Is consciousness physical or nonphysical?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Btw... Perhaps the reason why you don't know is because you make consciousness out to be something it is not. When you realize that consciousness is nothing more than complex physical interactions in the brain, then everything just makes sense.

No it doesn't. Complexity is the norm, as are complex interactions. Liquid crystals, swarm intelligence (not the computational intelligence paradigm but what it was based on: ant colonies, bee hives, etc.), even the influence of supernovae on long term climate trends via their influence on cloud coverage all are just a tiny sample of the different kinds of complexity that make up the world around us. Yet only one of these kinds presents a qualitatively harder challenge: living systems. Physics began with and much of it remains as the study of motion of bodies when acted upon. In other words, whether we're talking about the motion of planets or the interactions of gaseous molecules in a pressurized container, everything is passively responding.

Living systems have agency, from single-celled organisms to us. As simplistic as the grade school account "objects at rest tend to stay at rest", it's a useful simplification of the natural tendency towards equilibrium. Living systems are fundamentally different in that a core aspect of their nature is being far from thermodynamic equilibrium. While lots of systems that have many moving "parts" that are highly dynamic are non-living systems (clouds, sandpiles, etc.) the dynamical structure of living systems is defined by functional processes (e.g., photosynthesis, cellular metabolism, biochemical signaling, etc.).

However, the challenges most living systems present have to do more with understanding them in terms of chemistry and physics and so forth. Animals with brains (like us) present yet another qualitatively different challenge. I gave swarm intelligence (and used that term) as an example deliberately: while a single ant is a nightmare to try to explain in terms of physics & chemistry, it's much easier if one is only interested in a model that can simulate its actions. Most animals integrate or process information in a way that we can simulate (and exploit) using computers. It's all entirely procedural, syntactic, meaningless manipulation of input. Brains (even those of mice) are far more complicated and "smarter" than any cutting-edge AI systems we have. Somehow, they are able to process information conceptually. We have no idea how this is possible (we just know some things that seem to be involved).

Consciousness is the ultimate "concept"; a dynamic concept of "self". We're beyond reactionary, beyond most conceptual processing, and entering a realm of where self-organization is so complicated and so beyond anything else it is self-determination. It's like internal, ever-changing physical laws that the system generates. But that's just one mystifying, seemingly impossible aspect. The other is how information can go from being processed to being understood (concepts) to being understood by a "concept" that seems to causally determine itself.

Basically, it only makes sense as "complex interactions in the brain" as long as by "makes sense" you mean without any understanding as to how it does.

 

[outhouse]

Of course consciousness is nonphysical

Unsubstantiated.

Is a computer physical?

Is a brain physical?

 

[outhouse]

entering a realm of where self-organization is so complicated and so beyond anything else it is self-determination

Unsubstantiated, subjective.

that seems to causally determine itself.

unsubstantiated, subjective.

Basically, it only makes sense as "complex interactions in the brain" as long as by "makes sense" you mean without any understanding as to how it does.

Not "as long as" We have understanding as to how it does. It is just not in 100% detail. We are not blind here. The brain is factually a chemical and electrical computer that creates consciousness.


Consciousness factually exist in the brain. It factually is not detectable outside the brain.

To determine the physical aspects on consciousness, we only have to detect "thought" originating in the brain, and we factually have.

This has nothing to do with 100% quantify, or measure, or understand fully.

 

[outhouse]

Consciousness is the ultimate "concept"; a dynamic concept of "self".

So very true.

One that has factually evolved, and is directly tied to brain size, and measurable to some extent.

Looking at out primitive ancestors, one can deduce intelligence and IQ from smaller brain sizes, by tool use alone.

We also see brain size increases somewhat tied to fire use and dietary changes that increased levels of conscious thought, required for survival.

 

[jchristopher]

This still requires some type of interaction dualism.

What exactly do you mean by "interaction" or "dualism".

 

[outhouse]

Btw... Perhaps the reason why you don't know is because you make consciousness out to be something it is not. When you realize that consciousness is nothing more than complex physical interactions in the brain, then everything just makes sense.

Agree whole hearted.

The only thing guiding people away from the truth here, is the primitive mythology that created a unsubstantiated definition, people refuse to let go.

