The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: the hard question of consciusness  (Read 1315 times)

Offline flr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
the hard question of consciusness
« on: 06/09/2014 07:21:08 »

Could it be in principle possible to explain from physical processes our awareness and our inner movie of subjective sensations?



 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: the hard question of consciusness
« Reply #1 on: 06/09/2014 09:47:39 »
In principle, yes, since there is no evidence that we consist of anything supernatural. In practice, we are unlikely to approach a complete or usefully predictive explanation.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: the hard question of consciusness
« Reply #2 on: 06/09/2014 14:52:06 »
There is already a holographic theory of consciousness. One of the proponents being Roger Penrose I believe. This can be related to a holographic theory of the universe.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: the hard question of consciusness
« Reply #3 on: 10/09/2014 19:45:08 »
What makes physics are thoughts. If you're asking if we ever will be able to define a discreteness experimentally, for example to thoughts, I would say no. Not experimentally, theoretically sure. I would be surprised if we couldn't, as that should mean magic is loose :) not logic. If you think of it we seem to have two opposites nowadays, the 'field' and then 'thoughts'. I know thoughts exist, sometimes at least :) And I expect a field to exist too, although it's not as simple to envision as I would like it to be, considering observer dependencies.
==

that shouldn't be read as I believe thoughts being discrete quanta of some sort. Thinking of lights duality it seems to depend on circumstances what you want to define it as, photons, waves, or just part of a 'field'
=

And opposites because to me there seems to be a structure to it, where we lose sight of it at both ends, macroscopic existence taking some middle place in that structure. And that's all meta physics naturally, interesting to me though. You could alternatively define us as 'nodes' in that field. Able to produce thoughts through the existence of a arrow. As I said, pure meta physics.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 20:01:33 by yor_on »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: the hard question of consciusness
« Reply #3 on: 10/09/2014 19:45:08 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums