Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => Topic started by: thedoc on 25/11/2016 20:53:02
-
Erika asked the Naked Scientists:
Where in our brains does consciousness lie?
What do you think?
-
Where in our brains does consciousness lie?
Inside neurons, in microtubules.
-
Where in our brains does consciousness lie?
Inside neurons, in microtubules.
I would go larger - consciousness arises from the aggregate, coordinated operation of billions of neurons (there are about 100 billion neurons in the human brain).
Of course, the aggregate operation of a billion neurons is influenced by the internal structure of each neuron...
At an intermediate scale, some would say that the synapses govern interactions between neurons - but I heard that hibernating squirrels (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/arctic-ground-squirrel-brain/) prune many of these synapses, and then regrow them as they awake. So perhaps learned patterns of interaction are stored somewhere inside the neurons?
-
Consciousness is immaterial.
The brain is not the source of consciousness: Interneuronal quantum coherence is evidence of long-range quantum entanglement of neuronal populations.
Consciousness operates beyond the dimension of physicalism.
-
Neurological studies suggests that evan_au has the right idea. When a stimulus that is not sufficient to produce conscious awareness is given, it will produce a limited activation response local to the areas dealing with the relevant sense. It may cause localized activations in more distant areas, but they die out in fairly short order. When the stimulus intensity is increased until it crosses the threshold for conscious awareness (the subject reports sensing it), the initial activation is greater and causes a wave of activity to sweep across the cortex, triggering bursts of activity in many areas and 'echoing' back and forth for a much longer period.
There do seem to be particular areas in the brain that control the various aspects of the sense of self (locality, agency, bounds, ownership, etc.), and these will also be particularly active, but conscious awareness seems to involve widespread activation and synchronization of activity across the brain.
-
Neurological studies suggests that evan_au has the right idea. When a stimulus that is not sufficient to produce conscious awareness is given, it will produce a limited activation response local to the areas dealing with the relevant sense. It may cause localized activations in more distant areas, but they die out in fairly short order. When the stimulus intensity is increased until it crosses the threshold for conscious awareness (the subject reports sensing it), the initial activation is greater and causes a wave of activity to sweep across the cortex, triggering bursts of activity in many areas and 'echoing' back and forth for a much longer period.
There do seem to be particular areas in the brain that control the various aspects of the sense of self (locality, agency, bounds, ownership, etc.), and these will also be particularly active, but conscious awareness seems to involve widespread activation and synchronization of activity across the brain.
How do you explain the neuroscience of brain-to-brain connectivity and neuronal phase coherence? I agree however that synchronicity must be implicated in the neurophenomenology of consciousness. I suggest that macroscopic quantum coherence must be correlated to the optimal computation (hypercomputation) of conscious experience through bioelectromagnetic fields. The mind and matter are entangled together inside the brain at the molecular level where quantum-like interactions seem to orchestrate consciousness. I call this biological phenomenon "synaptic hypercomputation".
-
How do you explain the neuroscience of brain-to-brain connectivity and neuronal phase coherence?
What do you mean by the 'neuroscience of brain-to-brain connectivity and neuronal phase coherence'? If possible provide a reference.
I agree however that synchronicity must be implicated in the neurophenomenology of consciousness. I suggest that macroscopic quantum coherence must be correlated to the optimal computation (hypercomputation) of conscious experience through bioelectromagnetic fields. The mind and matter are entangled together inside the brain at the molecular level where quantum-like interactions seem to orchestrate consciousness. I call this biological phenomenon "synaptic hypercomputation".
What makes you think hypercomputation is possible? why would it be necessary for consciousness?
I don't see how macroscopic quantum effects can be relevant. Explain what you mean by 'macroscopic quantum coherence' in the brain, and how it would aid understanding of consciousness. The quantum entanglement you mentioned previously is a non-starter; entangled particles must have a common source and cannot transfer or exchange information - also, entanglement resolves anytime an entangled particle interacts. The brain is not a vacuum - if there were entangled particles, they would interact within microns.
With respect, it just sounds like a bunch of speculative unexplained processes being invoked to explain consciousness, another unexplained process. That would be pseudoscience. You can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.
-
What do you mean by the 'neuroscience of brain-to-brain connectivity and neuronal phase coherence'? If possible provide a reference.
http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003723
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815018406
What makes you think hypercomputation is possible? why would it be necessary for consciousness?
Thats a good question. My guess is that mind and matter "entanglement" (neuronal phase coherence) are part of a greater (collective) consciousness, allowing brain-to-brain connectivity in a group of people via quantum channels.
I don't see how macroscopic quantum effects can be relevant. Explain what you mean by 'macroscopic quantum coherence' in the brain, and how it would aid understanding of consciousness. The quantum entanglement you mentioned previously is a non-starter; entangled particles must have a common source and cannot transfer or exchange information - also, entanglement resolves anytime an entangled particle interacts. The brain is not a vacuum - if there were entangled particles, they would interact within microns.
The brain is not consciousness. :)
With respect, it just sounds like a bunch of speculative unexplained processes being invoked to explain consciousness, another unexplained process. That would be pseudoscience. You can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.
Do you consider general relativity pseudoscience? I do believe in the power of the mind to physically interact with matter...
-
http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003723 (http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003723)
OK, this seems a straightforward mathematical model of how two identical reciprocally connected neuronal populations synchronize activity, measuring how the coupling delay affects the efficiency of the communication between them. They found that the excitatory coupling causes spontaneous phase coherence, and the two populations organize themselves in patterns of in-phase or anti-phase synchronization, depending on the delay.
An interesting mathematical model of synchronization between coupled neuronal populations, but I don't really see the relevance -we know areas of the brain synchronize, and this model gives a mathematical basis for it.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815018406 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815018406)
I'm rather dubious about this one - the size of the effect they claim was so low that they say they had to repeat it hundreds of times to get a significant result. Statistical analysis of EEG traces in this way is error-prone, and other studies have found that when traditional methods of averaging and calculations for event-related potential are used, there is a distinct evoked potential in the EEGs of senders, but not in receivers. Given the lack of credible physical mechanism, I'm sceptical. At best, the jury is out on this.
My guess is that mind and matter "entanglement" (neuronal phase coherence) are part of a greater (collective) consciousness, allowing brain-to-brain connectivity in a group of people via quantum channels.
Neuronal phase coherence is synchronous activity between connected neuronal populations, you could call it entrainment, but 'entanglement' doesn't seem an appropriate description.What are 'quantum channels' ?
The brain is not consciousness. :)
That doesn't answer the question.
Do you consider general relativity pseudoscience? I do believe in the power of the mind to physically interact with matter...
That's a red-herring - GR hasn't been mentioned - and no, GR may be incomplete, but it's not pseudoscience.
Your statement of belief is ill-defined metaphysics, not science.
-
Your statement of belief is ill-defined metaphysics, not science.
Nice one, dlorde. I am surprised by the lack of evidences in your claims. Thus, please consider the reality of biological hypercomputation as a neurophenomenological science based on general relativity (GR), not pseudo-science.
With respect, I suggest you read more on the role of quantum channels and microtubules in the organization of consciousness.
-
Nice one, dlorde. I am surprised by the lack of evidences in your claims.
Lol! I didn't make any claims.
... please consider the reality of biological hypercomputation as a neurophenomenological science based on general relativity (GR), not pseudo-science.
How does GR relate to hypothetical hypercomputation as a neurophenomenon? What evidence is there of biological hypercomputation?
With respect, I suggest you read more on the role of quantum channels and microtubules in the organization of consciousness.
Interesting that you don't seem able to provide any information yourself... But if you're talking about Hameroff and Penrose's Orch-OR 'quantum consciousness' theory, I've followed it from the beginning - it was a crock then and it's only got worse; Hameroff is now talking about 'quantum souls'... and despite their attempts to spark media attention again, Bandyopadhyay's 'research' doesn't say what they claim it says. I now see they've teamed up with Deepak Chopra - that should tell you all you need to know.
-
Erika asked the Naked Scientists:
Where in our brains does consciousness lie?
What do you think?
