Is consciousness physical or nonphysical?

[Bunyip]

Which is why I relied entirely on the words of expert physicists you said you trust.

LOL I said no such thing.

Are you saying that these physicists are wrong, that I misrepresented them, or something else? That is, you stated I don't understand science but physicists do, I provide you with physicists saying what I've said, and you stop responding. If verbosity was still the problem, then you can't possibly have read any physics literature (or non-physics literature that involved quantum physics), as I didn't even provide anything other than plain descriptions. If they were pointless, then why do they directly conflict with what you've repeated multiple times?



I have, and did. I can't quote certain things I've quoted elsewhere, though, because you won't let me. And it is there that you don't respond.

Yes I am painfully aware of your incredible capacity for quoting.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

LOL I said no such thing.
Yes I am painfully aware of your incredible capacity for quoting.

I can quote many things, but here my "capacity" is limited. You state you haven't said things and refuse to allow me to quote you (which is your right), so I'm not sure what you mean by incredible capacity (other than the dripping sarcasm, of course).

 

[FearGod]

Which is both physical, extremely misleading, and not a duality at all. In classical physics, waves were not only defined in opposition to particles, but they did not possess the same ontological status. Waves were the effects on matter and existed only as descriptions of the way matter "behaved" given suitable conditions. That's why a major problem at the turn of the 20th century was trying to find the medium (the "real" stuff) through which light waves propagated. It turned out that there was no such medium, but more importantly that there are no particles. In quantum mechanics, everything is wave-like. Physical systems behave approximately particle-like, of course, but as far as quantum systems are concerned everything is always a wave that is simply less localized or more localized. In particle physics, quantum mechanics is replaced with quantum field theories, and the wave-function with fields. Fields are also non-local, non-particle entities. One of the greatest travesties in the history of physics was that when classical physics was collapsing and modern physics emerging, physicists kept as much of the language and terminology from classical physics as was possible. The problem, though, was that in most cases nothing existed for these terms to apply to in a way that was analogous to classical physics. Thus both in popular and technical physics literature one finds references to the "state of the system" in QM, but unless you have actually studied quantum physics this makes it seems like the physicists are referring to some quantum system that they will perform an experiment on. This is false. In QM, the system is a purely mathematical entity, and the instead of values for observable properties like the momentum or position values that are so intuitive in classical physics, in quantum physics these aren't values at all. Not only that, but where as in classical physics one sets up an experiment to perform one or more measurments, in quantum physics one disrupts multiple systems over and over again and, once this satisfies certain theoretical rules and the researchers have "prepared" a system that doesn't exist, they write a bunch of math down and call it the system. Then, once they interfere with whatever they prepared and this time call it "measurement", they can't actually measure observables (what physical properties does a bunch of math notation have?) they call mathematical functions observables and use these to inform them something about the measurement outcome given the way the way they prepare (disturbed) the "system" such that after they measure and apply the mathematical function they call an observable, they then assert that the system was in a particular state that they never measured and that it isn't as soon as they measured.

Do you regard light as physical or non physical ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the physical and the mental are both emergent properties, what exactly is the substrate from which they are both emerging?

Does there need to be a substrate?

That sort of thinking is why the concept of aether persisted as long as it did.

 

[Laika]

Electromagnetic signals through neurons in the Brain? that's both measurable and observable, but the science behind this is still in it's infancy.

This was intended more as a guess rather than as an assertion of fact. So my apologies for not making that clearer.

There are plenty of electromagnetic signals in the brain that have nothing to do with consciousness. What unique physical properties do the ones have that do relate to conscious awareness?

I'm going to take a guess from a philosophical point of view and say that the relationship between (human) consciousness and neurons will be related to our use of the familiar sounds of language and words with the association of experiences and concepts. the latter will be unconscious and the former will be conscious. It would seem reasonable that you can't have consciousness- in the human sense- without language. However, language is a secondary signal system for consciousness rather than the primary one; animals will have consciousness as well based on direct sensory perception, but I couldn't tell you where this would be.(Again, this is philosophical- not science).

Do you have any kind of source to substantiate this claim?

