On Consciousness

[l0st]

This conversation on "time" remains perplexing to me. So many people seem so very sure of themselves when they declare that "time doesn't really exist." It's not just on these posts, of course. Physics has declared that "time" is the "fourth dimension" and has supplied us with elaborate mathematical equations that seek to prove the issue. I'm not good enough at math to understand the arguments, but I know, for certain, that in logical discourse (the kind you find in departments of philosophy) it is absolutely possible in symbolic logic to prove "A" or "not-A." I'm sure I could not do that now because it has been too long, like fifty years too long, but it has left me with a life-long impression that you can prove anything, including its opposite, depending on how you reduce the elements of a proposition to a conclusion. All you have to do is replace the symbols of logic with declarative statements. This issue is unassailable. Those who don't believe this may want to check out "Introduction to Logic" by Copi and Cohen. I think it is now in its 15th edition. It's all in there.

It is a basic tenant of anthropology that different cultures think in different ways. This goes beyond using different methods of measurement. Yes, OF COURSE metric and Imperial are different. Don't embarrass yourself or others by "pointing out" something so intellectually trivial. But beyond the tools of measurement, different cultures view time in different ways, some of which may not be understandable to the "Western" mind set. OK. That's fine, too, but that's just as trivial. Diminishing the argument to these levels of minutiae feels like the question is being avoided. None of this disproves the existence of time.

I'm not sure how this subset of the conversation relates to consciousness. My original proposition is that consciousness is the program; the brain is the TV set, which allows consciousness to express itself in physical form. That's all you really need to know.

Yes, theoretical physicists have declared time the 4th dimension. A theory is a theory, not proven scientific fact.

I'm not embarrassed, nor is what I pointed out "intellectually trivial." I was simply making the point that the concept of time seems to vary depending on whom dictates the concepts. I'm not avoiding any question. I'm pointing out an important observation the time is different things to different people. I will concede that this alone does not disprove the existence of time, but it certainly doesn't help any argument that time exists if different cultures cannot even agree on what time is.

I've already stated my theory that perhaps these differing perceptions of time are perhaps part of a single greater consciousness. Think of it this way, if there really is one grand centralized consciousness, then this consciousness must be everything to everyone and nothing to nobody all at the same time. This would not preclude various cultures having different concepts of time, only that time exists in different ways to different people. I am making the supposition, in the context of centralized consciousness,  that perhaps all systems are correct in some convoluted way that we do not yet understand.

I think this dovetails straight into what you are saying about consciousness being the program and the mind being the TV set. Perhaps there is more than one program? Remember what I said about multiple possibly infinite realities running in parallel.

[CCoburn]

At the risk of pissing people off....

"Time" is a perception.
Like all perception we are driven to "measure it" by our nature as thinking creatures.
'Measuring' means translating the concept into language... 
'Language' is a tool... not always directly suited to every concept equally.

We'll get to the meaning eventually, when we get to the reality of the perception... it's a journey, not a destination.

Part of the problem(and the confusion) here is in applying the same label to similar but different phenomena. There has to be a distinction made between the 'cosms' of time.

1. Macrocosmic Time. This is the fourth dimension. This is the time that (apparently) exists regardless of your perception of it. A seed will exist and germinate even if you aren't watching it.

2. Microcosmic Time. This is an aspect of time that is peculiar and most intimate with individual consciousness and is experienced internally as a passing of moments and also more relevant in a context of "perception".

In any event they are both pertinent to "change" whether it be internal(within(me)), or external(without(me)).

Now if you really wanted to go nuts with this you could extrapolate and form an analogy of the lesser cosms existing as a likeness of the larger one, so you have the microcosm which is consciousness linked to time within(internal), and you have the macrocosm which is consciousness linked to time without(external).

Time within – the mind of man; time without – the mind of God(or primordial for those that scoff at the "God" terminology).

Time actually does appear to be quite intimate with and inseparable from consciousness regardless of the cosm. Time is change and nothing can function without it other than maybe an acausal factor – an unmoved mover.

[schuyler]

I'm sorry, but this conversation has somehow diverted into issues far from my original intent of seeking thoughts on the nature of consciousness. I'm not understanding the issues raised here. Perhaps this is simply the wrong venue.

[CCoburn]

I'm sorry, but this conversation has somehow diverted into issues far from my original intent of seeking thoughts on the nature of consciousness. I'm not understanding the issues raised here. Perhaps this is simply the wrong venue.

