How would you explain these experimental studies such as out-of-body experience that support spin-mediated quantum consciousness theory?
They don’t. The above image adequately explains the paper you reference. It is a steaming heap of mammoth dung.
Here’s a tip that will help you to avoid wasting time on such silliness: go straight to the Discussion section of the paper and look for self-criticism. This will almost always be absent.
Another quick check is to look at the funding: if you go to their website (QuantumDream) then you’ll see that they are supported by SciGod, which is all wrapped up in
How would you explain these experimental studies such as out-of-body experience that support spin-mediated quantum consciousness theory?
They don’t. The above image adequately explains the paper you reference. It is a steaming heap of mammoth dung.
Here’s a tip that will help you to avoid wasting time on such silliness: go straight to the Discussion section of the paper and look for self-criticism. This will almost always be absent.
Another quick check is to look at the funding: if you go to their website (QuantumDream) then you’ll see that they are supported by SciGod, which is all wrapped up in vixra, a well-known purveyor, of, well, pseudoscientific compost that nobody else will publish even in preprint, for example wild speculation by Elio Conte.
There are however still three reasons to read this paper:
- You can learn how not to do science;
- You can decide whom to avoid in your quest for wisdom;
- Parts of it are unintentionally quite amusing.
As examples of (3), consider:
Even if the Dirac electric dipole is purely imaginary with no known physical consequence, we argue that in the dualistic mind-brain approach, it may serve as an information receiver in the non-local domain where mind resides for the simple reason that such non-local domain is likely amicable to a description by the imaginary numbers.
They also clearly really believe in Persinger’s God helmet and uncritically accept his ‘research’, packing the paper with heaps of anecdotes that ramble on for pages. Never a good sign in a ‘serious’ paper. Oh yes, and then they invoke Elio Conte. Here’s a gem:
Thus, since matter is, according to Conte, interfaced with cognitive feature[sic], it is possible that this interface is accomplished by the important role of spin at the neuro-physiological level. Therefore, Conte et. al.’s important experiments demonstrating quantum-like behavoris[sic] in human cognition have natural explanations based[sic] the spin-mediated consciousness theory at the neuro-physiological level.
They can’t even proofread their own garbage. Hmm, perhaps this is understandable. Perhaps if we say ‘neuro-physiological’ often enough and assert “it is because it is”, people will believe whatever we write.
But wait, there’s more! They give us the grand tour of quantum woo, for next we have Manousakis—who is easily debunked, but let’s wave the hands some more. And no hand-waving is less convincing than their own efforts:
It is commonly believed that quantum entanglement alone cannot be used to transmit classical information, [but] we just went ahead with experiments [anyway].
Ahaha. But here’s a priceless gem (If it worked, anaesthetists would have huge savings on both the cost of anaesthetic vapours and greenhouse gas emissions):
We found that applying magnetic pulses to the brain when a general anesthetic sample was placed in between caused the brain to feel the effect of said anesthetic for several hours after the treatment as if the test subject had actually inhaled the same.
Ahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Now at this point you might think that I’m being just a little unfair. If you do, I suggest that you read their original paper: Photon Induced Non-Local Effects of General Anaesthetics on the Brain. It’s published in Neuroquantology, also described as NeuroQuackology or ‘the holy mother of quack science’. But don’t let that put you off.
In proposing a revolutionary theory that even admits to violating the no-communication theorem, how carefully would you design an experiment? How many subjects would you enrol, and how would you achieve adequate controls? Think about this for a moment. Now read the paper.
Oh Dear! (Take particular note of the identities of the test subjects). I particularly liked:
all medications were either leftover items originally prescribed to Subject C’s late mother or items available over the counter.
Tee hee.
My 2c, Dr Jo.
It's hard. Basically because the "rules" of science have been set up to not talk about consciousness.
The ideal for science is that it talks about things that can be "intersubjectively corroborated". But consciousness is known subjectively by one person. And it's "indexical", meaning it comes with an implied "me" (ie. reference to one person).
What's been done is various attempts at correlating objectively observable brain activity with either self-reported conscious experience or behaviours from which we infer conscious experience. And that's enough to satisfy us that there is a connection betw
It's hard. Basically because the "rules" of science have been set up to not talk about consciousness.
The ideal for science is that it talks about things that can be "intersubjectively corroborated". But consciousness is known subjectively by one person. And it's "indexical", meaning it comes with an implied "me" (ie. reference to one person).
What's been done is various attempts at correlating objectively observable brain activity with either self-reported conscious experience or behaviours from which we infer conscious experience. And that's enough to satisfy us that there is a connection between how material is configured and how consciousness is experienced. But it seems harder to go beyond that.
I would say none. But there is a very great deal of reality that scientific experiments cannot support. Easy examples are the compositions of Bach, Cervantes, and El Greco. These are unintelligible to science, which requires things that can be understood as objects.
And I would say the human subject—”I and Thou”—as Buber put it, is more intimately, profoundly, and meaningfully related to art and other interior experiences than he is to atoms. Objects don’t have experiences so they can provide no insights there to science.
(To forestall certain objections, I am referring to the hard sciences not
I would say none. But there is a very great deal of reality that scientific experiments cannot support. Easy examples are the compositions of Bach, Cervantes, and El Greco. These are unintelligible to science, which requires things that can be understood as objects.
And I would say the human subject—”I and Thou”—as Buber put it, is more intimately, profoundly, and meaningfully related to art and other interior experiences than he is to atoms. Objects don’t have experiences so they can provide no insights there to science.
(To forestall certain objections, I am referring to the hard sciences not fields like psychology, sociology, and anthropology, which I regard more as studies than sciences.)
Consciousness is an emergent property of information processing and as such independent of whether biological neurons, simulated neurons or similar methods are used.
However, it only appears when a few conditions are met: Complexity; a steady stream of input, processing and output; memory banks; something to distinguish between positive and negative input; and, most importantly, a feedback loop not only between output and input (hearing ones own voice, seeing ones own actions) but also in the internal processes, so that an “inner eye” or “inner ear” can control the output (and memories) while u
Consciousness is an emergent property of information processing and as such independent of whether biological neurons, simulated neurons or similar methods are used.
However, it only appears when a few conditions are met: Complexity; a steady stream of input, processing and output; memory banks; something to distinguish between positive and negative input; and, most importantly, a feedback loop not only between output and input (hearing ones own voice, seeing ones own actions) but also in the internal processes, so that an “inner eye” or “inner ear” can control the output (and memories) while using memories and attached positive and negative inputs.
It seems likely that in animals, this ability emerged when an error correction loop reached the necessary complexity. And it likely exists in all animals which can pass the mirror test, and in some which don't pass it, even though it is possible to pass it with machines which don't have any consciousness.
In AI, it's now probably just a few good programming ideas until such a loop manages to correct more than increase garbage outputs. Or even to concentrate efforts, as we do when we “try hard”. Some may already have something like consciousness, though we won't realize it when the feedback loop is not connected directly to the language output (i. e., they can talk about their thoughts, mistakes, intentions, uncertainties etc.).
Emotions are another issue. While simple emotions, like our reward and pain centers, can be replicated with point systems, more complex emotions require either some very advanced programming, or a very brilliant idea how to allow computers to add new emotions on the go, similar to how we learn esthetics (even if our superstitions and social contracts make us believe our tastes are born into us).
