On Consciousness

[l0st]

Maybe the television program analogy isn't too far off in some ways. A TV program is a decoding and manifestation of non-observable waveform data often transmitted over the air via carrier waves(EM energy).

I kinda have to disagree, a bit. The waveform of a television broadcast is quite observable, just not by the human eye. Check this video here at 5:55 is the money shot:



I do agree though, that without technical assistance, this waveform is likely not-observable, although some of us can feel them - a phenomenon that is being actively studied and seems to be quite rare.

[CCoburn]

Waveforms Continued


Light is a "waveform" of sorts, and often times in metaphysical discussions the terminology is used for lack of a better term, but there is implication of electromagnetic energy forming(and recurring) at some cosmic root in symphony with one or more of the other fundamental forces of nature.

The waveform is quite intimate with both light and consciousness. We know that light travels in waves, and the brains' cognition operates/evolves at varying frequencies, so there would hypothetically exist correlations between certain frequencies and domains of cognition.

In the famous equation energy can be set equal to material(or mass) and vice versa, and the speed of light itself is even isolated as a term. Even within solid material objects there are hidden frequencies at work. Light(which is energy) appears to be a key player of the universal framework which can be related to consciousness via waveforms/frequencies.

Of course within all of this there is something relatable and most fundamental from which everything else springs, and my guess would be that this is some form of divine light maybe similar in some ways but not identical to the visible light found in the spectrum.

This divine primordial 'light' would need to be some form of living light. It would be akin to consciousness in some type of original and exalted form, and would ultimately be the source of all things via its own cognition, or perhaps in conjunction with the infinities(or eternity) of cosmic roots it would just simply 'know' without the need for "thinking" as thinking may imply an imperfection within this primordial thing that could very well be of an omnipotent nature in consideration of all the things that are.

Or in the style of one of Einsteins' quotes. All of reality could just be a perfectly formulated illusion within the mind of this thing (a mental menagerie) although this is not likely the "illusion" he was alluding, and whatever manner the construction of the universe is perceived, consciousness would still be most fundamental in either of the cases presented here.

Part of the difficulty here is in negation of space and the conceptualization and visualization(or more importantly non-visualization) of such a concept or non-thing. In some hypothesis 'nothing' actually contains 'everything'. There are times when the cosmos(or parts of it) appears to be a contradiction of itself, and why some tend to elevate truth above reason i.e. just because something doesn't make any sense does not always mean it isn't true – the "always exceptions" rule.

I suppose I've also deviated away from human consciousness here.

— Intelligent Design (as in consciousness like the thread title)

[l0st]

Waveforms Continued


Light is a "waveform" of sorts, and often times in metaphysical discussions the terminology is used for lack of a better term, but there is implication of electromagnetic energy forming(and recurring) at some cosmic root in symphony with one or more of the other fundamental forces of nature.

The waveform is quite intimate with both light and consciousness. We know that light travels in waves, and the brains' cognition operates/evolves at varying frequencies, so there would hypothetically exist correlations between certain frequencies and domains of cognition.

In the famous equation energy can be set equal to material(or mass) and vice versa, and the speed of light itself is even isolated as a term. Even within solid material objects there are hidden frequencies at work. Light(which is energy) appears to be a key player of the universal framework which can be related to consciousness via waveforms/frequencies.

Of course within all of this there is something relatable and most fundamental from which everything else springs, and my guess would be that this is some form of divine light maybe similar in some ways but not identical to the visible light found in the spectrum.

This divine primordial 'light' would need to be some form of living light. It would be akin to consciousness in some type of original and exalted form, and would ultimately be the source of all things via its own cognition, or perhaps in conjunction with the infinities(or eternity) of cosmic roots it would just simply 'know' without the need for "thinking" as thinking may imply an imperfection within this primordial thing that could very well be of an omnipotent nature in consideration of all the things that are.