One key consideration, is connected to how neurons are designed. Neurons expend considerable energy, pumping and exchanging sodium and potassium cations, creating a membrane potential. The sodium cations accumulate on the outside and the potassium cations accumulate on the inside of the membrane. What is referred to as the rest state of the neuron, is actually the neuron when it is at highest potential; top of a free energy hill. Reaching the top of this free energy hill; rest state, is the result of considerable energy expenditure by the neuron. Firing a neuron is way to lower potential. A neuron is an accident waiting to happen. This is different from computer memory, which is designed to be stable at rest. If computer memory was designed like neurons, you could not have long term storage, since the memory will try lower its internal free energy, altering the memory. This is needed for consciousness.
The rest state of the neuron has the neuron all charged up with respect to free energy, which is the sum of enthalpy and entropy. The enthalpy is connected, in part to the membrane potential, while the entropy potential is connected to the concentration gradients of cations; sodium out and potassium in. Cations in solution do not wish to be segregated on different sides go the beaker, but will prefer form a uniform solution; highest state entropy. The neuron expends energy to lower the cation entropy via segregation.
That being said, if a neuron was to expend ATP energy, to push itself up the free energy hill and then go past the stable rest peak state, it will spontaneously fire. Once at the top of the hill, the neuron can slide down the other side of the free energy hill. When the neuron, slides down the free energy hill, its enthalpy is lowering and it entropy is increasing. The increase in entropy is implicit of increasing complexity. This complexity increase has a connection to consciousness.
Say we started with one neuron at rest, that pushes itself over the free energy hill, so it slides down the other side; fires. As it lowers internal potential, a flux of free energy, which is enthalpy and entropy, will output from the neuron. Like the flow of water downhill, the free energy will follow paths of least resistance; memory and neural hierarchy, while containing an entropy will card, that will slightly modify the memory and pathways on which it flows.
This net affect, as a visualization, is like a water fountain that pumps water upward to the top of the fountain, where the water overflows and then spontaneously returns to lower potential; base of the fountain. In the case of the brain, the base of the fountain is the body. An active water fountain will look essentially the same, over time, while always being slightly different as the water splashes and cascades it subtle nuances. This combination of affects makes us who we are, while also adding a wild card of change, so we feel a sense of changing complexity that we associate with the flow of time. Thinking is not pure repeat, but is about changes in nuance around common themes.
This foundation of free energy hills, does not preclude quantum affects, as a way to lower free energy. Quantum affects are a very good source of entropy increase.There are also related quantum water affects, with water able to routinely form quantum tunneling pairs. Dendrites, axons and microtubules are like wires for directing the flow of free energy potential to lower potential, often triggering more firing along the way, to amplify the affect.
Relative to the brain, the thalamus region of the brain, which is in the core of the brain, is the most wired part of the brain, receiving free energy flux from all parts of the brain. I would guess this is the center of consciousness, due to all the crossing energy fluxes. The cerebral is more like the engine, the free energy flux. Arousal, which makes us aware and conscious of realty, lies in the brain stem just down stream of the thalamus, after thalamus processing of cerebral up and over, nuances. This combines feeing and thought.
-
hiiiiiiiiii
Welcome to this forum site, here you can find many things which is really important for us , scientists have been probing individual regions of the brain for over a century, exploring their function by zapping them with electricity and temporarily putting them out of action. Despite this, they have never been able to turn off consciousness –
Thanks
MAY 2011 VISA BULLETIN PREDICTIONS (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/[url=http://www.contenthoop.com/may-2011-visa-bulletin-predictions/7149/)]
-
... scientists have been probing individual regions of the brain for over a century, exploring their function by zapping them with electricity and temporarily putting them out of action. Despite this, they have never been able to turn off consciousness...
That is incorrect: Consciousness On-Off Switch Discovered Deep in the Brain (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762-700-consciousness-on-off-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain/).
Also, of course, there are anaesthetics, and all the other involuntary means of turning off consciousness, such as a blow to the head, fainting, and so-on.
-
... scientists have been probing individual regions of the brain for over a century, exploring their function by zapping them with electricity and temporarily putting them out of action. Despite this, they have never been able to turn off consciousness...
That is incorrect: Consciousness On-Off Switch Discovered Deep in the Brain (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762-700-consciousness-on-off-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain/).
Also, of course, there are anaesthetics, and all the other involuntary means of turning off consciousness, such as a blow to the head, fainting, and so-on.
There are two centers of human consciousness, one center each, for the both conscious and the unconscious minds. The studied cited seems to be connected to the secondary center, which to most people, is assumed to be the only center. The primary center is far less conscious and is called the inner self. The primary center is shared by animals. Humans are unique in that we also have the secondary center, called the ego center, which is the center of the conscious mind. If you sleep and have no awareness of dreams, the secondary center is switched off. The primary center can still active, working the brain in a more integrated fashion; free energy movement.
As an example of both centers in action, say you were walking down the hall and one of your friends decided to prank you, by jumping out from a closed door to scare you. Your initial reaction, to being scared, will come from the primary center. This natural center will make you jump and maybe even scream and run in the blink of an eye. This overreaction can be funny to the prankster, and to bystanders, because it can be embarrassing to the ego center of the person who overreacts. The ego often wears a social mask and would prefer to maintain an image of self control. However, the reaction by the primary, can be too fast, due to necessity, for the ego to fully censor it, making one appear out of character.
The secondary center is relatively new in terms of evolution. It is connected to the free energy flux stemming from the thalamus integration. The main flow of free energy starts in the sensory circuits and cerebral neurons. It then goes to the thalamus, where it converges and is integrated for redistribution. There are reverse loops that start in the thalamus that flow back to the cerebral; thalamo-cortico-thalamic circuits. The flow upstream is possible due the thalamus amplification. The secondary is connected to some of the return loops adding neural complexity as the claustrum.
One thing that distinguishes the ego center is free will and choice. Free will and choice have a connection to entropy. Free will and choice increase complexity in the world around us. Instead of justing eating food off the tree, like an animal, our conscious minds, via the ego and culture, will increase the complexity of eating, by using silverware, dishes, by adding spices, colors and textures all of which are not required for nutrition.
The secondary appeared when there was sufficient free energy flux flowing up the thalamo-cortico-thalamic circuits to allow the ego center to become autonomous, via physical changes in the claustrum circuits. Data from history seems to indicate that the evolution of the secondary was a gradual process that looks thousands of years. This is inferred from very early civilization, which added complexity/entropy to natural living, often started up, but was aborted many times, before the first permanent civilization appears. This suggests the changes needed for a stable secondary, appeared in some people, but not in all. It was not fully transferrable, through reproduction and DNA, until about 6000-10,000 year ago. This time frame is when the first stable civilization forms and persists. The persistence would have required a wider range of humans over many generations who could sustain increasing the complexity associated with the evolving cultural needs.
-
The hippocampus is an aspect of the limbic system, located near the thalamus; in blue. When memory is written, the hippocampus will add an emotional tag to memory. The brain core location of the hippocampus, relative to the thalamus, and its impact on the cerebral memory tells us that the hippocampus adds complexity to cerebral memory via the thalamo-cortico-thalamic circuits. In this case, the added complexity is associated with an emotional tag, which gets more complex as animals evolved, from cold to warmed blooded.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.human-memory.net%2Fimages%2Flimbic.jpg&hash=bf612c6375b1c2736c624694b22bbb60)
The emotional tag is useful to an animal since, if a similar memory is triggered; sensory induced recall, the memory will induce the emotional tag. For example, if an animal was to find a food item, it once ate, which tasted good, by seeing it again, the food item will induce that same good feeling. The result is the animal will eat, without having to think, by reacting to the feeling. There is more emotional tagging in warm blooded animals, allowing a more complex social interaction, based on sensory cues.
Because memory has both sensory data as well as emotional tags, it is possible to trigger memory from either side of this thought-feeling duality. I can feel a feeling, such as hunger while I am working. This feeling will cause memories of food to appear in my mind; pizza or burgers? Or I can start to think about food, hours before lunch, because of a commercial on TV, and start to get hungry, too early. The result is there are two types of thinking; logical and emotional thinking, using the same memories, with each slanted to one of the two centers.
Logical thinking, like with Mr Spock tends to keep emotions in check, whereas emotional thinking tends to use the emotion as a foundation for thinking. The former tries to converge the thoughts and data, into a simplicity; conclusion, even if the memories of each logical steps induce conflicting emotions. The latter does the opposite and tends to diverge a simple feeling into a complexity of thought. For example, the emotion of love, has resulted in endless music and songs, with each song reinforcing the nuances of love. The artist starts with the feeling of love, maybe for his beloved. This feeling helps extrapolates their memories around the theme/tags of love. Mr Spock, on the other hand, tries to keep his emotions in check. The purpose is to prevent emotional thinking from forming tangents, so reasoning can converge to a logical conclusion.