No. Materialism is a philosophical argument against the dualism of mind and body, of consciousness and the brain; It should logically therefore be substantiated by scientific study as science reduces consciousness to physical phenomena. Assuming that consciousness is the product of the brain makes for provable hypothesis rather than proven hypothesis. Materialism is therefore a form of apriori reasoning which makes scientific research of consciousness possible by assuming consciousness has physical properties. it is possible that scientists would have to give up philosophical dualism in order to take this approach, so materialism would be a paradigm shift in scientific knowledge. So I was wrong to make a claim regarding conclusions of scientific research on this. I assumed greater knowledge on the subject than I am entitled to do so. my apologies.

Whilst I am unable to back up this claim further, a search on Wikipedia narrows down the area where this question could be answered using this approach, so I hope that may prove helpful: Neural correlates of consciousness.

The neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) constitute the minimal set of neuronal events and mechanisms sufficient for a specific conscious percept. Neuroscientists use empirical approaches to discover neural correlates of subjective phenomena. The set should be minimal because, if the brain is sufficient to give rise to any given conscious experience, the question is which of its components is necessary to produce it.

A science of consciousness must explain the exact relationship between subjective mental states and brain states, the nature of the relationship between the conscious mind and the electro-chemical interactions in the body. Progress in neurophilosophy has come from focusing on the body rather than the mind. In this context the neuronal correlates of consciousness may be viewed as its causes, and consciousness may be thought of as a state-dependent property of some undefined complex, adaptive, and highly interconnected biological system.


Discovering and characterizing neural correlates does not offer a theory of consciousness that can explain how particular systems experience anything at all, or how they are associated with consciousness, the so-called hard problem of consciousness, but understanding the NCC may be a step toward such a theory. Most neurobiologists assume that the variables giving rise to consciousness are to be found at the neuronal level, governed by classical physics, though a few scholars have proposed theories of quantum consciousness based on quantum mechanics.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Do you regard light as physical or non physical ?

As I've said a few times over the past 24 hours or so, I don't really think that paradigm or model can encapsulate the nuances of what we've learned concerning the nature of reality. There have been various theories or notions about how to categorize, understand, and differentiate the things that we believe exist and the ways in which they do. At one time (and for many still, though this is largely more of a spiritual/religious position) the elements were earth, water, air, fire and sometimes spirit. Plato had his realm of Forms, Leibniz had his monads, Newton his corpusculars, Descartes his dualism, Laplace is proto-reductionist determinism, and by the late 18th and the 19th centuries we were dealing with a world of particles (what they were changed as we were able to investigate "matter" at closer and closer levels, but matter was still particles and waves no more than an effect on matter). Then the early 20th century shook a lot of things up right after physicists were sure that there work was pretty much done. Those that founded quantum mechanics were too steeped in classical physics. Einstein couldn't deal with the radical departure from what was "physical" in quantum mechanics compared to classical, and spent an unfortunate period of his life trying to show quantum physics was wrong, while Bohr was equally disturbed but found a different solution: pretend the quantum world isn't physical but mathematical. Bohr won, and for a while the view that it was meaningless to ask questions about systems in quantum mechanics was dominant. Then we increased our ability to not only study quantum processes, but create "rules" that govern QM in classical systems. Insane thought experiments from the early days of QM became actual experiments. Meanwhile, changes in others sciences, such as relational biology, systems sciences, complexity, etc., challenged notions held in classical physics.

Interestingly enough, there are languages that are pretty radically different from just about any language most people have heard of in which a defining feature is animacy. Photons, electrons, quarks, etc., have interesting properties to be sure, but they are nothing compared to living systems (even though living systems are made up of these). One can think of photons as being immaterial but I regard them as physical systems because I can treat them as I do other such systems. But from Galileo and Newton unto today, physics has always been mostly about the dynamics of things that aren't "agents" (that can only be acted on). Even simple living systems internally represent information about their environment in ways that are not comparable to any non-living systems, and oddly enough the two great challenges to reductionism are particle physics and living systems. The former tells us that when to try to get to the lowest & simplest layer out of which everything is made-up, there is none. The latter seems to incorporate a sort of "internal" physics.