 

[Willamena]

I'm just wondering where we draw the line between physical and non-physical.

I draw it at utility, for the physical at the point where measure is meaningful.

We make good use of a measure of a wave. On the other hand we could measure a promise or courage, but to what end? Their utility is just in their base meaningfulness.

 

[Runewolf1973]

No it doesn't. Complexity is the norm, as are complex interactions. Liquid crystals, swarm intelligence (not the computational intelligence paradigm but what it was based on: ant colonies, bee hives, etc.), even the influence of supernovae on long term climate trends via their influence on cloud coverage all are just a tiny sample of the different kinds of complexity that make up the world around us. Yet only one of these kinds presents a qualitatively harder challenge: living systems. Physics began with and much of it remains as the study of motion of bodies when acted upon. In other words, whether we're talking about the motion of planets or the interactions of gaseous molecules in a pressurized container, everything is passively responding.

Living systems have agency, from single-celled organisms to us. As simplistic as the grade school account "objects at rest tend to stay at rest", it's a useful simplification of the natural tendency towards equilibrium. Living systems are fundamentally different in that a core aspect of their nature is being far from thermodynamic equilibrium. While lots of systems that have many moving "parts" that are highly dynamic are non-living systems (clouds, sandpiles, etc.) the dynamical structure of living systems is defined by functional processes (e.g., photosynthesis, cellular metabolism, biochemical signaling, etc.).

However, the challenges most living systems present have to do more with understanding them in terms of chemistry and physics and so forth. Animals with brains (like us) present yet another qualitatively different challenge. I gave swarm intelligence (and used that term) as an example deliberately: while a single ant is a nightmare to try to explain in terms of physics & chemistry, it's much easier if one is only interested in a model that can simulate its actions. Most animals integrate or process information in a way that we can simulate (and exploit) using computers. It's all entirely procedural, syntactic, meaningless manipulation of input. Brains (even those of mice) are far more complicated and "smarter" than any cutting-edge AI systems we have. Somehow, they are able to process information conceptually. We have no idea how this is possible (we just know some things that seem to be involved).

Consciousness is the ultimate "concept"; a dynamic concept of "self". We're beyond reactionary, beyond most conceptual processing, and entering a realm of where self-organization is so complicated and so beyond anything else it is self-determination. It's like internal, ever-changing physical laws that the system generates. But that's just one mystifying, seemingly impossible aspect. The other is how information can go from being processed to being understood (concepts) to being understood by a "concept" that seems to causally determine itself.

Basically, it only makes sense as "complex interactions in the brain" as long as by "makes sense" you mean without any understanding as to how it does.

I guess I would have to agree with you there. As much as things sometimes seem to make sense, they are really far from making any sense whatsoever. On another note, you mentioned "living systems". What part of a system composed of physical matter is actually living? The way I see it, the matter in my brain or my body is not living or alive, it is merely interacting in a complex manner giving the illusion of life. I think life is an illusion in that sense. There are only complex interactions. The more complex those interactions become, the more animated or life-like (not actually living, only appearing that way) those systems become.

 

[Nakosis]

I guess I would have to agree with you there. As much as things sometimes seem to make sense, they are really far from making any sense whatsoever. On another note, you mentioned "living systems". What part of a system composed of physical matter is actually living?

The conscious part.

The way I see it, the matter in my brain or my body is not living or alive, it is merely interacting in a complex manner giving the illusion of life. I think life is an illusion in that sense. There are only complex interactions. The more complex those interactions become, the more animated or life-like (not actually living, only appearing that way) those systems become.

Consciousness can be measured. If it is measurable, is it still an illusion?

 

[Nakosis]

I draw it at utility, for the physical at the point where measure is meaningful.

We make good use of a measure of a wave. On the other hand we could measure a promise or courage, but to what end? Their utility is just in their base meaningfulness.

It'd be interesting to measure a promise. You might have a better idea if it was actually going to be fulfilled.

It would be an interesting study. Measure the brainwaves of individuals who make a promise they intend to fulfill and those that have no intention of fulfilling them. See if you can detect a difference.

I'd vote to have every politician be mentally monitored when they make their campaign speeches.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The conscious part.