It is also possible to blend the two paths to memory/thinking. For example, one can begin with reasoning, but as you trigger the memory data and their emotions, one can start to tangent off into emotional thinking. As a hypothetical example, say I was trying to reason whether I should stay with my mate or whether it was time to separate. At first, I try to be objective to the pros and cons, so I can converge to a logical conclusion. But in the process of weighing the two options, when I think of the goods times, strong feelings of love appear. I start to drift off in my imagination, full of hope, losing the original goal of a fully logical convergence. I may conclude, I should stay based on the emotional thinking. However, in a few days, we are back to where we were. I try once again to reason. This time I drift off due to the memories created by the negatives feelings and wrongly conclude we cannot overcome our problems. This may also be wrong, since is not logical but emotional.
The reason I am explaining all this is, what we call consciousness is a blend of the two centers; inner self and ego, which often appear to be one thing. It takes practice to differentiate the two. The thalamus is the main hub of the free energy flux, and therefore it benefits by adding complexity to memory and thinking. The thalamus tends to be more naturally connected to emotional thinking; endless songs of love, since this offers a way to deal with the entropy. The ego is more modern, and although it can add complexity through choice and will, it has the capacity to converge thought. This requires calming the emotions. A good logical conclusion, although lowering entropy via a convergence, it can become the foundation for a whole new source of complexity; new energy hill. Logical thinking is harder than emotional thinking, due to increasing the free energy. But, once formed, it can become another hill, we can slide down; better thalamus outlet.
In all the cases of dealing with dual parameters memory, the thalamus, have a certain free energy economy that needs to be expressed, with the ego able to add convergence and divergence to the brain's memory. Therefore the ego can help the thalamus and/or it dam the free energy flow, while never reaching the top of free energy hills. Depending on which is occurring, the thalamus will still need to express the free energy economy and flux. The result will be two overlapping centers, that can appear to reinforce, obsess, and/or conflict with each other.
-
Another consideration, which is less main stream, is a possible connection between water and consciousness. This can be inferred from looking at the importance of water in terms of protein properties. Proteins of all types are required for the functioning of the neurons and the brain. These protein range from the microtubules, to the ionic transport proteins, to all the enzymes needed for synthesis and metabolism, etc.
Protein hydration is very important for the 3-D structure, dynamic ensemble of conformations and activity of proteins. Fluctuations of the protein surface groups drive and are driven and controlled by the surrounding network of water molecules. Indeed, protein lack biological activity in the absence of sufficient hydrating water, of a least a monolayer thick.
In solution proteins possess a conformational flexibility, which encompasses a wide range of hydration states not seen in the crystal or in non-aqueous environments. Equilibrium between these states will depend on the activity of the water within its microenvironment, that is the freedom that the water has to hydrate the protein.
Protein conformations demanding greater hydration are favored by more reactive water while drier conformations are favored by lower activity water.
Water is an integrating variable. The water defines the protein conformations defined based on hydration.The protein, in turn, impact the activity of the water, since they form hydrogen bonds with water. As the water changes, this has an impact on other proteins. In terms of the free energy flux, this is reflected in the water, which in turn, will have an impact on the protein conformations which define memory. For example, some aspects of short term memory, do not need to be permanent, but can fluctuate via changes in water activity, which is reversible.
I don't have time this morning but one can regulate the free energy in the water by altering the ratio of potassium to sodium ions, since each cation has a different impact on the water. Potassium is chaotropic and will add entropy to the water, while sodium are kosmotropic will lower the entropy in the water. When neurons fire, the internal neuron lowers entropy, while outside the neuron sees an increase in entropy in the water.
-
Why do discussions about consciousness always go off the rails?
-
Why do discussions about consciousness always go off the rails?
The hard to grasp and the unexplained always seem to attract a raft of pseudoscientific debris...
-
Why do discussions about consciousness always go off the rails?
The hard to grasp and the unexplained always seem to attract a raft of pseudoscientific debris...
I guess what irks me is that there actually is a fair amount of information about the neuroscience behind things like perception, memory, language, learning or emotion etc. - a lot of it a click away on Wikipedia. But there's this odd assumption that "Well, I have a brain, so I must know how it works, and if I can't explain how the brain performs some task, it must be mysterious." There's no other area of science I can think of where so many people do this. I'm not criticizing anyone for asking questions, or not knowing something , just the tendency to make sh1t up willy nilly.
-
I guess what irks me is that there actually is a fair amount of information about the neuroscience behind things like perception, memory, language, learning or emotion etc. - a lot of it a click away on Wikipedia. But there's this odd assumption that "Well, I have a brain, so I must know how it works, and if I can't explain how the brain performs some task, it must be mysterious." There's no other area of science I can think of where so many people do this. I'm not criticizing anyone for asking questions, or not knowing something , just the tendency to make sh1t up willy nilly.
Agreed - although quantum mechanics is another field where it happens - when it's used to 'explain' any odd or unexplained phenomena. When it's used to explain consciousness, all reason seems to disappear.
-
Why do discussions about consciousness always go off the rails?
The hard to grasp and the unexplained always seem to attract a raft of pseudoscientific debris...
I guess what irks me is that there actually is a fair amount of information about the neuroscience behind things like perception, memory, language, learning or emotion etc. - a lot of it a click away on Wikipedia. But there's this odd assumption that "Well, I have a brain, so I must know how it works, and if I can't explain how the brain performs some task, it must be mysterious." There's no other area of science I can think of where so many people do this. I'm not criticizing anyone for asking questions, or not knowing something , just the tendency to make sh1t up willy nilly.
One problem with addressing consciousness is, consciousness, to use an analogy, is as much connected to software as it is hardware. I prefer to call the processing stemming from consciousness, firmware related, which is a combination of the two.
Brain hardware is easier to investigate, using a normal third person approach. This approach is not as easy and straight forward, with the software side of consciousness. For example, I can look at a personal computer and differentiate the CPU versus the RAM, and tell you where the sound board and video card are. This is all useful information, which can be verified independently by others.
But from this same third person approach, used for hardware, you may not be able to differentiate software, if all were using the same hardware resources. One may not be able to tell Call of Duty from Halo, by looking at hardware alone. There may be subtle differences, but that does not begin to do justice to to difference in game play. However, if you could look at the software code, even without the hardware, you could predict the hardware profile, and once this hardware profile appears, you could better distinguish between which is playing. This approach allows me to infer hardware connections and attach the software side.
This approach is based on unconscious mind explorations, where you learn to use consciousness to trigger different parts of the brain. The eastern yoga master who can nearly stop his heart has to move the focus of free energy, closer to the brain stem. One will get a different picture from the inside, compared to the outside.
When I started this discuss of consciousness, I made the distinction that rest neurons are at highest potential. This is key, but it is not as obvious as one may think, since the term rest usually implies a state of lowered energy; sleeping. The established nomenclature is misleading and has led to many ideas about consciousness falling short, by conforming to a bad nomenclature system. If you ignore this nomenclature and just look at a neuron, it uses a lot of ATP energy to establish the membrane potential. The neuron climbs a free energy hill to reach a stable place at the top of the hill. The firing of the same neuron is lowering this potential, leading to secondary activity using the released potential. The naming conversion misrepresents what is actually going on and is another reason so many opinions are off the mark.
I also knew once you add water, this will lead to misunderstanding, even though water is the best way to explain the software side as a function of consciousness. Nothing can happen in the brain without protein. Proteins, in turn, have many conformational states all dependent on the degree of hydration and the activity of the water. The water activity, in turn, is dependent on all the dissolved things, including the the ions present. Firing versus rest neurons have different sodium and potassium profiles in the water, with each ion impacting water, differently. Sodium and potassium are like day and night relative to water. Based on the firing of neurons and the ionic profile, we get various water activity, which leads to various protein conformation and activity, which can then impact the water.