Photons have more in common with systems with mass like atoms, avalanches, solar systems, etc., than they do with mammals. I don't think 'physical" has much meaning when one considers the ways in which something like concepts can be physical yet abstract, something like anger is so physical we "feel" it yet it isn't anything like a system one deals with in physics, and as for consciousness? There are philosophers who run circles around neuroscientists because neuroscientists are so blinded by a specific approach and understanding that even such basic notions as the ways in which neural correlates really can't mean anything claimed are somehow radical to them.

Light is physical. It's immaterial.

 

[MD]

As I've said a few times over the past 24 hours or so, I don't really think that paradigm or model can encapsulate the nuances of what we've learned concerning the nature of reality. There have been various theories or notions about how to categorize, understand, and differentiate the things that we believe exist and the ways in which they do. At one time (and for many still, though this is largely more of a spiritual/religious position) the elements were earth, water, air, fire and sometimes spirit. Plato had his realm of Forms, Leibniz had his monads, Newton his corpusculars, Descartes his dualism, Laplace is proto-reductionist determinism, and by the late 18th and the 19th centuries we were dealing with a world of particles (what they were changed as we were able to investigate "matter" at closer and closer levels, but matter was still particles and waves no more than an effect on matter). Then the early 20th century shook a lot of things up right after physicists were sure that there work was pretty much done. Those that founded quantum mechanics were too steeped in classical physics. Einstein couldn't deal with the radical departure from what was "physical" in quantum mechanics compared to classical, and spent an unfortunate period of his life trying to show quantum physics was wrong, while Bohr was equally disturbed but found a different solution: pretend the quantum world isn't physical but mathematical. Bohr won, and for a while the view that it was meaningless to ask questions about systems in quantum mechanics was dominant. Then we increased our ability to not only study quantum processes, but create "rules" that govern QM in classical systems. Insane thought experiments from the early days of QM became actual experiments. Meanwhile, changes in others sciences, such as relational biology, systems sciences, complexity, etc., challenged notions held in classical physics.

Interestingly enough, there are languages that are pretty radically different from just about any language most people have heard of in which a defining feature is animacy. Photons, electrons, quarks, etc., have interesting properties to be sure, but they are nothing compared to living systems (even though living systems are made up of these). One can think of photons as being immaterial but I regard them as physical systems because I can treat them as I do other such systems. But from Galileo and Newton unto today, physics has always been mostly about the dynamics of things that aren't "agents" (that can only be acted on). Even simple living systems internally represent information about their environment in ways that are not comparable to any non-living systems, and oddly enough the two great challenges to reductionism are particle physics and living systems. The former tells us that when to try to get to the lowest & simplest layer out of which everything is made-up, there is none. The latter seems to incorporate a sort of "internal" physics.

Photons have more in common with systems with mass like atoms, avalanches, solar systems, etc., than they do with mammals. I don't think 'physical" has much meaning when one considers the ways in which something like concepts can be physical yet abstract, something like anger is so physical we "feel" it yet it isn't anything like a system one deals with in physics, and as for consciousness? There are philosophers who run circles around neuroscientists because neuroscientists are so blinded by a specific approach and understanding that even such basic notions as the ways in which neural correlates really can't mean anything claimed are somehow radical to them.

Light is physical. It's immaterial.

Hey sorry haven't been reading your posts well , when you talk about metabolism, are you referring to the fact that ATP releases energy which powers our cells, and in that sense what is the nature of energy?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Hey sorry haven't been reading your posts well

I don't blame you. I don't read them either.

when you talk about metabolism, are you referring to the fact that ATP releases energy which powers our cells, and in that sense what is the nature of energy?

More this:
"A simple representation of components to a system is the input/output block diagram. In this representation, each block represents an agent that effects a change on something, namely its input. The result of this interaction is some output. The abstract way of representing this is