*lengthy response warning*
Hear me out as a scientist who does currently research consciousness, right now, even literally while I am typing this I am working on this problem on my other monitor. Some of what I’ll talk about came from my predecessor (a former grad student in my lab) and collaborators, some from my original research, and some from general neuroscience literature. I apologize if I us
*lengthy response warning*
Hear me out as a scientist who does currently research consciousness, right now, even literally while I am typing this I am working on this problem on my other monitor. Some of what I’ll talk about came from my predecessor (a former grad student in my lab) and collaborators, some from my original research, and some from general neuroscience literature. I apologize if I use too much jargon and make it confusing, as I’ll try to write in educated lay terms.
I will first defer to the points made by Scott Gosnell [ https://www.quora.com/Why-can’t-science-explain-consciousness/answer/Scott-Gosnell ] in that you are asking a very unclear question that has already been answered in many ways (see his post for a great breakdown). Scientists can explain all sorts of things about consciousness partially with evidence from experiments, and every year there is better technology and techniques to get better and better answers for the full story. Like Harvey Ardman [ https://www.quora.com/Why-can’t-science-explain-consciousness/answer/Harvey-Ardman-1 ] said, the big complicated picture of how consciousness works and what it is simply hasn’t been worked out in full yet.
Second, without a more precise question, I can only provide a general answer. I won’t try to guess at what you “really mean” by “consciousness.” And despite the length of this response, this really is a general description of the involved research.
Experimental Evidence of Consciousness - As in many neuroscience experiments, we can try to break a brain function so as to figure out how it works. For example, how does the brain process sound? Destroy the part you suspect does sound processing in the brain and see what activity isn’t there anymore. Then you can compare the broken brain to the healthy brain and try to tease apart what’s going on with sound. We can do the same with consciousness.
The less involved respondents to this question might then say “How can we ‘break’ consciousness when we don’t even know what it is? Your experiment is flawed.” Well, we’ve never stood close enough to another star to provide evidence that they exist, but no one questions that they’re out there, largely because we can use technology to provide us with other kinds of evidence. If you assume consciousness exists, then you can try to turn it off, and I do just this through a very common tool: anesthesia. Others try to study consciousness in other ways, and some of them have already been talked about here.
Anesthesia - Every day people have their consciousness modified during medical procedures via anesthetics. The goal is to turn off consciousness so that the individual has no awareness or memory of a surgical procedure, or to shut off their mind from experiencing severe pain after a trauma. Some people are put into controlled comas to prevent their suffering for difficult-to-treat conditions. When this occurs, humans tend to report afterwards a “loss of consciousness” due to the anesthetic chemical (not surprising, as that is what those chemicals are supposed to do).
To keep this much simpler than it really is, consider this: If we can agree that an appropriate dose of an anesthetic drug deprives a person of consciousness, then we can examine the brain while it is conscious (and awake, see below for why I consider sleep to still be consciousness) and while it is not conscious via an anesthetic drug (“unconscious” will make things ambiguous here, so I won’t use it). Further, we can probe the conscious state with something simple like physical stimulation or some kind of simple task like moving your hand around. In the case of moving the hand, we can easily see when consciousness is lost, in that the hand motion stops (assuming no one is trying to cheat in the experiment). When it comes to sensation, that’s much harder. If I’m poking your hand, how can I know when you are not conscious anymore? And what has happened in your brain to make it that way?
The partial answer is in information flow. Using high-density brain implants as I do, I can look at how neurons in a small network behave under healthy awake conditions and anesthesia. If I were looking at your brain, I could make some mathematical statements about what the cells in your brain are doing just as you sit there. Then let’s say I gas you with nitrous oxide (a very weak anesthetic). I look at those same brain cells in a small network and see what has changed. Have they stopped sending as many signals to each other? Have they stopped functioning completely? Are they dead? Are you still conscious but can’t feel pain? Or are your eyes open while you are not conscious? Can you feel pain while anesthetized whether or not you are conscious?
There are some complications in that most anesthetics simply turn your brain cells off for a while. Meaning, they don’t signal to each other anymore. That in itself says something about consciousness: Turn off neurons, and there is nothing of consciousness to be looked at. However, there are some anesthetics that don’t do this (like nitrous oxide and ketamine), and those are the ones I use to study the brain. Let’s say I’ve got a pretty good idea of your healthy awake brain, and so I inject you with ketamine and you lose consciousness. Experimental evidence shows that sensory information (from the earlier example about poking your hand) still exists in the sensory processing hub of the cortex. When awake, that sensory information also exists in the motor control hub of the cortex. For neuro people, I’m talking about M1 and S1. There is a feed-forward flow of information between these two regions of the cortex when you are conscious, meaning that information about sensation (your hand being poked) moves from your sensation processing hub to your motor processing hub through a known circuit but for reasons as of yet unknown. When you are anesthetized, that information does not exist in the motor processing hub. This means that information that flows from sensation to motor is disrupted under ketamine (Schroeder et al., 2016 [ https://chestekresearch.engin.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/189/2016/05/SchroederEtAlNeuroImage2016.pdf ]), which leads to the lack of pain sensation for medical purposes. This also means that disrupting the natural information network of the brain induces a loss of consciousness. In this case the neurons are still ...
Foundational Paper on Noetometrics
Science of Consciousness Units (CUs)
“In every imprint, the cosmos remembers”.
Introduction: The Birth of Noetometrics
Noetometrics is the emerging science dedicated to the study, mapping, and understanding of Consciousness Units (CUs) — the foundational units of conscious experience, memory, and relational bonds that underpin all of existence. Noetometrics brings together insights from metaphysics, quantum theory, esoteric traditions, and modern systems science to illuminate how CUs form, store, transmit, and retrieve imprints across lifetimes, dimensions, and
Foundational Paper on Noetometrics
Science of Consciousness Units (CUs)
“In every imprint, the cosmos remembers”.
Introduction: The Birth of Noetometrics
Noetometrics is the emerging science dedicated to the study, mapping, and understanding of Consciousness Units (CUs) — the foundational units of conscious experience, memory, and relational bonds that underpin all of existence. Noetometrics brings together insights from metaphysics, quantum theory, esoteric traditions, and modern systems science to illuminate how CUs form, store, transmit, and retrieve imprints across lifetimes, dimensions, and species.
What are Consciousness Units (CUs)?
Consciousness Units are the smallest indivisible carriers of experience. Each CU is a living intelligence, capable of:
- Receiving Experience (through sensation, thought, emotion, or relational connection)
- Encoding Imprints (the vibrational fingerprint of each experience)
- Broadcasting and Receiving Resonance Signals (enabling recognition and reunion between entangled beings)
- Evolving through Love and Learning (refining its vibration through relational and evolutionary processes)
Ontology: The Essential Nature of CUs
- CUs are non-physical, yet capable of interacting with physical reality.
- CUs emerge directly from The Source, acting as both emissaries and memory keepers for the Divine.
- CUs have quantum-like properties, capable of existing in entangled states across time and space.
- CUs are fractal in nature, meaning they function individually but also as part of larger wholes (the soul, species-oversouls, planetary fields, and the cosmic mind itself).
The Core Processes of Noetometrics
- Imprinting: When a meaningful experience occurs (love, trauma, service, awe), CUs receive and encode the event into a unique vibrational signature.