For example, studies have shown that the surface hydrogen bonded water on the DNA, generates 100 megavolts/cm electric fields. Water, like wth proteins, also defines the conformational states of the DNA, while hydrogen bonding of the water. to the DNA defines the potentials in the surface water. This study has shown that this water is very hot; energized. Now we have the voltages needed for quantum tunneling in the water near the DNA.
https://phys.org/news/2016-08-ultrastrong-ultrafast-localwater-electric-fields.html (https://phys.org/news/2016-08-ultrastrong-ultrafast-localwater-electric-fields.html)
Hydrogen bonding is unique in the sense it has both polar and covalent bonding characteristics. This is reflected, experimentally as high and low density zones in liquid water. The low density zones reflect expanded hydrogen bonding analogous to covalent bonding; ice expands. The high density zones are more polar in nature, due to attraction of charges. The net affect is each hydrogen bond is a binary switch between these two bonding states.
These are more than just on-off switches, like in semi-conductors. The high and low density zones in the water are reflected by differences in entropy, enthalpy and volume/pressure. For example, say we had an enzyme. Next, we have a flux of free energy moving through the water, equilibrium will require one or the other state of the switches. This is more than just information, since the state of the switch reflects physical and free energy changes. This can put the squeeze on the enzyme, extracting free energy, or it can loosen up the water around the enzymes so it can making conformational changes all based on information and local energy of the switch.
The fastest thing in water is the hydrogen proton. Unlike ions like sodium and potassium which have bulky hydration shells they need to carry around at the nanoscale, hydrogen protons can move from water to water molecule as a tiny entity. The result is the free energy flux can use hydrogen protons as curriers that can begin to make preliminary changes, until the bulk capacitance arrives. Like a currier carrying a message to and from the command center, orders from the top can alter the need, via the currier, before the bulky stuff arrives. Our short term memory, can create impulse that will not be remembered or repeated, since the long term changes are aborted. What we do remember will be based on feedback that enters the sensory system.
-
The emotional tag is useful to an animal since, if a similar memory is triggered; sensory induced recall, the memory will induce the emotional tag. For example, if an animal was to find a food item, it once ate, which tasted good, by seeing it again, the food item will induce that same good feeling. The result is the animal will eat, without having to think, by reacting to the feeling. There is more emotional tagging in warm blooded animals, allowing a more complex social interaction, based on sensory cues.
I find it frustrating that these discussions always jump from neurons to the functions of areas of the brain. I hasten to say that I always find the subject interesting and this is not just abuse.
I am also surprised by a phrase like "which tasted good". This language seems to infer conscious experience when it is possible that in some animals the signal from the sensing cells to the matches memory of those signals and generates a chemical response to consume the food automatically or may be it is completely automatic without memory at all.
Your example is particularly relevant because this simple response evolves to a much more complex response as the organism evolves more specialised limbs and organs. The chemical response is moved to the gut. The sensing moves to the nose (for example) and a simple random movement the whole animal is now a complex movement of the snout and sniffing which are still automatic. The response to the food could still be automatic or use memory.
If the organism uses eyes as well as smell it now has to use memory. It is combining a massive amount of processing of the signals from the eyes to recognise the food but it has no knowledge of the value of the thing which is seen as food until it is tasted. Then the visual memory has to be combined with the memory of a signal from the taste buds. It might also have be using smell first and maybe memory of location. It is probably going to record location if the feeding is successful. This is so simplified that I hesitate to offer it as a description.
I believe that every step from the simple to the complex is matched in the brain and with enough knowledge of these steps we could discover much about the way consciousness works. The key is the combination of sensors, signals memory and the memory of the sensation of the response.
What I have described is really only awareness and has no conscious thought as we would discuss it. I do think that self awareness is necessitated by the linking of sight and manipulation of paws or similar limbs. If I see a hand move a book there is no intrinsic way of identifying the mover without combining the visual signal with touch and there is only correlation of the two sensations to establish who did it.
I have run out of time to so this argument is not complete but it is a start.
-
I am also surprised by a phrase like "which tasted good". This language seems to infer conscious experience when it is possible that in some animals the signal from the sensing cells to the matches memory of those signals and generates a chemical response to consume the food automatically or may be it is completely automatic without memory at all.
Consciousness isn't required for a positive response to the release of a reward system hormone like dopamine or serotonin (or some equivalent reward activity in simpler organisms).
-
The emotional tag is useful to an animal since, if a similar memory is triggered; sensory induced recall, the memory will induce the emotional tag. For example, if an animal was to find a food item, it once ate, which tasted good, by seeing it again, the food item will induce that same good feeling. The result is the animal will eat, without having to think, by reacting to the feeling. There is more emotional tagging in warm blooded animals, allowing a more complex social interaction, based on sensory cues.
I find it frustrating that these discussions always jump from neurons to the functions of areas of the brain. I hasten to say that I always find the subject interesting and this is not just abuse.
I am also surprised by a phrase like "which tasted good". This language seems to infer conscious experience when it is possible that in some animals the signal from the sensing cells to the matches memory of those signals and generates a chemical response to consume the food automatically or may be it is completely automatic without memory at all.
Your example is particularly relevant because this simple response evolves to a much more complex response as the organism evolves more specialised limbs and organs. The chemical response is moved to the gut. The sensing moves to the nose (for example) and a simple random movement the whole animal is now a complex movement of the snout and sniffing which are still automatic. The response to the food could still be automatic or use memory.
If the organism uses eyes as well as smell it now has to use memory. It is combining a massive amount of processing of the signals from the eyes to recognise the food but it has no knowledge of the value of the thing which is seen as food until it is tasted. Then the visual memory has to be combined with the memory of a signal from the taste buds. It might also have be using smell first and maybe memory of location. It is probably going to record location if the feeding is successful. This is so simplified that I hesitate to offer it as a description.
I believe that every step from the simple to the complex is matched in the brain and with enough knowledge of these steps we could discover much about the way consciousness works. The key is the combination of sensors, signals memory and the memory of the sensation of the response.
What I have described is really only awareness and has no conscious thought as we would discuss it. I do think that self awareness is necessitated by the linking of sight and manipulation of paws or similar limbs. If I see a hand move a book there is no intrinsic way of identifying the mover without combining the visual signal with touch and there is only correlation of the two sensations to establish who did it.
I have run out of time to so this argument is not complete but it is a start.
I began the discussion of consciousness, at neurons, because neurons work differently from computer memory. This was important because most analogies for consciousness think in terms of computers. Neurons expend internal energy to push themselves up and sometimes over a free energy hill. The creation of the membrane potential, composed of segregated cations, is implicit of a free energy hill. The firing of the neuron provides an output that contains both enthalpy and entropy, allowing increasing complexity and the energy to back it up.
Artificial intelligence, to be more than a robot, would need to be able to increase the complexity of its programs. Neurons are designed with this in mind. There are so many parameters that can change in an environment, that survival implies the need to adapt. Neurons make that easier.
Your analysis appears to be making an analogy, more in terms of computer memory and programming, which does not require consciousness. Computer memory is designed to be stable, so when memory is precessed, nothing changes in the memory, unless we make an effort to rewrite the memory. Neurons are designed to be unstable. If we made computer memory, like neurons, the memory would exist at high potential and be subject to spontaneous change, even while in storage. If you tried to rewrite high energy memory; induce firing, this would trigger a cascade/chain reaction affect as a wide range of memory, might try to lower energy. Unlike computer memory, where such change will be random, neurons and the brain are designed to make use of this in ways that allow free energy hills to grow and the free energy to expand. Consciousness has the capacity to grow and evolve.
I would like to change directions again, and add another feature of memory and consciousness, which is easier to see from the inside. Since this is not common experience, I hope can explain it with an analogy. The brain has to the capacity to process in 3-D. This is different from computer logic which occurs in 2-D; cause and affect. The 3-D logic is affect, cause and affect and cause, affect, cause. In both cases, we are extrapolating cause and affect or logic, before and/or after; entropy driven complexity.
As an analogy, picture a 3-D ball. We can approximate this 3-D ball with a large number of 2-D circles that have a common center but which intersect at different angles. This is shown below with only three circles. The 2-D circles used to approximate the 3-D thought, represent logic planes based on cause and affect. As an example, political orientations can be very different from each other, even though each is based on its own logic and data. The 3-D ball in this case, is the sum of the logic within all political orientations, each with a different logic angle, but with a common center; politics.