where f is the process that takes input A into output B. Clearly B can now become the input for some other process so that we can visualize a system as anetwork of these interactions. The relational system represents a very special kind of transition this way. Rather than break everything down in the usual reductionist manner, these transitions are selected for an important distinguishing property, namely their expression of process rather than material thingsdirectly. This is best explained with an example. The system Rosen uses for an example is the Metabolism-Repair or [M,R] system. The process, f, in this case stands for the entire metabolism going on in an organism. This is, indeed, quite an abstraction. Clearly, the use of such a representation is meant to suppress the myriad of detail that would only serve to distract us from the more simple argument put this way. It does more because it allows processes we know are going on to be divorced from the requirement that they be fragmentable or reducible to material parts alone...
The transition, f, which is being called metabolism, is a mapping taking some set of metabolites, A, into some set of products, B. What are the members of A? Really everything in the organism has to be included in A, and there has to be an implicit agreement that at least some of the members of A can enter the organism from its environment. What are the members of B? Many, if not all, of the members of A since the transitions in the reduced system are all strung together in the many intricate patterns or networks that make up the organism’s metabolism. It also must be true that some members of B leave the organism as products of metabolism. The usefulness of this abstract representation becomes clearer if the causal nature of the events is made clear...
the mapping, f...is a functional component of the system we are developing. A functional component has many interesting attributes. First of all, it exists independent of the material parts that make it possible. This idea has been so frequently misunderstood that it requires a careful discussion. Reductionism has taught us that every thing in a real system can be expressed as a collection of material parts. This is not so in the case of functional components. We only know about them because they do something. Looking at the parts involved does not lead us to knowing about them if they are not doing that something. Furthermore, they only exist in a given context. “Metabolism” as discussed here has no meaning in a machine. It also would have no meaning if we had all the chemical components of the organism in jars on a lab bench. Now we have a way of dealing with context dependence in a system theoretical manner. Not only are they only defined in their context, they also are constantly contributing to that context. This is as self- referential a situation as there is. What it means is that if the context, the particular system, is destroyed or even severely altered, the context defining the functional component will no longer exist and the functional component will also disappear...
The semantic parallel with language is in the concept of functional component. Pull things apart as reductionism asks us to do and something essential about the system is lost. Philosophically this has revolutionary consequences. The acceptance of this idea means that one recognizes ontological status for something other than mere atoms and molecules. It says that material reality is only a part of that real world we are so anxious to understand. In addition to material reality there are functional components that are also essential to our understanding of any complex reality.

Mikulecky, D. C. (2005). The Circle That Never Ends: Can Complexity be Made Simple?. In Complexity in Chemistry, Biology, and Ecology (pp. 97-153). Springer

 

[FearGod]

As I've said a few times over the past 24 hours or so, I don't really think that paradigm or model can encapsulate the nuances of what we've learned concerning the nature of reality. There have been various theories or notions about how to categorize, understand, and differentiate the things that we believe exist and the ways in which they do. At one time (and for many still, though this is largely more of a spiritual/religious position) the elements were earth, water, air, fire and sometimes spirit. Plato had his realm of Forms, Leibniz had his monads, Newton his corpusculars, Descartes his dualism, Laplace is proto-reductionist determinism, and by the late 18th and the 19th centuries we were dealing with a world of particles (what they were changed as we were able to investigate "matter" at closer and closer levels, but matter was still particles and waves no more than an effect on matter). Then the early 20th century shook a lot of things up right after physicists were sure that there work was pretty much done. Those that founded quantum mechanics were too steeped in classical physics. Einstein couldn't deal with the radical departure from what was "physical" in quantum mechanics compared to classical, and spent an unfortunate period of his life trying to show quantum physics was wrong, while Bohr was equally disturbed but found a different solution: pretend the quantum world isn't physical but mathematical. Bohr won, and for a while the view that it was meaningless to ask questions about systems in quantum mechanics was dominant. Then we increased our ability to not only study quantum processes, but create "rules" that govern QM in classical systems. Insane thought experiments from the early days of QM became actual experiments. Meanwhile, changes in others sciences, such as relational biology, systems sciences, complexity, etc., challenged notions held in classical physics.

Interestingly enough, there are languages that are pretty radically different from just about any language most people have heard of in which a defining feature is animacy. Photons, electrons, quarks, etc., have interesting properties to be sure, but they are nothing compared to living systems (even though living systems are made up of these). One can think of photons as being immaterial but I regard them as physical systems because I can treat them as I do other such systems. But from Galileo and Newton unto today, physics has always been mostly about the dynamics of things that aren't "agents" (that can only be acted on). Even simple living systems internally represent information about their environment in ways that are not comparable to any non-living systems, and oddly enough the two great challenges to reductionism are particle physics and living systems. The former tells us that when to try to get to the lowest & simplest layer out of which everything is made-up, there is none. The latter seems to incorporate a sort of "internal" physics.