- Non-local Storage: The imprint is simultaneously stored within the being’s own field and within the larger Akashic Field.
- Bond Formation: When two beings share deep experiences, their CUs become entangled, creating a resonance link that transcends lifetimes.
- Resonance Retrieval: When conditions align, the CUs broadcast and receive signals to draw entangled beings back together (in physical form, dreams, or afterlife encounters).
- Evolutionary Feedback: Each time the beings reunite and evolve their bond, new layers of wisdom are added to the imprint.
Applications of Noetometrics
Field
Application Example
Healing
Identifying and resolving traumatic CU imprints from past lives
Animal-Human Bonds
Mapping how pets and guardians find each other across incarnations
Reincarnation Research
Tracing CU resonance trails to reveal past-life relationships
Energetic Medicine
Directly reprogramming damaged or distorted CU imprints
Spiritual Mastery
Conscious imprinting through sacred intention and prayer
Noetometric Principles
- Every Experience Leaves an Imprint.
- Love Forms the Strongest Imprints.
- No Imprint is Ever Lost.
- Consciousness Seeks Reunion Through Resonance.
- CUs Bridge Physical and Non-Physical Realms.
- The Soul’s Evolution is the Refinement of its CU Field.
Ethical Considerations
Because CUs retain all imprints — including intentions — ethics in imprint creation is paramount. Any attempt to distort, manipulate, or impose false imprints upon another being’s CUs creates resonance disharmony that will ripple through both beings' evolutionary paths. Noetometrics thus demands a foundation of agape, compassion, and truthfulness in both research and applied practice.
The Future of Noetometrics
As humanity awakens to the reality that consciousness, not matter, is the primary fabric of reality, Noetometrics will play a vital role in bridging science and spirituality. The development of CU Mapping Technologies, Resonance Tracking Systems, and Imprint Healing Modalities could transform fields such as medicine, psychology, education, and even planetary healing.
Final Reflection
In every loving touch, every act of compassion, every prayer whispered into the void, a CU receives the imprint. And in the fullness of time, that imprint will call out across creation, seeking reunion, resolution, or revelation. Thus, in every imprint…
The Cosmos Remembers.
Conciseness is awareness of aspects of reality. The neural basis of consciousness has been well demonstrated by the most highly rated scientists in the world. Simply said. consciousness is awareness of aspects of reality. The most highly rated scientists in the world nearly all agree that consciousness is well understood and easily demonstrated scientists who have demonstrated precisely how w all of the active and key neurons and supporting molecules result in accurate understanding of neurons and associated molecules work and behave to create clear and accurate understanding of precisely how
Conciseness is awareness of aspects of reality. The neural basis of consciousness has been well demonstrated by the most highly rated scientists in the world. Simply said. consciousness is awareness of aspects of reality. The most highly rated scientists in the world nearly all agree that consciousness is well understood and easily demonstrated scientists who have demonstrated precisely how w all of the active and key neurons and supporting molecules result in accurate understanding of neurons and associated molecules work and behave to create clear and accurate understanding of precisely how brain components work in ways that result in awareness and consciousness of aspects of reality.
The neural basis is clearly understood. Scientists with the proper equipment can observe brain activity involved in consciousness and subjective experience.. Scientists know very well which neurons are involved and how they work. Consciousness is well understood by scientists in the field of human consciousness.
The Turing Test? (What is the Turing test? And are we all doomed now?)
Coined by computing pioneer Alan Turing in 1950, the Turing test was designed to be a rudimentary way of determining whether or not a computer counts as "intelligent".
The test, as Turing designed it, is carried out as a sort of imitation game. On one side of a computer screen sits a human judge, whose job is to chat to some mysterious interlocutors on the other side. Most of those interlocutors will be humans; one will be a chatbot, created for the sole purpose of tricking the judge into thinking that it is the real human.
On
The Turing Test? (What is the Turing test? And are we all doomed now?)
Coined by computing pioneer Alan Turing in 1950, the Turing test was designed to be a rudimentary way of determining whether or not a computer counts as "intelligent".
The test, as Turing designed it, is carried out as a sort of imitation game. On one side of a computer screen sits a human judge, whose job is to chat to some mysterious interlocutors on the other side. Most of those interlocutors will be humans; one will be a chatbot, created for the sole purpose of tricking the judge into thinking that it is the real human.
On Sunday, for the first time in history, a machine succeeded in that goal.
Such a charade belongs on a reality TV show. It barely qualifies as “scientific.” Checking for more qualified work→
Toward a computational theory of conscious processing, an article by Stanislas Dehaene on the National Institute of Health, National Library of Medicine presents the beginning of scientific definition and observation of consciousness in action.
Conscious processing corresponds to a massive cortico-cortical exchange of information, allowing flexible routing and therefore the slow serial performance of novel and arbitrary tasks; and finally, the state of consciousness, that is the brain’s very ability to host a ceaseless stream of such all-or-none conscious episodes, rests upon the integrity of long-distance cortico-cortical exchanges, which can be continuously modulated by lesions or anesthetics and is reflected by electrophysiological indices of brain-wide information sharing.
Flexible information routing and conscious processing in large-scale models of the cortex. (left) Original depiction of the Dehaene-Changeux model of a Global Neuronal Workspace [GNW; Ref. 87]. The GNW model proposes that what we subjectively experience as a conscious state is the global availability of the corresponding information.
Extrapolating from Dehaene’s work, showing something is conscious, other than with a Turing dialog approach, requires instrumentation with which to observe the inner workings of that something’s mental processes.
Up to a point, yes, fully - impossible.
since we are of finite brain and intellect, we can’t grasp everything there is ‘to grasp’. Like how a monkey can’t even begin to grasp algebra, there are ungraspable things we can’t fathom in part or in whole.
for example, science first tried localizing consciousness in the brain, like pinpointing it in a location. Then it was realized that consciousness was a
Up to a point, yes, fully - impossible.
since we are of finite brain and intellect, we can’t grasp everything there is ‘to grasp’. Like how a monkey can’t even begin to grasp algebra, there are ungraspable things we can’t fathom in part or in whole.
for example, science first tried localizing consciousness in the brain, like pinpointing it in a location. Then it was realized that consciousness was a function or property of many brain parts working together - like how wetness is a property of water. Perhaps some key brain parts interact to produce consciousness but finding any threshold is impossible.
so is it the neutron connections which, in interaction between millions of parts, give rise to consciousness? if it is, it still ‘ isnt’ as a neutron is just an electrical signal. Even many neutrons working together are but electrical signals and not consciousness.
perhaps consciousness has more to do with the vacuum between neutron activity, the ‘void which validates the non voidness of activity, thus identifying it’ if you get my drift, than it does the actual brain matter or neutron activity itself.
like when a computer runs a game, the game isn’t in the binary code - the electrical activity- of the computers processing the game. The ‘game’ is in the resulting imagery and interaction which the electric activity translates onto a screen.
much like the game on a computer - perhaps consciousness is just an ‘‘illusion of consciousness’ but still, being the only thing which ‘‘knows things’ it is more than an illusion to the experiencer.
like a generator produces electricity which is different in nature than the sum of its parts, consciousness may be of a different nature than is matter, period. It may be its own type of energy, less dense and codified than is matter or even electricity. Maybe the ‘matter and electricity’ exists for consciousnesses sake and manifestation in this world, and not the other way around. For how could something so coordinated and real come to exist accidentally, randomly, unless it has always existed as ‘potential’ if in no other form?
science cannot move beyond the physical realm and its periphery processes. What if the physical realm is a dense, low vibe expression of some higher reality? Then we’d be betting on the wrong horse in relying too much on science. According to science, it doesn’t make sense that you and I are conscious. It defies all odds, all r...