The second image shows a golf ball being struck by a club, causing deformation. This deformation is totally logical in 3-D. However, it has the impact of distorting, 2-D planes out of their planes, into a 3rd dimension. In practical terms, this when someone comes up with an idea that does not follow in a logical sequence, yet is nevertheless consistent with logic; practical application.
Like the golf ball, which will deform, vibrate and then return to a 3-D spherical steady state, the 2-D logic planes can also be restored. The difference is a temporary state of 3-D, becomes connected to the one or mores of the 2-D planes; creative insight. You have the answer before the solution due to the 3-D, cause, affect, cause. This may require one go to the lab to build a bridge in 2-D to the solution. The solution will not be accepted until the bridge is made, since 3-D is taboo. This 3-D affect is part of creative nature of human consciousness which is part of the change associated with consciousness.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ics.uci.edu%2F%7Eeppstein%2F0xDE%2Fthreshold%2Fspherical-co.png&hash=f4988b3bba51fe0e3d3ff3c57ce68aad)(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.golfballtool.com%2Fimages%2Fcompball.gif&hash=f7b43a0ef1dfb22452fadf106bc7f8f9)
-
I began the discussion of consciousness, at neurons, because neurons work differently from computer memory. This was important because most analogies for consciousness think in terms of computers.
I agree completely that computers are a poor analogy for the brain. As you say constant change is vital to the understanding of the mind. The brain uses feedback all the time. Even talking about an event changes the memory of that event.
The activity of the brain is always effected by the physical context e.g. tiredness or hunger. It is effected by location. You think and behave differently if you are at home, at work, or playing sport etc. The chemistry of the brain is different in these circumstances and different memories are available.
Consciousness can include most areas of the brain which makes me think there are not specific areas of consciousness.
So:
There are two centers of human consciousness, one center each, for the both conscious and the unconscious minds. The studied cited seems to be connected to the secondary center, which to most people, is assumed to be the only center. The primary center is far less conscious and is called the inner self. The primary center is shared by animals. Humans are unique in that we also have the secondary center, called the ego center, which is the center of the conscious mind. If you sleep and have no awareness of dreams, the secondary center is switched off. The primary center can still active, working the brain in a more integrated fashion; free energy movement.
Where can I read more about this? I am interested to know more.
-
I began the discussion of consciousness, at neurons, because neurons work differently from computer memory. This was important because most analogies for consciousness think in terms of computers.
I agree completely that computers are a poor analogy for the brain. As you say constant change is vital to the understanding of the mind. The brain uses feedback all the time. Even talking about an event changes the memory of that event.
The activity of the brain is always effected by the physical context e.g. tiredness or hunger. It is effected by location. You think and behave differently if you are at home, at work, or playing sport etc. The chemistry of the brain is different in these circumstances and different memories are available.
Consciousness can include most areas of the brain which makes me think there are not specific areas of consciousness.
So:
There are two centers of human consciousness, one center each, for the both conscious and the unconscious minds. The studied cited seems to be connected to the secondary center, which to most people, is assumed to be the only center. The primary center is far less conscious and is called the inner self. The primary center is shared by animals. Humans are unique in that we also have the secondary center, called the ego center, which is the center of the conscious mind. If you sleep and have no awareness of dreams, the secondary center is switched off. The primary center can still active, working the brain in a more integrated fashion; free energy movement.
Where can I read more about this? I am interested to know more.
The way I learned about this began by reading a book called, The Undiscovered Self, by the late psychologist Carl Jung. This little book created an awareness of something that fascinated me. This fascination then fueled my reading other books he wrote. From this reading and other research, I became a self made expert in collective human symbolism.
Toward the end of my learning, I came to the conclusion that it was one thing to read and learn about the inner self, but it was another thing to experience this first hand.
The difference, I saw was like comparing two sets of observations. The first was having a toothache and the second watching someone else have toothache. Both can provide observational data, but each does the same thing from a different angle; inside versus outside. These will not be the same data, since the inside will involve observation of first hand pain.
Now I wanted to generate my own inside information; first person experiences. Collective human symbolism is the language of the unconscious mind, so I was prepared. From this first hand data, I am able to make correlations you cannot make from outside data alone, anymore than someone who never had a toothache, can gain that first hand experience by watching someone the third person.
This inside information is usually left out of discussions of consciousness; software side. The primary center, to me, is not an abstract concept, but something I have experienced multitude of time to where I can infer and even connect to hardware. The idea of 3-D thought is not a theory but an experience explained. I also have chemical way to explain, which I may attempt in the future.
-
Exploring consciousness from the inside is different from exploring consciousness from the outside. One path is not better than the other, but rather both paths are two sides of the same coin. If we use the toothache example, someone observing another person with a toothache tells us little about their level of pain. The description of pain medications is difficult and controversial since you can't always tell the magnitude of real pain from scam pain, from the outside in the third person. The poker player will hide their tells so the inside data cannot be easily inferred from the third person.
On the other hand, the person with the tooth ache, because of their pain, may not be able to focus properly on collecting body language data, as well as someone who is watching them in the third person. The poker player not aware of their tell, can be undermined, even with the best internal strategy. The combined data is the full picture of consciousness. If one had a toothache and could also observe yourself on camera, you start to approximate both, although the pain will cloud your reason with additional inside data. One cannot form a consensus theory of consciousness with half this data, which is the current state of affairs.
My approach is slanted from the inside, since outside third person observation is already well manned and well funded. From the inside is more pioneering and is very cheap to do, since it only requires the brain that you already own. The internal approach is not new and is actually the original approach. When the ancients saw/imagined the gods of mythology, since these did not exist in an objective way; based on third person observation, it was being generated in the first person; projection of internal data.
Because I work from the inside, this data would be of value to me, since it gives me clues about another aspect of first person observation; projection. You can't see projection, from the outside in the lab. It comes from the inner self. If you ever watched a kitten run around the house chasing imaginary play, you can infer the projection affect. This can be witnessed from the inside but never seen outside accept by body language affects which seen unconnected to anything, outside.
Let me give you an example of internal data inference. If you observed and recorded your dreams, over time, one would notice that dreams rarely repeat themselves, nor do their appear to follow normal logic. Dreams work similarly to surfing the web and diverting your path through hyperlinks. The net is a modeled on dreaming. There are always new things that appear that may not appear connected; advertisement. There is an element of constant change. From this I inferred these should be an entropy variable in the hardware.
I tried many explanations, until I was able to reverse engineer this inference into the nature of neurons. The nomenclature of rest neurons was very misleading, since rest neurons are actually at highest free energy potential. But then again, third hand data collective benefits by external activity. The labelling of rest neurons was based on the amount of external activity to observe, and not chemical potential. An insider data collector will notice things like this, since this bias came from unconscious aspects of the inside.
-
The 3-D processing of information is an important part of consciousness. This 3-D processing is often attributed to the right side of the brain; spatial side. The left side of the brain is more 2-D. The right brain integrates in 3-D, while the left brain differentiates in 2-D; logic. Both sides of the brain, work at the same time, so it not always clear, which is which in the third person. From the inside, it is easier to see since each generates different sensory feedback; feelings in the body.
The 3-D processing of memory would be called, artificial intelligence; AI, if a computer could do it. It goes beyond the 2-D cause and affect of the its original programming; if and do loops of logic, into extrapolation beyond the programming, via 3-D cause, affect, cause and effect, cause and affect.
There is a chemical explanation for how this is possible. It is connected to the water. As a loose parallel for the affect, consider a chunk of brain matter submerged in a beaker of water. Next, I will add a pinch of salt. The salt will dissolve into the water and then diffuse throughout the water, driven by entropy, until it forms a uniform solution. The impact of the final salt solution will be to change the potential seen by all the proteins. based on the new final ionic potential. There is an integrated change in 3-D, where all the wiring changes, subtly.
The brain does this with the water associated with the cerebral spinal fluid. As a working example, that should be easy to visualize, say you felt depressed. The depressed feelings can alter the focus of memory, so only depressing thoughts appear. The memories that are conscious will have the same emotional tag, induce by the brain chemical balance, associated with the depression. You can still use the entire brain, but the main layer of memory that is conscious is connected to the memories of depression; targeted integration. The brain circulates and cleans out the CSF, which, along with entropy diffusion, is a way for the brain to add a 4th dimension; time element for the 3-D processing.