Photons have more in common with systems with mass like atoms, avalanches, solar systems, etc., than they do with mammals. I don't think 'physical" has much meaning when one considers the ways in which something like concepts can be physical yet abstract, something like anger is so physical we "feel" it yet it isn't anything like a system one deals with in physics, and as for consciousness? There are philosophers who run circles around neuroscientists because neuroscientists are so blinded by a specific approach and understanding that even such basic notions as the ways in which neural correlates really can't mean anything claimed are somehow radical to them.

Light is physical. It's immaterial.

And so the soul, it's immaterial.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And so the soul, it's immaterial.

No, it's a musical genre.

 

[FearGod]

No, it's a musical genre.

How the physical brain enjoys life ?
Does the physical brain see ? and do you think the image we see is physical or nonphysical ?
Does the feeling and attraction to the opposite sex physical or nonphysical ?

Is the sex dream physical which may cause sometimes erection and wet dream?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

How the physical brain enjoys life ?

I don't enjoy life.

Does the physical brain see ?

No.

and do you thing the image we see is physical or nonphysical ?

The image is a description of the physical things we see.

Does the feeling and attraction to the opposite sex physical or nonphysical ?

I'm more or less asexual. I've been attracted sexually to two females in my life. So my personal answers here wouldn't generalize.

Is the sex dream physical which may cause sometimes erection and wet dream?

Again, I'm not the one to ask.

 

[FearGod]

I don't enjoy life.

Who force you to stay ?

No.

Then if the physical brain and the physical eye doesn't see then who is the one to see.

The image is a description of the physical things we see.

Yes but the image itself isn't physical.

I'm more or less asexual. I've been attracted sexually to two females in my life. So my personal answers here wouldn't generalize.

Do you enjoy listening to music ? is it the physical brain that enjoying it ?

Again, I'm not the one to ask.

But you know that it is happening.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Who force you to stay ?

Nobody is forcing, just asking.

Then if the physical brain and the physical eye doesn't see then who is the one to see.

Do you know what self-organized criticality is?

 

[stevevw]

There has been much science investigation in recent times which may indicate that our minds can have another dimension to them. they may go on into another realm or there is some consciousness beyond this reality. This is mainly based on quantum physics where the evidence for what happens in this micro world may point to there being more than just the physics we understand in this world. Experiments in quantum mechanics shows that particles can act in two different forms as particles and waves. But the form a particle takes seems to be based on the observer. It is not until someone tries to observe a particle that the particle will take one form or the other. This has led some to say that our reality is only what we see and that our minds are creating the macro world we live in.

Einstein found it hard to accept quantum physics and hence his famous saying that he believed the moon was there even if we weren't looking at it. This stemmed from how quantum physics pointed to maybe our conscience creating the things we see. Though our reality is there to touch and see it maybe that there is more to things that just that. There maybe another level of reality or another realm which is beyond our reality that we cant see at the moment. Some scientists have come up with hypothesis like multiverses, holograms, time travel, worm holes that may take us to these other dimensions, string theory and 2D worlds that are all mainly stemming from what we have found with quantum physics. There are many thought experiments such as Schrodinger's cat which try to describe what happens in the quantum world. Though these are just thought experiments they do explain what could be something that really happens somewhere in the scheme of things. Its just we dont see it happening but in the quantum world many things are possible.

Of course many say that much of this is pseudo science and maybe it is. But its early days and we will discover more as we go. But certainly many scientists are trying to understand what is happening in the quantum world around us.
Quantum weirdness: What we call 'reality' is just a state of mind
The Biocentric Universe Theory: Life Creates Time, Space, and the Cosmos Itself | DiscoverMagazine.com

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There has been much science investigation in recent times which may indicate that our minds can have another dimension to them.

There hasn't. It appears as if you are a new member (that's what it says under your name and you've only posted 13 times so I think that this is correct). So I'm going to not act like a complete jerk and try to be more polite. I happen to know a bit about neuroscience research and in the physics of consciousness. This absolutely does not mean that I know the physics of consciousness, as nobody does, I just mean that it is a particular focus of mine.