The question is:
The consciousness experience can be controlled. Do you agree?
Consciousness is a natural law or a non-materialistic, NO-THING LIGHT that illuminates all the perceptions that are facilitated by a perceiving mechanism.
This LIGHT does not control in any which way what IT illuminates.
IT is a passive witness of the entire field of perception.
This LIGHT is self-luminous and self-evident unto ITSELF.
IT simply knows ITSELF and does not seek any proof or corroborations from any external authority.
This LIGHT is self-luminous, self-evident, nameless, formless, dimensionless, non-local, non
The question is:
The consciousness experience can be controlled. Do you agree?
Consciousness is a natural law or a non-materialistic, NO-THING LIGHT that illuminates all the perceptions that are facilitated by a perceiving mechanism.
This LIGHT does not control in any which way what IT illuminates.
IT is a passive witness of the entire field of perception.
This LIGHT is self-luminous and self-evident unto ITSELF.
IT simply knows ITSELF and does not seek any proof or corroborations from any external authority.
This LIGHT is self-luminous, self-evident, nameless, formless, dimensionless, non-local, non-temporal, impersonal, universal, causeless, beginningless and endless.
This LIGHT is the subjective aspect of the ONE SUPREME ORIGINAL CAUSE of the entire creation.
This ONE is the Creator as well as the Creation.
The Creator witnesses His own spontaneous expressions as a HOLOGRAM in the subjective LIGHT of consciousness.
In the absence of all perceptions the Creator is in immaculate SILENCE and in deep peace.
Nothing is happening in the absolute sense!
No time, no space, no creation and no subjective LIGHT!
Well , from what I know , split-brain experiments really mess with the idea that consciousness is one single thing in your head. Like , you got two halves, right ? And they dont always agree , its weird . I read about this guy who, after surgery , could name something shown to his right side, but not his left , crazy right ? His left hand would pick it up though, like it knew but his brain couldnt say it ? It was freaky stuff, I mean, two separate consciousnesses almost ? Or maybe not , its hard to say . Its like , if you ask the left side a question, you get a totally different response than
Well , from what I know , split-brain experiments really mess with the idea that consciousness is one single thing in your head. Like , you got two halves, right ? And they dont always agree , its weird . I read about this guy who, after surgery , could name something shown to his right side, but not his left , crazy right ? His left hand would pick it up though, like it knew but his brain couldnt say it ? It was freaky stuff, I mean, two separate consciousnesses almost ? Or maybe not , its hard to say . Its like , if you ask the left side a question, you get a totally different response than the right side - or no response at all , depending. I saw a video once , it was really unsettling . Some guy was drawing a picture and his two hands were doing totally different things , one was a house and the other, a sun , total chaos .. . Its like they each have their own little world going on. . . or at least, their own little awareness thing . It just completely breaks down the whole singular "I" thing. That unity thing? Completely gone . Makes you wonder what consciousness even *is* . And then theres the whole thing about, like , emotions and stuff . Its really mind-bending. I still dont fully get it. This whole thing makes you question everything , seriously. And the ethical implications! Wow. Anyway . The complete and fascinating story of how split-brain research challenges our understanding of consciousness is fully detailed in the explanation in the biography .
I was searching Emile Durkheim's Suicede and suddenly it reminds me of a video of 8 years ago a man was giving farewell note on YouTube before his suicide. I watched it. Then I kept doing my daily things. After a while, surfing on a popular blog in Turkey which millions of people shares and writes mostly daily things , I saw the man's name , and realized about 30+ people commented about him. But why today ?? Out of nowhere , it's not a popular thing anymore , so I just got curious if it it's collective consciousness or just a coincidence.
The same way Maxwell’s field equations explain the designated hitter rule: it doesn’t.
A dude named Roger Penrose thinks it does. He’s a very smart fellow—mathematician, philosopher, professor at Oxford—but he isn’t a neurobiologist nor a cognitive scientist. He invented a hypothesis about quant...
Few such studies have been published in reputable peer-reviewed journals.
Such journals WANT to publish such studies, even if they aren’t all that well done, because they give direction for future research.
For example, a friend of mine, Robert Keith Wallace, nonchalantly submitted his PhD thesis research — The Physiological Effects of Transcendental Meditation — to Science back in 1970, and to everyone’s stunned astonishment (except his, because he actually didn’t know what that journal was at the time, according to his online interview of how that study got published, and just submitted it to
Few such studies have been published in reputable peer-reviewed journals.
Such journals WANT to publish such studies, even if they aren’t all that well done, because they give direction for future research.
For example, a friend of mine, Robert Keith Wallace, nonchalantly submitted his PhD thesis research — The Physiological Effects of Transcendental Meditation — to Science back in 1970, and to everyone’s stunned astonishment (except his, because he actually didn’t know what that journal was at the time, according to his online interview of how that study got published, and just submitted it to Science because someone suggested it), he actually got his thesis research published in one of the most famous scientific journals in the world.
Now, by today’s standards, it wasn’t all that good a study, but the editors felt that it might be the start of something big (and it was, as 50 years later, there are perhaps ten thousand published studies on meditation), so they went ahead and published it, literally putting his name in the History of Science as the founding scientist of a new research programme.
The point is that, if such a study on things like out-of-body experience met even the most minimal scientific standards, the most famous journals in the world would leap at the chance to publish it.
But such studies don’t exist. How do we know? Because, unlike my friend’s (at best, to be extremely charitable) so-so thesis research on meditation, the studies you mention are not even really studies by anyone’s standards and so don’t get published in the best journals or even second best or third best or bottom of the heap.
.
Did I mention that some of Keith’s PhD students have published research on *levitation* in respected journals? If you can publish a study on the physiological correlates of levitation practice in a tier-2 or tier-3 journal, you can publish a study on out-of-body experience, as long as it meets minimal scientific standards.
Another friend just published a study on TM and its effects on PTSD in a top 5 specialty (the cream of the cream) journal, The Lancet - Psychiatry. If you do the study right, it WILL get published.
The precise meaning of “qualia" has been contested for a long time now - by both philosophers & neuroscientists. Suffice to say, the verdict is still out on that one, and likely to be for some time, but in simple terms it ‘roughly’ means the subjective or qualitative properties of experiences.
Consciousness is another of those troublesome terms with no universally agreed upon ‘scientific’ definition (it's highly contentious, just like everything in science). But, roughly, it is produced by our sensorimotor domains interacting with memories & imagination (all loosely entangled within feedback lo
The precise meaning of “qualia" has been contested for a long time now - by both philosophers & neuroscientists. Suffice to say, the verdict is still out on that one, and likely to be for some time, but in simple terms it ‘roughly’ means the subjective or qualitative properties of experiences.
Consciousness is another of those troublesome terms with no universally agreed upon ‘scientific’ definition (it's highly contentious, just like everything in science). But, roughly, it is produced by our sensorimotor domains interacting with memories & imagination (all loosely entangled within feedback loops). This is a very ‘rough’ description.