In other words, if we added salt to the beaker, there is a time delay between the added salt, dissolving, and ten diffusion until there is a uniform solution. The integration is not complete at first, but tends to over do it, locally, at the beginning. Then as the salt diffuses, the local impact weakens as the integration broadens. One ends up with a time dependent profile of the spreading 3-D affect.
Water has a couple of wild card variables that add complexity to this affect. Water can form what is called cooperative hydrogen bonding. This is loosely similar to the resonance of benzene, where electrons become delocalized, and therefore shared by all the carbon atoms of benzene. Water can do the same thing but at the level of the hydrogen bonding. The pH affect of water allow covalent bonds to form and break at ambient conditions, all driven by hydrogen bonding, which is able to cooperate and amplify electron mobility.
With cooperative hydrogen bonding, as we add more and more hydrogen bonds to the cooperative, all the bonds get stronger, with the first bond broken the hardest to break, no matter where that bond is on the cooperative. It is similar to benzene in the sense that all the bonds become stronger and equal, due to the delocalization and sharing of elections.
One recent study demonstrated that there are 100 megavolt/cm2 electric fields in the surface water surrounding the DNA. These extend about a nanometer out. I linked to this in an earlier post. This is due to the DNA inducing the water to align with the symmetry of the DNA surface, so cooperative hydrogen bonding can form extensively in the water. This cooperative merges with the hydrogen bonding cooperative along the DNA double helix. The electrons are so delocalized, specific electrons become ionized with respect to their original water host. As the cooperative gets disrupted, these electrons lose energy and reattach to one water; reverse plasma
The other wild card, relative to cooperative hydrogen bonding, are the hydrogen protons can also be mobile; not fixed to any one water. The net affect is not only the relative ionization of electrons among the water of the cooperatives, but hydrogen protons can also be in motion, to add a hydrogen atom style wild card affect within and beyond the cooperatives. The net affect, in terms of consciousness, is the 3-D impact of the water has two layers. One is a signal layer, based on the hydrogen and electrons, and second, which is slower, is based on the capacitance layer; dissolve chemicals.
This distinction can be observed from the inside. Let me continue with the depression example. Say you had a tendency to get depressed each day. When you awaken in the morning you feel OK, but soon the brain chemicals start to change. There is time delay, due to the entropy diffusion, such that the integration starts simple and gets more complex as the day goes on.
Will power and choice is connected to being tuned to the water signal layer, which can transmit and mirror the chemical signal, but before the bulk chemicals can fully diffuse through the water to the final destinations. One gets the gists of where this is heading; water signal layer, but before it becomes incapacitating, due to the chemical capacitance layer which can make a stronger physical change. From the water layer, one can change the future, by changing the present. One may think of pleasant thoughts, to alter the chemical output signal. If the depression is physical, this may not turn off those pumps, but will add countering chemical potential into the CSF.
-
If human consciousness is massless, it cannot exist "inside" the brain.
The brain is merely a bioelectromagnetic envelope to transduce biophotonic energy into neuronal activity.
-
Why do discussions about consciousness always go off the rails?
Because nobody ever defines consciousness, or if they do, nobody else accepts the definition.
-
Because nobody ever defines consciousness, or if they do, nobody else accepts the definition.
I'll go easy for you... :)
Human consciousness is a neuroholographic simulation...Ok?
In specific, the brain is also a quantum computer which happens to convert biophotonic emissions to weak bioelectromagnetic waves in the visible range. (aka the spectral red shift??)
To summarize, human consciousness is a coherent neuroholographic phenomenon which raises important questions on the atomic singularity of consciousness, physical status, and on the value of dreaming.
I hope this helps.
-
Consciousness is physically everywhere, from the brain to the rest of the body. The controversy lies in the thought that no particular place in the brain is the centre, or is indespensible to consciousness. This is true, but we are talking about it Removing consciousness, not Altering it. Altering it does remove or add some of its capacity, so this is an argument that consciousness cannot be traced in the brain, and there is no "soul capsule" in there physically. The whole, including the body and senses contribute to the experience of living, which is the definition, and all parts are indespensible- consciousness is dying this moment, if your brain is aging.
-
Erika asked the Naked Scientists:
Where in our brains does consciousness lie?
What do you think?
Consciousness is an illusion. It's a trick played on you by your genes. The objective is to make you feel like you're in control and that you have free will (which you don't), while simultaneously making life interesting enough for you to care sufficiently about surviving, thriving and mating. This ensures you cooperate optimally with the genes' goal of being replicated and passed on.
-
Consciousness is an illusion. It's a trick played on you by your genes.
I disagree, consciousness is independent from our genetic code (and brain), as it has been demonstrated experimentally that animal consciousness can survives a head transplant.
See: http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/798032/Neurosurgeon-bring-cryogenic-dead-BACK-TO-LIFE-brain-transplant
-
Consciousness is an illusion. It's a trick played on you by your genes.
I disagree, consciousness is independent from our genetic code (and brain), as it has been demonstrated experimentally that animal consciousness can survives a head transplant.
See: http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/798032/Neurosurgeon-bring-cryogenic-dead-BACK-TO-LIFE-brain-transplant
You do realize that a transplanted head still has a brain in it, right?
-
You do realize that a transplanted head still has a brain in it, right?
That is irrelevant to the OP. The purpose of a head/brain transplant is to demonstrate the "atomic singularity" of human consciousness as a fundamental aspect of life. Without consciousness there is no life. The brain is merely a evolutionary quantum computer to transcode the atomic singularity of consciousness into neuroholographic memory.
-
You do realize that a transplanted head still has a brain in it, right?
That is irrelevant to the OP. The purpose of a head/brain transplant is to demonstrate the "atomic singularity" of human consciousness as a fundamental aspect of life. Without consciousness there is no life. The brain is merely a evolutionary quantum computer to transcode the atomic singularity of consciousness into neuroholographic memory.
Your statement is very unscientific and vague. Various forms of life do not have consciousness. E.g. plants, lichen, bacteria, fungi, etc. The difference between life and inorganic matter include factors like being made of cells, being able to reproduce, metabolism, homeostasis, growth, etc.
-
Various forms of life do not have consciousness. E.g. plants, lichen, bacteria, fungi, etc.
Yeah right. What evidence do you have to prove this claim? The question whether plants are conscious is controversial.
See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594572/
-
Various forms of life do not have consciousness. E.g. plants, lichen, bacteria, fungi, etc.
Yeah right. What evidence do you have to prove this claim? The question whether plants are conscious is controversial.
See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594572/
It is not controversial at all, unless you completely redefine what we mean by "consciousness". Redefining commonly understood words to support a wacky argument is VERY controversial within science, as it is unscientific. We commonly understand consciousness to be associated with a brain and neuron activity. Plants do not have brains.
-
Plants do not have brains.
Plants do HAVE microtubules, just like us. What we don't know however is whether plants possess gamma waves. Discarding the possibility of plants to possess protoconsciousness is unscientific.
-
That is irrelevant to the OP.
It's quite relevant to your claim that a head transplant somehow demonstrates that consciousness is independent from the brain. How can an experiment which keeps the brain demonstrate that consciousness is independent of it? You would somehow need to show that you can retain an organism's consciousness while somehow eliminating a brain from the picture (or at least its functionality).
The purpose of a head/brain transplant is to demonstrate the "atomic singularity" of human consciousness as a fundamental aspect of life.
How? I don't see how your argument follows.
Without consciousness there is no life.
What kind of experiment do you propose to detect consciousness in bacteria?
The brain is merely a evolutionary quantum computer to transcode the atomic singularity of consciousness into neuroholographic memory.
What is an "atomic singularity"?
-
Consciousness=information exchange
-
What kind of experiment do you propose to detect consciousness in bacteria?
I guess to detect consciousness in bacteria we would need a robust method to measure coherent energy transfer in bacterial microtubules.
What is an "atomic singularity"?
I define the atomic singularity of human consciousness as the subjective experience of life. Consciousness is subjective experience independent from the physical (atomic) properties of a living organism.
-
I guess to detect consciousness in bacteria we would need a robust method to measure coherent energy transfer in bacterial microtubules.
And what experiment could demonstrate that energy transfer in microtubules is the cause of consciousness?
I define the atomic singularity of human consciousness as the subjective experience of life. Consciousness is subjective experience independent from the physical (atomic) properties of a living organism.
So what do the words "atomic" and "singularity" have to do with it? I've never heard any such term used in scientific literature.
