exists in the "spiritual" intelligence only: self-sacrifice for others, occupations where physical pain is expected to achieve success (Olympic athletes?), etc.

As soon as I read the article about the varying neural patterns, I knew this work, unlike so many that preceded it, was on the right track. I hope the research continues. While I understand that many question the practicability of this work, I see many, many future applications that could affect society: crime mitigation, worker productivity, education, (dare I say) social justice, and general well-being, in addition to a whole new philosophy on mental health geared toward healing instead of "treating."

Star and Flag, Slayer!

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

you frighten me

applauding this pimped Ape - with it's "neurological pathways" -
that is the enemy of our soul ...

a reply to: Phage

I dig physics and I dig philosophy but I don't think they are the same thing.

In a general sense, they are not. The deeper we get into any field of investigation the deeper it gets.

One study a while back tried to measure the weight loss at the moment a person died. It did get a result of around 6 or 7 grams. It was not measurable every time, but neither is the moment of death to be technical about it.

After seeing a video of a macrophage cleaning out a cell, there is consciousness there. Not as we understand it, but it is aware of it's environment and able to make its own decisions about it.

Tell me, if you knew "the answer" how would it affect your life?

It all depends on that answer.

originally posted by: Phage

As I said, I lean toward the absurdist view. Prove my outlook inferior.

What an absurd reply lol.