Or in the style of one of Einsteins' quotes. All of reality could just be a perfectly formulated illusion within the mind of this thing (a mental menagerie) although this is not likely the "illusion" he was alluding, and whatever manner the construction of the universe is perceived, consciousness would still be most fundamental in either of the cases presented here.

Part of the difficulty here is in negation of space and the conceptualization and visualization(or more importantly non-visualization) of such a concept or non-thing. In some hypothesis 'nothing' actually contains 'everything'. There are times when the cosmos(or parts of it) appears to be a contradiction of itself, and why some tend to elevate truth above reason i.e. just because something doesn't make any sense does not always mean it isn't true – the "always exceptions" rule.

I suppose I've also deviated away from human consciousness here.

— Intelligent Design (as in consciousness like the thread title)

Allllllllright... You're in a whole other area now as far as I'm concerned. I'm not saying you're wrong, but its outta my league lol

[UltraBudgie]

New research on anesthesia unlocks important clues about the nature of consciousness (September 3, 2024)

For decades, one of the most fundamental and vexing questions in neuroscience has been: what is the physical basis of consciousness in the brain? Most researchers favor classical models, based on classical physics, while a minority have argued that consciousness must be quantum in nature, and that its brain basis is a collective quantum vibration of "microtubule" proteins inside neurons.
...
More broadly, a quantum understanding of consciousness “gives us a world picture in which we can be connected to the universe in a more natural and holistic way,” Wiest says. Wiest plans to pursue future research in this field, and hopes to explain and explore the quantum consciousness theory in a book for a general audience.

Here is the paper (eNeuro 15 August 2024).

They're saying this supports the theories of Penrose, et al, that consciousness manifests due to quantum fluctuations within microtubules.  As such, it aligns with what I think -- that consciousness is non-local in origin, and the brain acts as a receiver and causal amplifier, rather than being the fundamental source.

As I recently heard someone describe it, "folded brains dramatically increase the influence a given region in space-time can have, simply due to the increased number of neurons. So our brains double as an antenna for some unseen influence that manifests through quantum uncertainty."

Edit: The paper bigly references Hameroff's 2022 paper Consciousness, Cognition and the Neuronal Cytoskeleton – A New Paradigm Needed in Neuroscience, which is also interesting reading:

Viewing the brain as a complex computer of simple neurons cannot account for consciousness nor essential features of cognition. Single cell organisms with no synapses perform purposeful intelligent functions using their cytoskeletal microtubules. A new paradigm is needed to view the brain as a scale-invariant hierarchy extending both upward from the level of neurons to larger and larger neuronal networks, but also downward, inward, to deeper, faster quantum and classical processes in cytoskeletal microtubules inside neurons.

Considering only neuronal membrane, synaptic activities and axonal firings as “bits,” the brain-as-computer is an insult to neurons, to life itself (which may derive from quantum coherence in organic chemistry, e.g., Schrödinger, 1944; Hameroff, 2017), and to consciousness, quite possibly a fundamental feature of the universe (Penrose, 1989; Koch, 2012).

[l0st]

New research on anesthesia unlocks important clues about the nature of consciousness (September 3, 2024)

Here is the paper (eNeuro 15 August 2024).

They're saying this supports the theories of Penrose, et al, that consciousness manifests due to quantum fluctuations within microtubules.  As such, it aligns with what I think -- that consciousness is non-local in origin, and the brain acts as a receiver and causal amplifier, rather than being the fundamental source.

As I recently heard someone describe it, "folded brains dramatically increase the influence a given region in space-time can have, simply due to the increased number of neurons. So our brains double as an antenna for some unseen influence that manifests through quantum uncertainty."

Edit: The paper bigly references Hameroff's 2022 paper Consciousness, Cognition and the Neuronal Cytoskeleton – A New Paradigm Needed in Neuroscience, which is also interesting reading:

The human brain as an antenna for quantum-level signals? That's.... incredible and also extremely frightening at the same time.