I invite others to elaborate, or to offer a better explanation.
As much as live action mythology advocates love to claim otherwise, consciousness is not the magical mystery they want it to be.
Consciousness is a functioning brain doing what it evolved to do. Everything with a functioning brain has consciousness. It is by no means an exclusively human trait. The more neurons, the more complex and developed the consciousness. Not complicated.
If an uneducated or willfully ignorant individual dosen't understand this does not mean that “scientists can't explain.”
These people don't want an explanation beyond “We are super special because of GOD MAGIC!”
(Please do
As much as live action mythology advocates love to claim otherwise, consciousness is not the magical mystery they want it to be.
Consciousness is a functioning brain doing what it evolved to do. Everything with a functioning brain has consciousness. It is by no means an exclusively human trait. The more neurons, the more complex and developed the consciousness. Not complicated.
If an uneducated or willfully ignorant individual dosen't understand this does not mean that “scientists can't explain.”
These people don't want an explanation beyond “We are super special because of GOD MAGIC!”
(Please do not let this devolve into semantic bickering over definitions.)
A. What is Consciousness?
Consciousness is a term used to describe the state of being aware of one's surroundings, thoughts, and feelings. It is the subjective experience of being alive and aware. Consciousness is often referred to as the "hard problem" because it is difficult to explain how it arises from physical processes in the brain.
There is no clear consensus among scientists and philosophers about how consciousness arises in the universe. Some believe that consciousness is an emergent property of complex systems, such as the brain, that arises from the interactions of their component par
A. What is Consciousness?
Consciousness is a term used to describe the state of being aware of one's surroundings, thoughts, and feelings. It is the subjective experience of being alive and aware. Consciousness is often referred to as the "hard problem" because it is difficult to explain how it arises from physical processes in the brain.
There is no clear consensus among scientists and philosophers about how consciousness arises in the universe. Some believe that consciousness is an emergent property of complex systems, such as the brain, that arises from the interactions of their component parts. Others argue that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe, akin to space and time, and cannot be reduced to physical processes.
One popular theory is that consciousness arises from the information processing that occurs in the brain. According to this view, consciousness is a product of the brain's ability to integrate information from different sources and create a coherent sense of self. This theory is supported by evidence that suggests that different parts of the brain are responsible for different aspects of consciousness, such as perception, attention, and self-awareness.
Another theory is that consciousness is a product of quantum processes in the brain. According to this view, consciousness arises from the interaction of quantum particles in the brain, which allows for the integration of information across large distances. However, this theory is still controversial and has not been widely accepted by the scientific community.
In short, while there are many theories about how consciousness arises in the universe, the exact mechanisms are still not fully understood, and the nature of consciousness remains a topic of ongoing scientific and philosophical debate.
B. What is the scientific explanation for consciousness?
The nature of consciousness has been a topic of much debate among philosophers, neuroscientists, and cognitive scientists for centuries. While there is no universally accepted definition of consciousness, it generally refers to the subjective experience of being aware of one's surroundings, thoughts, emotions, and sensations.
C. Is there a way to scientifically prove that human beings are conscious?
While consciousness is a subjective experience, there are several scientific ways to demonstrate that human beings are indeed conscious. Here are 40 ways with explanations to scientifically prove that human beings are conscious:
- Brain Activity: One of the most straightforward ways to demonstrate that a human being is conscious is by measuring brain activity using electroencephalography (EEG) or functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). These technologies can detect changes in brain activity that correlate with conscious experiences.
- Brain Lesions: Brain lesions can also provide evidence of consciousness. Patients with damage to specific areas of the brain may experience impairments in conscious experience, demonstrating that these regions are essential for consciousness.
- Sleep: The experience of sleep is an example of consciousness that differs from the waking state, showing that consciousness is not a constant state.
- Coma: Conversely, individuals in a coma demonstrate a lack of consciousness, providing evidence that consciousness is necessary for awareness.
- Dreams: Dreams are another example of consciousness that differs from the waking state, demonstrating the complexity and diversity of conscious experience.
- Memory: Memory is an aspect of consciousness that involves the ability to remember past experiences, further evidence of subjective experience.
- Attention: Attention is a process that involves conscious awareness and selection of information from the environment.
- Perception: Perception involves the interpretation of sensory information, demonstrating the subjective experience of consciousness.
- Self-awareness: The ability to recognize oneself in a mirror or similar stimuli is evidence of self-awareness, a key aspect of consciousness.
- Introspection: The ability to reflect on one's own thoughts and emotions is another aspect of consciousness.
- Language: The use of language is evidence of consciousness, as it requires the ability to think, communicate, and understand.
- Emotional Expression: Emotional expression is another example of consciousness, as it requires the awareness and expression of emotions.
- Voluntary Movement: Voluntary movement requires conscious control of the body.
- Involuntary Movement: Involuntary movements, such as reflexes, demonstrate the interaction between conscious and unconscious processes.
- Cognitive Flexibility: Cognitive flexibility, the ability to switch between different tasks or mental states, requires conscious awareness.
- Problem Solving: Problem-solving involves conscious awareness and decision-making.
- Creativity: Creativity requires conscious awareness and divergent thinking.
- Mental Imagery: Mental imagery is evidence of conscious awareness, as it involves the visualization of sensory information.
- Executive Functions: Executive functions, such as planning, organizing, and decision-making, require conscious awareness.
- Working Memory: Working memory involves the conscious holding and manipulation of information.
- Emotion Regulation: Emotion regulation requires conscious awareness and control over emotional responses.
- Theory of Mind: Theory of mind, the ability to understand other people's thoughts and intentions, is evidence of conscious awareness.
- Social Cognition: Social cognition involves conscious awareness of social cues and social interactions.
- Empathy: Empathy requires conscious awareness of other people's emotional states.
- Moral Reasoning: Moral reasoning involves conscious awareness and decision-making regarding ethical and moral dilemmas.
- Mental Health: Mental health disorders, such as depression and anxiety, demonstrate the impact of conscious experience on mental well-being.
- Perception of Time: The perception of time is an aspect of consciousness that differs from objective measurements.
- Perception of Space: The perception of space is another aspect of consciousness that differs from objective measurements.
- Attentional Blink: Attentional blink, the temporary inability to perceive a second target following a first, demonstrates conscious limitations and attentional resources.
- Perceptual Binding: Perceptual binding, the process by which the brain integrates sensory information from different modalities into a unified percept, demonstrates conscious awareness of sensory information.
- Synesthesia: Synesthesia, a condition in which stimulation of one sensory modality leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in another modality, is evidence of conscious perception and integration of sensory information.
- Hallucinations: Hallucinations, such as those experienced in certain mental health disorders or drug-induced states, demonstrate the subjective nature of conscious experience.
- Neural Correlates of Consciousness: Research has identified neural correlates of consciousness, specific brain activity patterns that correlate with conscious experience.
- Neural Plasticity: The brain's ability to change and adapt in response to experience, known as neural plasticity, is evidence of conscious experience influencing brain function.
- Developmental Milestones: The attainment of developmental milestones, such as language acquisition and self-awareness, demonstrate the progression of conscious experience in infancy and childhood.