Consciousness can be measured. If it is measurable, is it still an illusion?

Depends how you look at it I guess.

I see highly complex interactions giving the false appearance of being something more mysterious. I believe that something "more" is the illusion. There is no "more" to life than complexity the way I see it. It may be ridiculously and unfathomably complex, but that doesn't mean it is anything more than chemical or physical interactions in the brain. I think people mistake that complexity just because we don't entirely understand how it works, for something non-physical, spiritual, or magical.

 

[Willamena]

It would be an interesting study. Measure the brainwaves of individuals who make a promise they intend to fulfill and those that have no intention of fulfilling them. See if you can detect a difference.

But then you'd be measuring brain waves, not promises.

And if wishes were ponies...

 

[Nakosis]

But then you'd be measuring brain waves, not promises.

And if wishes were ponies...

Brain activity exposes those who break promises
Brain activity exposes those who break promises -- ScienceDaily

 

[Willamena]

Brain activity exposes those who break promises
Brain activity exposes those who break promises -- ScienceDaily

And...?

 

[shawn001]

The Father Of Cognitive Neuroscience Shares His Conclusions

Everything begins and ends with the brain. Mike Gazzaniga shares his thoughts on our mental life.

Breaking Down Cognitive Neuroscience | Through the Wormhole | Discovery Science

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

you mentioned "living systems". What part of a system composed of physical matter is actually living? The way I see it, the matter in my brain or my body is not living or alive

You raise an interesting and important point. I use the term living systems partly because a lot of what I do concerns complex systems, and in particular the brain, but as complexity is not just universal, it's also diverse and variously defined. So just saying a system is complex isn't always enough. More importantly, and more directly related to part of what you said, it's true that we don't normally think of parts of our bodies as being alive. After all, our cells are dying all the time. However, an important part of many sciences is determining the level of analysis you are interested in and constructing a model appropriate to that level. For example, it's important to understand climate change, but that involves thousands of different complex systems all interacting. So different researchers may look at certain small systems in great detail or look at the fine details of a macroscale models (like correcting errors in MSU data we get from satellites caused by e.g., diurnal drift to construct a global temperatures), and others put together many of these results (excluding some that are too insignificant to be worth including and simplifying others). Likewise, not only have I never run or been part of a study that involved even the whole brain rather than some region of interest (ROI), I've spent a lot of time modelling the dynamics of a single neurons of a particular type.

The reason I continue to think in terms of living systems whether I'm looking at a large portion of the brain or a single neuron is NOT because I think of them as being "alive". Rather, what constitutes a "system" is usually whatever you want to include (e.g., a computer system can be studied as a whole if you want, or you can describe the CPU, or RAM, or the physics of CMOS gates). The "living" part comes from the fact that as long as the level you are looking at in a living system is that of a cell or above, there are certain characteristics that such systems possess which make them different from any other: they are self-organizing systems that actively determine their structure dynamically- which requires metabolic-repair processes and the energy for these- rather than simply "sitting there" until some force acts on them. To compare, some granular media that is in a stable configuration will just sit there in that configuration, but when we heat it or do other things the reaction can be incredibly complicated and epistemically indeterministic. In other words, to get the system's parts to engage in complex interactions, I have to do stuff to it. If I want to study an isolated cell, I have to do stuff to keep it alive. If I just take a neuron or skin cell and put it in a petri dish it will die. Instead of needing equipment to get the system to exhibit complex behavior, I need equipment to keep the complex behavior it is characterized by to continue.

There are only complex interactions. The more complex those interactions become, the more animated or life-like (not actually living, only appearing that way) those systems become.

At subcellular levels, such as DNA, there are comparable non-living/natural systems that are complex and in similar ways. In fact, from DNA to glasses to snowflakes to "actual" crystals", a lot of the properties are the same. But at that level we are no longer dealing with a living system. Fluid dynamics (which is a bit misleading as a main uses is to model e.g., air flow) is really complicated because we use it for systems that have an enormous number of parts all interacting very fast. However, it doesn't matter if we're dealing with a liquid or gas or how many components of either we're dealing with, the only organization we'll ever find is if we "act on" the system in the right ways. It's not just the complexity, but the kind of complexity, one of the main properties of this kind being that living systems require metabolic processes to maintain the constant activity and self-organization that keeps the system "alive", and its organization is of a particular structural type that allow it to "live" via functional processes (metabolism being one).