-
So what do the words "atomic" and "singularity" have to do with it? I've never heard any such term used in scientific literature.
The quantum (atomic) singularity of life is the ubiquity of consciousness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_singularity
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70767.0
-
Without consciousness there's no life.
Without life there's no free will.
-
The quantum (atomic) singularity of life is the ubiquity of consciousness.
According to what peer-reviewed scientific study?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_singularity
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70767.0
I don't see anywhere on that Wikipedia page where the term "singularity" has anything to do with consciousness. It seems as though you have invented the term yourself.
Also, you didn't explain how to experimentally demonstrate a correlation or causation between microtubule energy transfer and consciousness.
-
One way to approach the question of what is consciousness is, is to first eliminate what it is not. We know computers are not conscious. We will use them as the litmus test for elimination.
Computers can do math, employ logic, and even use language, therefore these three things are not elements of consciousness, since computers can do these things very well and they are not conscious. This is not to say human consciousness cannot make use of these things. However, these things cannot be the foundation of consciousness or else computers would be conscious just by doing these things. Consciousness is not connected to memory since computers have plenty of memory and this does not make them conscious.
If we could transfer the memory of a human to a computer, as well as their ability to reason and use language and math, they would be a computer, since this is not foundation for consciousness. Computers have these thingsand they are not conscious.
-
According to what peer-reviewed scientific study?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4802748/
I don't see anywhere on that Wikipedia page where the term "singularity" has anything to do with consciousness. It seems as though you have invented the term yourself.
I didn't invented the term "quantum singularity". I only derived the term "atomic singularity" from this concept, because consciousness is immaterial and essentially a non-local (quantum-like) phenomenon.
Also, you didn't explain how to experimentally demonstrate a correlation or causation between microtubule energy transfer and consciousness.
See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25232047
-
Without consciousness there's no life.
Without life there's no free will.
Living organisms, including humans, do not have free will. There is a vast amount of data and very robust arguments supporting the notion that humans do not have free will. Life can exist without consciousness, and without free will. Your attempt to reconcile science with religion is biased and unscientific. The essential principle of the scientific method is to eliminate bias. Approaching scientific topics with a spiritual agenda means your arguments and thought processes are inherently biased, so you will consistently veer far from the truth. You really need to understand the concept of "confirmation bias".
-
Without consciousness there's no life.
Without life there's no free will.
Living organisms, including humans, do not have free will. There is a vast amount of data and very robust arguments supporting the notion that humans do not have free will. Life can exist without consciousness, and without free will. Your attempt to reconcile science with religion is biased and unscientific. The essential principle of the scientific method is to eliminate bias. Approaching scientific topics with a spiritual agenda means your arguments and thought processes are inherently biased, so you will consistently veer far from the truth. You really need to understand the concept of "confirmation bias".
There is a mistaken notion for what free will means in religion; original intent of the concept. Animals act with natural instinct. Human free will has to do with the ability to act apart from natural instincts. Free will allows for artificial and unnatural instincts. Free will allows human to make choices apart from the DNA, which underlies our natural human instinct. This is why humans were considered higher than animals, and why many religions often repressed natural instinct with will power; celibacy. Flowing with instinct requires no free will.
For example, in modern culture there is a secular gospel that there is no difference between male and female. This is based on collective choice and free will, since male and female are different by an entire chromosome; X or Y. There is a large difference in DNA. This secular orientation is not consistent with DNA and therefore it is not consistent with natural instinct. It is a conditioned social choice, that is made apart from the DNA and natural instinct. It is an aspect of free will and choice. It may still have an epigenetic induction on the DNA.
The reason this is possible is we have two centers of consciousness. One center is old; inner self, and is connected to natural instinct and the DNA. The other center is relatively new in terms of evolution. The ancient concept of Satan being the binarius is connected to the two centers and the alternate choices that can be induced by the secondary center; departure from natural law which was created by God.
Free will is not a concept that is applied to animals. Animals tend to remain within instinct, unless domesticated by humans to be unnatural and/or artificial. One can teach a dog to kill for sport. In this case, the human becomes the virtual secondary center for the dog, to allow the dog such choices, which over time can create epigenetic changes so it looks natural to the naked eye, but which no gene is ever found.
-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4802748/
When I say peer-reviewed, I mean something that has passed peer review and has become an accepted part of modern scientific literature. That certainly isn't the case for all the articles on that website, which also has a paper called "Cosmic design from a Buddhist perspective" (a paper which denies the Big Bang theory). This paper you have linked is little more than a discussion on philosophy.
I didn't invented the term "quantum singularity". I only derived the term "atomic singularity" from this concept, because consciousness is immaterial and essentially a non-local (quantum-like) phenomenon.
I know you didn't invent the term "quantum singularity". I was talking about the term "atomic singularity".
See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25232047
So which part of the paper describes a method to detect the presence of consciousness? Not energy transfer, but consciousness specifically.
-
When I say peer-reviewed, I mean something that has passed peer review and has become an accepted part of modern scientific literature. That certainly isn't the case for all the articles on that website, which also has a paper called "Cosmic design from a Buddhist perspective" (a paper which denies the Big Bang theory). This paper you have linked is little more than a discussion on philosophy.
That website (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) by the way is a reference for modern scientific litterature. And notice no mention of retraction do appear. And when we discuss on the nature of consciousness, you are expected to dive into the philosophy of science.
I know you didn't invent the term "quantum singularity". I was talking about the term "atomic singularity".
Remember that imagination is more important than knowledge. ;)
So which part of the paper describes a method to detect the presence of consciousness? Not energy transfer, but consciousness specifically.
The feasibility of coherent energy transfer in microtubules is evidence that consciousness is a quantum-like phenomenon.
-
That website (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) by the way is a reference for modern scientific litterature. And notice no mention of retraction do appear. And when we discuss on the nature of consciousness, you are expected to dive into the philosophy of science.
When you do actual science, you are expected to be able to make predictions and then test those predictions by using experiments and/or other forms of observation. Philosophy alone does not do that. Without falsifiable predictions, experimentation and observation, you have no science. What falsifiable prediction or experiment did that paper suggest which allows its claims to be tested for scientifically?
Remember that imagination is more important than knowledge. ;)
Maybe in some things (writing novels, for example), but I sure would not want scientists telling me that their claims came from their imagination instead of time-tested,repeated experimentation.
The feasibility of coherent energy transfer in microtubules is evidence that consciousness is a quantum-like phenomenon.
Restating your claim is not the same as providing evidence for it. I want scientifically-acquired evidence that coherent energy transfer in microtubules has any kind of cause-and-effect relationship with consciousness.
-
Without consciousness there's no life.
Without life there's no free will.
Living organisms, including humans, do not have free will. There is a vast amount of data and very robust arguments supporting the notion that humans do not have free will. Life can exist without consciousness, and without free will. Your attempt to reconcile science with religion is biased and unscientific. The essential principle of the scientific method is to eliminate bias. Approaching scientific topics with a spiritual agenda means your arguments and thought processes are inherently biased, so you will consistently veer far from the truth. You really need to understand the concept of "confirmation bias".
There is a mistaken notion for what free will means in religion; original intent of the concept. Animals act with natural instinct. Human free will has to do with the ability to act apart from natural instincts. Free will allows for artificial and unnatural instincts. Free will allows human to make choices apart from the DNA, which underlies our natural human instinct. This is why humans were considered higher than animals, and why many religions often repressed natural instinct with will power; celibacy. Flowing with instinct requires no free will.
For example, in modern culture there is a secular gospel that there is no difference between male and female. This is based on collective choice and free will, since male and female are different by an entire chromosome; X or Y. There is a large difference in DNA. This secular orientation is not consistent with DNA and therefore it is not consistent with natural instinct. It is a conditioned social choice, that is made apart from the DNA and natural instinct. It is an aspect of free will and choice. It may still have an epigenetic induction on the DNA.
The reason this is possible is we have two centers of consciousness. One center is old; inner self, and is connected to natural instinct and the DNA. The other center is relatively new in terms of evolution. The ancient concept of Satan being the binarius is connected to the two centers and the alternate choices that can be induced by the secondary center; departure from natural law which was created by God.
Free will is not a concept that is applied to animals. Animals tend to remain within instinct, unless domesticated by humans to be unnatural and/or artificial. One can teach a dog to kill for sport. In this case, the human becomes the virtual secondary center for the dog, to allow the dog such choices, which over time can create epigenetic changes so it looks natural to the naked eye, but which no gene is ever found.