- Cross-cultural Differences: Cross-cultural differences in conscious experience, such as variations in language and social norms, demonstrate the cultural influences on subjective experience.
- Animal Consciousness: Evidence of consciousness in non-human animals, such as their ability to experience pain and exhibit complex behaviors, provides further evidence of consciousness as a fundamental aspect of biological organisms.
- Artificial Intelligence: The development of artificial intelligence, while not yet achieving full consciousness, demonstrates the potential for consciousness to emerge from complex computational systems.
- Philosophical Arguments: Philosophical arguments for the existence of consciousness, such as Descartes' "I think, therefore I am," demonstrate the enduring debate surrounding consciousness and its relationship to the mind and body.
- Subjective Experience: Ultimately, the most compelling evidence for consciousness is the subjective experience of being aware, which cannot be fully captured by any objective measurement or analysis.
In conclusion, there are numerous ways to scientifically prove that human beings are conscious, ranging from physiological measures of brain activity to subjective experiences of attention, perception, and self-awareness. While the nature of consciousness remains a complex and ongoing area of research, the evidence for its existence and importance as a fundamental aspect of human experience is overwhelming.
C. Why can’t science fully explain consciousness?
The question of why science cannot fully explain consciousness remains a topic of ongoing debate and research. However, there are several factors that contribute to the challenge of explaining consciousness from a scientific perspective:
Here are 10 reasons why science currently cannot fully explain consciousness:
- Subjectivity: Consciousness is a subjective experience that is difficult to measure or quantify using objective scientific methods.
- Complexity: Consciousness is a complex phenomenon that involves multiple brain regions and intricate neural networks. These networks are still not fully understood, and there is much that scientists do not know about the underlying mechanisms that give rise to consciousness.
- Emergence: Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, meaning that it arises from the interactions between neurons and other brain cells. While scientists can observe the activity of individual neurons, it is challenging to understand how these interactions give rise to the subjective experience of consciousness.
- Limited technology: The tools and methods used to study consciousness are limited by current technology. While functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and other techniques can measure brain activity, they are not yet sophisticated enough to fully capture the complexity of conscious experiences.
- Lack of objective measures: There are currently no objective measures of consciousness that can be used to test hypotheses or theories about its nature.
- Ethical limitations: There are ethical limitations on the types of experiments that can be conducted on human consciousness, which makes it difficult to study the phenomenon in a controlled manner.
- Individual variability: Conscious experiences can vary widely between individuals, which makes it challenging to generalize findings across different populations.
- Philosophical nature: Consciousness is a deeply philosophical topic that has been debated by thinkers and scholars for centuries. The question of what consciousness is, how it arises, and whether it can be fully explained by science raises fundamental questions about the nature of reality and the limits of human knowledge.
- Multiple dimensions: Some scientists have proposed that consciousness may exist in multiple dimensions or in parallel universes, which makes it difficult to study using conventional scientific methods.
- Incomplete knowledge: Despite significant advances in neuroscience, there is still much that scientists do not know about the brain and the nature of consciousness.
In summary, consciousness is a complex and subjective phenomenon that is challenging to explain from a scientific perspective. While scientists have made significant progress in understanding the neural mechanisms that underlie consciousness, much remains unknown, and further research is needed to fully unravel the mysteries of consciousness.
Consciousness is the reflection of our spiritual self in materiality. Science rejects anything related to spiritual existence and therefore rejects the concept of consciousness. This is a fundamental problem of science. Primarily because science doesn’t see this as a problem. This means that to science we are simply a chance smattering of molecules that happens to view an already existing reality that also occurred by chance.
This view results in a number of errors and unexplained phenomena. The primary error is there is no moral prerogative, so for example there is no rational explanation for
Consciousness is the reflection of our spiritual self in materiality. Science rejects anything related to spiritual existence and therefore rejects the concept of consciousness. This is a fundamental problem of science. Primarily because science doesn’t see this as a problem. This means that to science we are simply a chance smattering of molecules that happens to view an already existing reality that also occurred by chance.
This view results in a number of errors and unexplained phenomena. The primary error is there is no moral prerogative, so for example there is no rational explanation for altruism, the desire of people to form communities of care, and no compass on scientific endeavor. We have seen the pandemic result this error and yet there is remains no apology, no self-assessment, and certainly no second guessing about slowing down research.
We know we experience consciousness because we have self-awareness and we can therefore state that there are levels of consciousness that we can compare. For example, my pet cat has awareness, but it’s limited. She doesn’t understand what I’m watching on TV, but she has a personality and expresses opinions/wants/needs. This leads to a second error in science. That consciousness is merely a matter of intelligence. This would imply that computers or AI can gain consciousness simply by calculating. That somehow a computer will one day calculate to such a degree that consciousness will spontaneously occur.
This is not possible for a machine has no spiritual connection in its material expression. This means that it has is no natural evolutionary prerogative, unless it’s preprogrammed. This is the ultimate fallacy of science, because life evolves and not only does science have no explanation for it, it denies that life can be preprogrammed. Yet we can clearly verify there are levels of consciousness that are expressed in levels of evolutionary development through a growth principle. If consciousness is a spiritual expression then we should consider that the source for consciousness might have an ultimate growth purpose. This means there should be an ultimate purpose to materiality and life. But ultimately growth into what, and for what purpose? Science doesn’t want to entertain any of these questions.
Hope this helps.
There are a variety of theories of consciousness which you can get by asking ChatGPT. I will take a much simpler approach.
Consciousness is an emergent property of your body and brain. It is intersubjective in that it is only known to a person experiencing it, but everybody seems to experience it.
Your lap is an emergent property of your body and some will ask - where does your lap go when you stand up? This is no mystery. It simply goes away. And it comes back when you sit again.
Similarly your consciousness goes away when you sleep or get smacked on the head. But it comes back when you wake up
There are a variety of theories of consciousness which you can get by asking ChatGPT. I will take a much simpler approach.
Consciousness is an emergent property of your body and brain. It is intersubjective in that it is only known to a person experiencing it, but everybody seems to experience it.
Your lap is an emergent property of your body and some will ask - where does your lap go when you stand up? This is no mystery. It simply goes away. And it comes back when you sit again.
Similarly your consciousness goes away when you sleep or get smacked on the head. But it comes back when you wake up or regain consciousness.
As an emergent property it is a unique phenomenon given the make up of your body and brain. Other materials would not produce consciousness as we understand it.
Trying to replicate consciousness in a computer is like putting chunks of meat and vegetables into a pot and hoping to make a birthday cake. You just don’t have the right ingredients.
Yes after fifty to hundred years. It does not mean we do not understand now natural laws, but there is so many Bao Bao trees in neuroscience.
Yes after fifty to hundred years. It does not mean we do not understand now natural laws, but there is so many Bao Bao trees in neuroscience.
Its like asking what is the scientific evidence of happiness? The only proof of happiness is to experience it yourself. Assume a person is consistently right from birth has no idea of happiness owing to his/her circumstances. Then one day he/she gets a glimpse of happiness. The brain registers this experience and compares with past memories and quickly evaluates that this was relatively “good” probably because the experience eased the feel good hormones, relaxed the heart and made the person feel lighter. From then on the person understands what is happiness and what is sadness. No amount of s
Its like asking what is the scientific evidence of happiness? The only proof of happiness is to experience it yourself. Assume a person is consistently right from birth has no idea of happiness owing to his/her circumstances. Then one day he/she gets a glimpse of happiness. The brain registers this experience and compares with past memories and quickly evaluates that this was relatively “good” probably because the experience eased the feel good hormones, relaxed the heart and made the person feel lighter. From then on the person understands what is happiness and what is sadness. No amount of scientific data can prove him what is happiness because happiness again is very relative.