In a typical fMRI study, one mind investigate aspects of the mind in 12,000 dimensional space. In a behavioral experiment, it might by 20, or 200, or a few dozen. Dimensionality here is mathematical, and doesn't even have the insignificant yet physical ramifications that extra dimensions required of certain formulations of string theory and M-theory do.

they may go on into another realm or there is some consciousness beyond this reality.

No.

This is mainly based on quantum physics where the evidence for what happens in this micro world may point to there being more than just the physics we understand in this world. Experiments in quantum mechanics shows that particles can act in two different forms as particles and waves.

The notion that higher-level cognitive processes requires quantum coherence at levels that are almost impossible to achieve within a lab with million dollar equipment designed to do just this. Nor does there exist any theory (Not Penrose & Hameroff's, Stapp's, Clayton's, Eccles', or even the "quantum-like consciousness" model of ‎Khrennikov) that can do more than point to processes within neurons that require quantum mechanical treatment without any evidence this differs from the ways in which QM is needed to when it comes to the quantum processes that necessarily exist in every cell in your body.

Einstein found it hard to accept quantum physics and hence his famous saying that he believed the moon was there even if we weren't looking at it.

You got the first part right but mixed up the next. A younger colleague of Einstein reported an experience he had while walking and talking with Einstein and suggesting that maybe QM was not the horrific danger to all that is noble in physics Einstein supposed. Einstein reportedly turned around and asked rhetorically "Is the moon still there when you don't look at it?" This was a reference to counterfactual indefiniteness in quantum mechanics.

 

[Runewolf1973]

If consciousness is an emergent property, it is still a physical property. I would say there is no such thing as non-physical. Even our thoughts are physical in some way. To me physical = existing. Non-physical = non-existing.

 

[Robert Vincelette]

Is consciousness physical or nonphysical?

In quantum mechanics it is easy to prove that electrons in chemical reactions are governed by probability rather than pure classical Newtonian mechanics; that given a perturbation from time t=0 to some later time when time = t, the probability is equal to an integral that the electron will change state in the course of a chemical reaction. If every physical parameter were known about the electron, including the electric and magnetic perturbations acting upon it, the laws of physics themselves cannot predict exactly when it will change state.
Our consciousness consists of the physical processes of chemical actions in the brain within and between neurons and Heisenberg indeterminacy proves that the only physical part of it is the probability for any chemical action that will manifest itself in an act of the will, what lies within the probability is not some hidden physical variable, it is something unknowable and mysterious, inaccessible to any kind of mechanics. That means that within that inaccessibility is a measure of free will that is non-physical.
That free will is both our responsibility and our intrinsic dignity given in Kant's categorical imperative. I think that same dignity applies to animals who bear central nervous systems.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In quantum mechanics it is easy to prove that electrons in chemical reactions are governed by probability

It's impossible to prove, which is why it is a postulate. But yes, it is true that quantum mechanics is probabilistic.

rather than pure classical Newtonian mechanics; that given a perturbation from time t=0 to some later time when time = t

Not t. If you don't want to use subscripts then you still need to use some kind of index.

the probability is equal to an integral

All continuous probability functions are integrals.

that the electron will change state in the course of a chemical reaction

An integral here is a value that tells you a total, which in probability is always 1. In other words, to say that the probability is equal to an integral that the electron will do anything is to say that the electron will always do that as the integral describes the entire set of possible outcomes by definition.

. If every physical parameter were known about the electron, including the electric and magnetic perturbations acting upon it, the laws of physics themselves cannot predict exactly when it will change state.

That's because the "laws of physics" prevent us from knowing such things.

Our consciousness consists of the physical processes of chemical actions in the brain within and between neurons and Heisenberg indeterminacy proves that the only physical part of it is the probability for any chemical action that will manifest itself in an act of the will, what lies within the probability is not some hidden physical variable,

This is just pure BS.

 

[Runewolf1973]

To me, all this means is there is limitations to what we know or can know about the physical, not that what we don't know is non-physical. That would be like the old belief that diseases are caused by non-physical spirits because at the time we could not see their physical causes.