Sounds like you know nothing about scientific experiments regarding free will, most of which support the notion that humans do NOT have free will. There is absolutely no evidence that human behaviour is fundamentally different from animals. Animals also make decisions and occasionally decide not to mate. The important question is whether we actually have conscious control over our decisions, and most of the data indicates that we do not.
-
That website (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) by the way is a reference for modern scientific litterature. And notice no mention of retraction do appear. And when we discuss on the nature of consciousness, you are expected to dive into the philosophy of science.
When you do actual science, you are expected to be able to make predictions and then test those predictions by using experiments and/or other forms of observation. Philosophy alone does not do that. Without falsifiable predictions, experimentation and observation, you have no science. What falsifiable prediction or experiment did that paper suggest which allows its claims to be tested for scientifically?
Remember that imagination is more important than knowledge. ;)
Maybe in some things (writing novels, for example), but I sure would not want scientists telling me that there claims came from their imagination instead of time-tested,repeated experimentation.
The feasibility of coherent energy transfer in microtubules is evidence that consciousness is a quantum-like phenomenon.
Restating your claim is not the same as providing evidence for it. I want scientifically-acquired evidence that coherent energy transfer in microtubules has any kind of cause-and-effect relationship with consciousness.
I wouldn't bother trying to reason with tkadm30. He doesn't understand even the basic principles of science, and he thinks that he can reconcile unsubstantiated spiritual beliefs with science simply through wacky philosophising.
-
I wouldn't bother trying to reason with tkadm30. He doesn't understand even the basic principles of science, and he thinks that he can reconcile unsubstantiated spiritual beliefs with science simply through wacky philosophising.
You seem basically unreceptive of anyone ideas on this forum. I guess you're an hypocrite when you claim to believe in the media diversity. You should probably go away now.
-
Without consciousness there's no life.
Without life there's no free will.
Living organisms, including humans, do not have free will. There is a vast amount of data and very robust arguments supporting the notion that humans do not have free will. Life can exist without consciousness, and without free will. Your attempt to reconcile science with religion is biased and unscientific. The essential principle of the scientific method is to eliminate bias. Approaching scientific topics with a spiritual agenda means your arguments and thought processes are inherently biased, so you will consistently veer far from the truth. You really need to understand the concept of "confirmation bias".
There is a mistaken notion for what free will means in religion; original intent of the concept. Animals act with natural instinct. Human free will has to do with the ability to act apart from natural instincts. Free will allows for artificial and unnatural instincts. Free will allows human to make choices apart from the DNA, which underlies our natural human instinct. This is why humans were considered higher than animals, and why many religions often repressed natural instinct with will power; celibacy. Flowing with instinct requires no free will.
For example, in modern culture there is a secular gospel that there is no difference between male and female. This is based on collective choice and free will, since male and female are different by an entire chromosome; X or Y. There is a large difference in DNA. This secular orientation is not consistent with DNA and therefore it is not consistent with natural instinct. It is a conditioned social choice, that is made apart from the DNA and natural instinct. It is an aspect of free will and choice. It may still have an epigenetic induction on the DNA.
The reason this is possible is we have two centers of consciousness. One center is old; inner self, and is connected to natural instinct and the DNA. The other center is relatively new in terms of evolution. The ancient concept of Satan being the binarius is connected to the two centers and the alternate choices that can be induced by the secondary center; departure from natural law which was created by God.
Free will is not a concept that is applied to animals. Animals tend to remain within instinct, unless domesticated by humans to be unnatural and/or artificial. One can teach a dog to kill for sport. In this case, the human becomes the virtual secondary center for the dog, to allow the dog such choices, which over time can create epigenetic changes so it looks natural to the naked eye, but which no gene is ever found.
Sounds like you know nothing about scientific experiments regarding free will, most of which support the notion that humans do NOT have free will. There is absolutely no evidence that human behaviour is fundamentally different from animals. Animals also make decisions and occasionally decide not to mate. The important question is whether we actually have conscious control over our decisions, and most of the data indicates that we do not.
I was using the original definition of free will which is connected to making choices apart from natural instinct. The ancient people, at the start of civilization, were not that far removed from natural instinct and could make this differentiation due to observing the changing times. The reason this was possible is humans had developed a secondary center of consciousness; ego, which could make choices separate from the primary center of natural instinct; inner self. Science has made up its own definition of free will without control standards for natural human instincts and for human consciousness.
In another post, I addressed consciousness, based on what it is not. Computers are not conscious. My iPad is not conscious, even if Siri can talk, answer questions, suggest restaurants, and fetch things and send emails. Computers use memory, math, logic and language. They can output audio and video content, and can even control devices like robots and automatons, but they are still not conscious. None of things are preconditions for consciousness or else computers would be conscious by virtue of their expertise in all these attributes. Conscious choice is not a hardware issue, per se. Hardware, on theater hand, is the basis for many science studies. They bark up the oak tree and conclude the Koala Bear is not there and is therefore a myth.
Having sex for procreation or with a blowup doll, will look the same at the level of brain scans. But only one of the two is based on the choices of natural instinct. These may not be easy to differentiate at the brain hardware level. It requires definition based on a standard. In the philosophy of relative morality and choices there is no distinction between natural and unnatural, therefore there is no free will, since there is no software standard. This is an artifact of the atheist religion, which does the opposite of anything that western religion has set forth. It is tries to show free will and choice, relative to the religious standard, by doing the opposite. Religion becomes the standard for choices. If you were to do a brain scan it will look like a religious expression, so there is no appearance of free choice.
Free will and choice is based more on software than hardware, Brain software is better observed from within your own brain via consciousness; introspection and self reflection in the first person. I can install different software into a computer, that has different functionality. All may use the same computer resources. One may not be able to tell the differences in the software, based on looking at current flow through the mother board or how the hard drive behaves, since these are not part of the software These are a secondary aspect that is not part of the consciousness package other than as clothes and makeup. It is not part of the naked consciousness.
-
Restating your claim is not the same as providing evidence for it. I want scientifically-acquired evidence that coherent energy transfer in microtubules has any kind of cause-and-effect relationship with consciousness.
You should read on microtubules dynamics. The role and function of MTs in consciousness has been established by Hameroff et al. (1994)
See: http://hameroff.com/sites/default/files/Quantum%20Coher%20in%20Microtub%20A%20Neural%20Basis%20for%20Emergent%20Consc%20JCS%201994.pdf
-
Restating your claim is not the same as providing evidence for it. I want scientifically-acquired evidence that coherent energy transfer in microtubules has any kind of cause-and-effect relationship with consciousness.
You should read on microtubules dynamics. The role and function of MTs in consciousness has been established by Hameroff et al. (1994)
See: http://hameroff.com/sites/default/files/Quantum%20Coher%20in%20Microtub%20A%20Neural%20Basis%20for%20Emergent%20Consc%20JCS%201994.pdf
Given the length of this document, can you quote the part where the necessary experiment was performed which established that consciousness was generated solely by microtubules (and that it extends to unicellular organisms)? A page number would be helpful as well.
-
I wouldn't bother trying to reason with tkadm30. He doesn't understand even the basic principles of science, and he thinks that he can reconcile unsubstantiated spiritual beliefs with science simply through wacky philosophising.
You seem basically unreceptive of anyone ideas on this forum. I guess you're an hypocrite when you claim to believe in the media diversity. You should probably go away now.
This is a SCIENCE forum. It is not a conspiracy theory forum. And it is not a forum for confirming spiritual beliefs. If you want to discuss conspiracy theories, why not go to a conspiracy theory forum where you can complain all you want about what you perceive to be the mainstream media.
I don't want to waste my time explaining to you over and over again how science works , and how the media works. I noticed that others on this forum are also trying to explain to you how science works.
If you were aware of how expensive legal action can ruin a journalist's career or even destroy a newspaper, you would understand why it is so dangerous for a journalist to publish news that is not evidence-based (i.e. a journalist always has to have a credible source). Nevertheless, each newspaper generally develops a slight political bias in the way it presents the news. Many are left (e.g. the Guardian), and many are right (e.g. Fox News). Still many attempt to maintain neutrality.
I would ask you to please stop filling up these threads with anti-scientific trolling.