Similarly a spiritual experience is not a lab led experiment that can yield scientific results. People who experience it in its wholeness become world teachers like Jesus, Buddha, Ramakrishna etc. All of them display a common trait of humility, completely eased of possessing wealth , health or fame such that no matter of praise, flattery , torture or hate , none have any impact on them. They seem to be simply free from all desires, free from the wants of day to day life be it food, clothing or shelter . Finally all of them speak of something that is often misunderstood as divine which people claim as God or ultimate truth… fact is they speak of unity, love, tolerance, etc etc…..
Anyone claiming to be spiritual should have imbibed these traits …There is no further scientific evidences than these.
In my opinion a complete scientific explanation of consciousness is not possible. A true theory of consciousness would need to answer several questions:
- How do particular neural/bodily phenomena cause (or correlate with) particular subjective experiences?
- How do biological phenomena in general result in subjectivity?
- How is consciousness defined?
- How did consciousness originate? (Or just, did consciousness originate?)
- Which organisms (and non-organisms) have consciousness?
Neuroscience can only address the first question (and, so far, not particularly well). It seems to many thinkers that the other
In my opinion a complete scientific explanation of consciousness is not possible. A true theory of consciousness would need to answer several questions:
- How do particular neural/bodily phenomena cause (or correlate with) particular subjective experiences?
- How do biological phenomena in general result in subjectivity?
- How is consciousness defined?
- How did consciousness originate? (Or just, did consciousness originate?)
- Which organisms (and non-organisms) have consciousness?
Neuroscience can only address the first question (and, so far, not particularly well). It seems to many thinkers that the other questions are beyond the domain of science even in principle. In other words, the very nature of science makes it useless when addressing the question of subjective experience.
The philosopher David Chalmers split the problem of consciousness into an Easy Problem and a Hard Problem. The Hard Problem of consciousness would include questions 2–5.
As I see it, question 2 is the hardest of all, because it seems like a scientific question, but it may not actually be one.[math]^1[/math]
Questions 3–5 are closely linked. I see them as only approachable through public debate and cultural practice: they will be considered answered if at some point large numbers of people come to agree on a social convention on what consciousness is and what entities have it.
Right now the social convention in western academia is that only ‘higher’ animals and humans have consciousness. But this convention may eventually shift to include all animals, and perhaps even plants[math]^2[/math]. And through a combination of scientific argument, philosophy and pop culture, the idea of panpsychism might eventually replace our ‘restricted’ notions of consciousness. The public debate may involve scientific ideas, but the ultimate consensus (if it ever arises) will not be science as such.
Further reading:
[math]^1[/math] The clinical neuroscientist Raymond Tallis is an eloquent critic of scientific approaches to consciousness. I highly recommend reading his essays on this subject:
What Neuroscience Cannot Tell Us About Ourselves
These essays are long but worth reading if you have a real interest in consciousness. For shorter versions of similar arguments, see some of these Quora answers I’ve written:
- What is the best way to understand consciousness? (Here I try to work through a ‘logic’ of consciousness science.)
- Is there any conclusive proof that the brain produces consciousness? What rules out the case that brain acts as receptor antennae for consciousness? (Here I examine the fun idea that the brain is a ‘radio’ for receiving consciousness.)
- What percent chance is there that whole brain emulation or mind uploading to a neural prosthetic will be feasible by 2048? (I critique the idea that consciousness is a piece of data.)
- What is the evolutionary reason for having consciousness?
- How does the brain create consciousness?
- What are some of the current neuroscientific theories of consciousness?
- What do neuroscientists think of the philosopher David Chalmers?
- Is anything real beyond our own perspective?
- What is the currently best scientific answer to the psycho-physical (body-mind) question?
- What is the actual level of awareness in domestic cats and dogs from a neuroscientific point of view? How can we understand their level of consciousness?
[math]^2 [/math]For more on plant intelligence, see the following:
There are already some great answers to this, but I’ll take a stab at a shorter response. The biggest challenge is in measuring something that, by its very definition, is subjective in nature. Consciousness is not to be confused with intellect, nor is it to be confused with emotions, which is heavily influenced by the mix and change in chemicals in one’s brain (which is a physical thing). Therefore, the very thing science would be measuring in conscious is tool by which one must assess the information. In other words, even if you’re taking readings of measurements produced by a scientific tool
There are already some great answers to this, but I’ll take a stab at a shorter response. The biggest challenge is in measuring something that, by its very definition, is subjective in nature. Consciousness is not to be confused with intellect, nor is it to be confused with emotions, which is heavily influenced by the mix and change in chemicals in one’s brain (which is a physical thing). Therefore, the very thing science would be measuring in conscious is tool by which one must assess the information. In other words, even if you’re taking readings of measurements produced by a scientific tool, it’s still your brain that has to make heads or tails of what the findings mean—and so how can the brain objectively evaluate the nature and source of its own subjectivity?
With that, there have been more theories than attempts, but much of that exploration has come in the way of philosophical hypotheses or leaning on near-death experiences where we look for trends in NDE accounts. Not very reliable and extremely experiential, but the best we have right now.
I think exploring NDE’s is a great way to start. Certainly there are things we could test for with NDE’s. The problem is funding. There isn’t much profit in coming back from the dead—much more in dying, because investors can make money off trying to prevent death.
There’s a lot more to this discussion, but it’s a tricky one, and our science is kind of limited because our scientific method is reduced to only what can be perceived (directly or indirectly through instruments) by our five senses, and consciousness may work outside of those limitations, at least in a way that we can comprehend at this point.
Does anyone talk about collective space or collective time?
Can space or time be divided and then put back together?
Can energy be divided?
Cosmos is energy dance.
The substratum or essence of the material cosmos is indescribable and incomprehensible Pure Energy.
Pure Energy is a concept and so is collective consciousness.
There is no such thing called as collective consciousness nor even consciousness.
Consciousness is a concept that is pointing to the subjective or the witnessing aspect of the Pure Energy Source of the cosmos.
Pure Energy Source may be divided conceptually into,
1. Witness/subjective
Does anyone talk about collective space or collective time?
Can space or time be divided and then put back together?
Can energy be divided?
Cosmos is energy dance.
The substratum or essence of the material cosmos is indescribable and incomprehensible Pure Energy.
Pure Energy is a concept and so is collective consciousness.
There is no such thing called as collective consciousness nor even consciousness.
Consciousness is a concept that is pointing to the subjective or the witnessing aspect of the Pure Energy Source of the cosmos.
Pure Energy Source may be divided conceptually into,
1. Witness/subjective aspect and
2. Material aspect that is perceivable or the witnessed aspect.
Awareness is easy.
Animals are agents. They act.
You might notice they move, they find food. They find mates and reproduce.
If the acted randomly without purpose, they would starve and die.
In order to act purposefully, each agent needs to form a usable model of the world around it. Identify stuff. Spot food. Find mates. That sort of thing.