If you believe in the theories of people like Elon Musk then we're all in a simulation - it would make sense that every "character" has an antenna by which to receive commands.

When I was growing up I had a somewhat-close friend who was deeply into quantum physics. In fact, I believe he has gone on to do studies in quantum mechanics. He tried to get me interested in it, but it just didn't strike me at the time - I was much more into computers at the time. I wish I could speak with him now.

[CCoburn]

The human brain as an antenna for quantum-level signals? That's.... incredible and also extremely frightening at the same time.

If you believe in the theories of people like Elon Musk then we're all in a simulation - it would make sense that every "character" has an antenna by which to receive commands.

When I was growing up I had a somewhat-close friend who was deeply into quantum physics. In fact, I believe he has gone on to do studies in quantum mechanics. He tried to get me interested in it, but it just didn't strike me at the time - I was much more into computers at the time. I wish I could speak with him now.

With consciousness you can analyze the micro/macro or both. With the macro it appears as a complete and total existential negation. No space and no time; it's not even an existence. It's like if the universe was a box and you remove the existential dimensions you would not be left with an empty box, but you would be left with no box – by removing the dimensions you are approaching 'nothing', and there isn't anything that you can imagine that exists outside of or beyond this "nothing".

It's that negative existential parameter where there is absolutely nothing, but there is an acausal mover there that exists at the threshold between existence and non. When this primordial thing thinks or moves is what's detected(or theorized) as quantum fluctuations – the unmoved mover is moving.

[UltraBudgie]

So as I was laying awake last night I had a thought, related to this idea of the brain as a "quantum antenna". It was, that like the antenna on a radio set, perhaps it could be picking up signals from multiple sources, multiple stations if you will. And no need for it to just operate in "receive-only" mode, eh?

So then, what if the brain is more of a nexus for quantum-level communication between multiple sources?  A place where signals can interact with each other, and the physical world?  And the structure of the gross "neural-net" is merely akin to "client-side rendering" of a webpage, something done to avoid excess communication and place the results closer to where they will play out, not the actual source itself?

My thought was that our brains are a nexus of a conversation, between God, giving us our thoughts and narrative, and pure consciousness, the observer, watching it unfold.  Like a movie -- God operating the projector, our brains the movie screen, and us, pure consciousness sitting in a comfy chair in the audience, thinking that we are what's happening on screen.  God teaching his children by telling them a story of the world.

It's already been shown that what we think of as "our decisions" manifest in our brains hundreds of milliseconds before we think to claim we've "decided" them. https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.2112

No really! I wasn't on drugs! 

[Maxmars]

Things like this always make me reconsider the historically debunked idea of "the ether" an intangible medium through which something is transmitted... the conduit of life-mind.

Is it a quantum thing?  That's an interesting idea.

[CCoburn]

Things like this always make me reconsider the historically debunked idea of "the ether" an intangible medium through which something is transmitted... the conduit of life-mind.

Is it a quantum thing?  That's an interesting idea.

The aether of antiquity is essentially the same, the only difference really is that they likely thought of it as infinite and eternal and of course we now know that it expanded from a spatial negation.

The initial pre-expansion was a quantum state that expanded to become the macrocosm or universe that we now know, of course the cohesive fundamental building blocks of the universe still operate and function as quanta as well as everyday appliances that make use of over-the-air waves/frequencies.

Electromagnetic radiation could have played a major role in an already expanding universe. Just take for example how EM radiation can send from transmitter to distant receiver over-the-air(or aether) and manifest intricate 2D images with sound (for starters).

The initial primordial expansion point could be akin to a hub of central consciousness that could transmit and be connected to galaxies, star systems, and planets as nodes, and creatures like us humans would be like end-points(or terminals). It would be like an intergalactic neural network.

This scenario would be like existing in the mind of the primordial which might make one question whether something physical did in fact happen, or was it just an illusion that made it appear that way, which may lead to some confusion as to exactly what is real?