 

[Runewolf1973]

You raise an interesting and important point. I use the term living systems partly because a lot of what I do concerns complex systems, and in particular the brain, but as complexity is not just universal, it's also diverse and variously defined. So just saying a system is complex isn't always enough. More importantly, and more directly related to part of what you said, it's true that we don't normally think of parts of our bodies as being alive. After all, our cells are dying all the time. However, an important part of many sciences is determining the level of analysis you are interested in and constructing a model appropriate to that level. For example, it's important to understand climate change, but that involves thousands of different complex systems all interacting. So different researchers may look at certain small systems in great detail or look at the fine details of a macroscale models (like correcting errors in MSU data we get from satellites caused by e.g., diurnal drift to construct a global temperatures), and others put together many of these results (excluding some that are too insignificant to be worth including and simplifying others). Likewise, not only have I never run or been part of a study that involved even the whole brain rather than some region of interest (ROI), I've spent a lot of time modelling the dynamics of a single neurons of a particular type.

The reason I continue to think in terms of living systems whether I'm looking at a large portion of the brain or a single neuron is NOT because I think of them as being "alive". Rather, what constitutes a "system" is usually whatever you want to include (e.g., a computer system can be studied as a whole if you want, or you can describe the CPU, or RAM, or the physics of CMOS gates). The "living" part comes from the fact that as long as the level you are looking at in a living system is that of a cell or above, there are certain characteristics that such systems possess which make them different from any other: they are self-organizing systems that actively determine their structure dynamically- which requires metabolic-repair processes and the energy for these- rather than simply "sitting there" until some force acts on them. To compare, some granular media that is in a stable configuration will just sit there in that configuration, but when we heat it or do other things the reaction can be incredibly complicated and epistemically indeterministic. In other words, to get the system's parts to engage in complex interactions, I have to do stuff to it. If I want to study an isolated cell, I have to do stuff to keep it alive. If I just take a neuron or skin cell and put it in a petri dish it will die. Instead of needing equipment to get the system to exhibit complex behavior, I need equipment to keep the complex behavior it is characterized by to continue.


At subcellular levels, such as DNA, there are comparable non-living/natural systems that are complex and in similar ways. In fact, from DNA to glasses to snowflakes to "actual" crystals", a lot of the properties are the same. But at that level we are no longer dealing with a living system. Fluid dynamics (which is a bit misleading as a main uses is to model e.g., air flow) is really complicated because we use it for systems that have an enormous number of parts all interacting very fast. However, it doesn't matter if we're dealing with a liquid or gas or how many components of either we're dealing with, the only organization we'll ever find is if we "act on" the system in the right ways. It's not just the complexity, but the kind of complexity, one of the main properties of this kind being that living systems require metabolic processes to maintain the constant activity and self-organization that keeps the system "alive", and its organization is of a particular structural type that allow it to "live" via functional processes (metabolism being one).

I completely agree. That which we call "life" is a peculiar kind of complexity. The same goes for consciousness. The problem I see is with people making the assumption that just because we haven't quite understood how those complex, physical mechanisms work, there must be some divine, non-physical or mystical force behind it all. Life and consciousness are not works of "magic", but they are most certainly amazing works of physics and chemistry.

 

[Nakosis]

And...?

If wishes were ponies.

If it is measurable then it is physical according to what you said before.

What you imagine can be detected/measured. Concepts are real. Obviously a pony and a desire for a pony are not the same thing but they both are real.

We've answered the question haven't we?

 

[ImaTroll]

Is consciousness physical or nonphysical?

consciousness of 'what' specifically?

 

[Willamena]

If wishes were ponies.

If it is measurable then it is physical according to what you said before.

What you imagine can be detected/measured. Concepts are real. Obviously a pony and a desire for a pony are not the same thing but they both are real.

We've answered the question haven't we?

Again, if it's brain waves that are measured, it's not promises that are measured. The article indicates that promises can be predicted--well done, so can baseball scores and the weather.