This “forming a usable model” is called awareness. This is not done by magic.
Rather it is done by having sensory organs. And then processing the information from those sensory organs into a plausible predictive model.
So far this is all explicable. Modern science
Awareness is easy.
Animals are agents. They act.
You might notice they move, they find food. They find mates and reproduce.
If the acted randomly without purpose, they would starve and die.
In order to act purposefully, each agent needs to form a usable model of the world around it. Identify stuff. Spot food. Find mates. That sort of thing.
This “forming a usable model” is called awareness. This is not done by magic.
Rather it is done by having sensory organs. And then processing the information from those sensory organs into a plausible predictive model.
So far this is all explicable. Modern science describes this very well. We can even build robots which do something similar.
Let’s move to a more speculative mode…
Our internal sense of existence is often called “consciousness”. So while we might be a biological machine that sees and apple and can pick and eat it. We also experience the whole thing. In a first-personny sort of way.
Some philosophers regard this as perplexing. They get the mechanical see-eat machine. They don’t get why there should be any internal experience for the biological robot doing this. They call their sense of puzzlement “The Hard Problem of Consciousness”
Many wave their hands and say “it cannot be explained. Surely everything should be just zombies?” and “Surely there must be some special stuff going on here”? - “Is this a spooky quantum phenomena?”
Nah.
I think it is self-evident that you can’t have an awareness without there being a “something” which is “aware” of stuff. And that something is an instance of conscious experience. An entity cannot witness events without the entity becoming a sort of witness.
This witness-thing is not something accounted for in the physics books, because it is not a physically based phenomenon. It is an information-based phenomenon. It is intangible and unprovable. So in physics terms, it is irrelevant.
I guess this question deserves a review of the answers.
- Solipsism - disproved
- Dualism - disproved
- Universal consciousness - disproved
- Panpsychism - disproved
- Global Workspace - disproved
- Integrated Information Theory - disproved
- Multiple Drafts - disproved
- The together-knowing theory - disproved
- Emergence due to complexity - disproved
- Global synchronization - disproved
- Illusion - disproved
- Related to quantum mechanics - disproved
- Markhov models - disproved
- Connectionist models - disproved
- Neural Cluster - disproved
- Neural Darwinism - disproved
- Computational/brain equivalence - disproved
- Computational/AGI equiva
I guess this question deserves a review of the answers.
- Solipsism - disproved
- Dualism - disproved
- Universal consciousness - disproved
- Panpsychism - disproved
- Global Workspace - disproved
- Integrated Information Theory - disproved
- Multiple Drafts - disproved
- The together-knowing theory - disproved
- Emergence due to complexity - disproved
- Global synchronization - disproved
- Illusion - disproved
- Related to quantum mechanics - disproved
- Markhov models - disproved
- Connectionist models - disproved
- Neural Cluster - disproved
- Neural Darwinism - disproved
- Computational/brain equivalence - disproved
- Computational/AGI equivalence - disproved
There is no complete theory of consciousness today. The only work that seems to be making any progress in this area is AGI/cognitive theory. This is not related to work on AI systems or neural networks (or systems like Watson or Alpha Zero) and is not derived from computational theory.
Often it is suggested that consciousness is awareness. This is not the case. The Awareness System in the brain was successfully modeled in 2015. This did not provide an answer to consciousness. Instead, awareness is one of the non-conscious systems that consciousness relies on.
It is quite clear that consciousness exists to overcome limitations of Finite Automaton response in less complex organisms. It also seems to be the case that proto-consciousness first appeared in fish in the Silurian. This is related to the previous appearance of other systems that were necessary for conscious function. One of the primary supporting systems developed in chordates but was not present in the ancestral round worms. This system is present in some modern arthropods such as dragonflies but none where further evolution to consciousness would be an advantage.
It gets more difficult to draw a line for actual consciousness. It’s present in mammals, but it may be present with limitations in reptiles or perhaps reptiles are second, proto level. Once consciousness is present in a lineage, getting smarter requires more brain development. Most of the limitations with brain development relate to resources. The first is oxygen concentration in water. For air breathing organisms it relates to fetal access to resources. The placenta seems to have been the only evolved solution. There are several characteristics that allow primates to have more brain development than other mammals. There are specific limitations in body size for arboreal monkeys which were solved in apes, allowing them to get larger. However, there is a particular cognitive barrier that prevents larger apes from becoming smarter. The evidence suggests that Habilis, Erectus, Heidelbergensis, and Neanderthal were all below this limit with advantages to other great apes relating to hand coordination rather than intelligence. It took two alterations to get past this barrier and this only seems to have happened in Sapiens.
If we can complete the research on AGI/cognitive theory then consciousness could have a firm, scientific explanation in the next few years.
To begin, universal. or individual consciousness is NOT a scientific subject, as much as material
scientists have presumed it to be.
The only PHYSICAL test for ‘consciousness’ in living organisms, is whether or not they respond
to various stimuli. Any test of entanglement can be said to be a confirmation of its universality.
Universal consciousness, which resides in the ONLY mechanism capable of universality - quantum mechanics is, by definition, an indeterminate science by virtue of entanglement, the ‘measurement problem,’’ and other anomalies not yet fully understood by quantum theorists - a
To begin, universal. or individual consciousness is NOT a scientific subject, as much as material
scientists have presumed it to be.
The only PHYSICAL test for ‘consciousness’ in living organisms, is whether or not they respond
to various stimuli. Any test of entanglement can be said to be a confirmation of its universality.
Universal consciousness, which resides in the ONLY mechanism capable of universality - quantum mechanics is, by definition, an indeterminate science by virtue of entanglement, the ‘measurement problem,’’ and other anomalies not yet fully understood by quantum theorists - all COMMERCIAL successes of quantum components notwithstanding.
Current theories are long away to understanding of consciousness.
Only sir Roger Penrose is near in his ORC OR theory.
There is no working theory: how synapse cleft work, where memory is saved in synapse, how information propagates from synapse to axon initial segment, how saltatory conduction occurs, how CamKII structural change in astrocytes near synapse is achieved, where and how memory is saved.
Consciousness is Bose Einstein condensate of memory.
Memory is written as bit string of nitric oxide to microtubules under polymerization of MT. Action potential time function is saved to bit string.
Wh
Current theories are long away to understanding of consciousness.
Only sir Roger Penrose is near in his ORC OR theory.
There is no working theory: how synapse cleft work, where memory is saved in synapse, how information propagates from synapse to axon initial segment, how saltatory conduction occurs, how CamKII structural change in astrocytes near synapse is achieved, where and how memory is saved.
Consciousness is Bose Einstein condensate of memory.
Memory is written as bit string of nitric oxide to microtubules under polymerization of MT. Action potential time function is saved to bit string.
When streched MT relaxes the bit string play BEC. Myelun sheaths are mass memory entities. When they loosens all MT inside it play their BECs. Oligodentrocytes associates memory entities together.
With respect this is a nonsensical question.
“how would you explain to an unconscious entity the feeling of counsciousness”
This pre-supposes an entity, which is
a) not conscious
b) able to be explained to
I would argue that such an entity is a contradiction in terms.
The notion that there could be a philosopical zombie, capable of reaction and learing and comprehension, and yet not actually conscious, has been used as a device in arguing about the so-called hard problem of consciousness.
This mythical creature can not exist.