Our own microcosmic consciousness creates these elaborate 4D dreamscapes while we are asleep that appear real as long as we are sleeping, but of course we wake up to realize it was only a dream.

[Maxmars]

Please forgive me if I seem obtusely confused...

[confession]

I accept that any theorizing about a 'non-tangible' can always become extremely evidentiary in those well-immersed into the ideas like aether (thanks for not calling me out on the word.)  Never mind the multiple complexities of higher dimensional considerations.  I have always been interested, but not equipped, to delve into these matter which require mathematics ranging into the esoteric.  I plead ignorance as a shield as I proceed.

[/end confession]



I am impressed that so many ancient philosophical text describe or allude to principle which mirror the cutting edge thinking about physical reality.  I can never understand why we didn't have more of a 'head start' in theoretical sciences in the west, and why even in their local setting, these thousand years old ideas just languished from the context of science.

It had coalesced in my understanding, that the entire 'gut feeling' that 'something is missing here' has never been abolished when it comes to the current "modern physics." 

In particular, it seems there has been a change in the 'scientific method.'   
Not the "by-the-book" definition of scientific method... just a propensity of those who employ it's discipline to 'alter the rules.'

Whether we talk about 'quarks' and 'strangelets' or 'strings' and 'chirality' we always seem to see competition.  As if the matter of research were to resolve a contest, as opposed to serving the body of human knowledge... you know, "science."  In our discussions, we take certain precepts inherited from physics... some of which seem very 'dogmatic' or 'suppositional.'  Since I am not a scientist I must accept that as esoteric those precepts are, "someone must have vetted it."  Only sometimes finding later, that such vetting that took place was by another 'someone' excited to accept the idea, or determined to reject it.  That is uncomfortable to learn, and it became a crack in the foundation to my faith in our "popular priests of science."

I suppose this is all just to say "I still don't get it."

We can imagine something that conforms to the structure of the universe, but in the end we are limited to the observable.  We even invented a 'matter and energy' to formally express that 'we don't know what this is.'  And the single dimensional effect (gravity) from which we infer it's existence may not be enough to ever actually 'see it.'  But it is among the foundational future thought nevertheless... science fiction for scientists... the seeds of something not quite right.

Also it is further conflated with a precept that relates to 'observation.'  Variations in perception can happen en masse, it seems.  While many varied offer up the idea of materialistic science, those venturing into extradimensional space offer many "potentialities."  None of those potentialities are measurable outside of an incidental context, which I would assume should raise some hackles, for those interested in the scientific method.  

Modelling is an essential tool in science... but it is a 'tool'... and tools are not "proof."  

"It works in the model" actually means "It works in our model;" yet what it yields stands like a foundation stone that God put there - in every reference, every citation... That's a shitload of trust, in a world where any scientist of note KNOWS how much you can 'rely' on distantly published work today.

What we seem to have done is create - via mathematical modelling - a new set of 'virtually-observable' perceivable behaviors - which by definition are happening where we can't "see" them... and willing and eager to accept that model was 'godly' perfect so 'this must be reality'...  I find myself resisting the foundational explanations, and without an 'education' or 'experience' to inform me otherwise... I want to resist simply believing the offered explanations. 

I think we may have other 'fish to fry' in physics and they are either not being pursued, or remain unshared.  I admit, this is a 'me' thing.

I do have massive respect for those thinkers (mathematicians and scientists) in general... and somehow it still irks me that others latch onto their ideas and market them as products.  But I have to accept that... the problem is, listening to those who market science (for show OR tell) often are not really doing their subject faithful justice... rather than telling, they are selling.  That kind of crap never belonged in, or over, the discipline of science.

But listen, I love this subject and want to discuss with anyone who is patient enough to endure my bullshit.

Whew! I went back and read this... but... yeah, I gave my self-expression a "C-", apologies.