There's a difference between forming analogies of consciousness and what consciousness actually is. Consciousness is not a program that runs on a TV. That's just an analogy of consciousness.

What do you want? Some scientific explanation as to what consciousness is? It's ethereal and unobservable like some zero-point parameter. It's like electromagnetic energy(bosons), photons and God particles – functioning in some obscure quantum realm.

Quite mysterious and magical apparently, like dreams, which is why no rational mind has cracked its irrational code - its true nature.

Logic and reason will only take you so far, and the rest is chaos. Some things just don't require any reasoning, they just are...immutable.

Neti Neti is a Sanskrit expression which means "not this, not that", or "neither this, nor that" (neti is sandhi from na iti "not so").

[CCoburn]

I'm sorry, but this conversation has somehow diverted into issues far from my original intent of seeking thoughts on the nature of consciousness. I'm not understanding the issues raised here. Perhaps this is simply the wrong venue.

Maybe this is because consciousness is turning out to be something far from your original thoughts on what the nature of consciousness is, or ought to be, and I suppose it could still be articulated to an extent even though its true nature is not quantifiable and of a seemingly unknown/unproven quality.

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).

Nikola Tesla once said that if one wants to understand the universe(which would include consciousness), that energy, frequency, and vibration would be very important here. Energy travels in waves, and frequency is a count of wavelengths per second, and last but not least the oscillations of vibration; vibration/oscillation is very similar to frequency – it's the redundancy of repetitiveness...

I apologize, I'm not trying to make "waves" here, but then you got brainwaves initiated by neural "oscillations". If it's an active wave then consciousness is still alive; if it's a flatline or no wave then consciousness is dead – like the "TV program" that is animated via its waveform carrier signal.

[CCoburn]

What is it that makes me 'me', and not someone else?

DNA is probably worth a mention here as well as a most miniscule material aspect capable of encompassing a complete physical identity where of course consciousness dwells being bound at the core of any such identity.

DNA(and its virtually limitless variants) is likely the core material factor that is replicated and responsible for some emergent properties of consciousness.

Even with reincarnation it seems like the same sequences would be inevitable given some unbounded timetable.

Maybe the consciousness emanates from the DNA in some way at some proper time or is just seeded in some way when the biology is mature enough to accept it.

[Maxmars]

Given that the question of consciousness is central t the OP, I would like to beg your indulgence to add a link here about a 'new' ideas about how it is possible, given the biological contraints that consciousness is even possible...

From Phy.org: Photon entanglement could explain the rapid brain signals behind consciousness
 

---

Understanding the nature of consciousness is one of the hardest problems in science. Some scientists have suggested that quantum mechanics, and in particular quantum entanglement, is the key to unraveling the phenomenon.

Now, a research group in China has shown that many entangled photons can be generated inside the myelin sheath that covers nerve fibers. It could explain the rapid communication between neurons, which so far has been thought to be below the speed of sound, too slow to explain how the neural synchronization occurs.

---

Once we free ourselves from the notion that consciousness is a simple biochemical/neuronal phenomenon, we may find there are more dimension to consciousness than we ever presumed.

[CCoburn]

Understanding the nature of consciousness is one of the hardest problems in science. Some scientists have suggested that quantum mechanics, and in particular quantum entanglement, is the key to unraveling the phenomenon.

Einstein referred to QE as "Spooky action at a distance". I would presume that any phenomenon that is "spooky" might be somewhat difficult to rationalize, but we try anyway.

[CCoburn]

Some(including myself) do sometimes form connections between the soul and light(or "photons"), but I'll probably get to more on that later.

Descartes spoke of the pineal gland as being the "seat of the soul"(or consciousness). Consciousness does appear to have a constant centralized location(even if only illusory) that appears to be pretty much in line with the line of sight of the visual mechanism(the windows of the soul). The pineal gland on the other hand appears more in line with the third eye, i.e. in a straight line back through the skull from that red dot that the Hindu practitioners(or yogis) are known for.

And even though consciousness does appear to be centralized spatially, there's likely not going to be anything there that is observable. There may be a couple reasons for this:

1. Like quantum phenomena, it's just to small to be observed – the veil of scale.

2. It's incorporeal; there's nothing there to be observed. Consciousness does not occupy physical space...

It's there, but it isn't there.

Some might say chemical processes are responsible. It's true and somewhat fascination that some chemicals can affect the 'feeling' of consciousness e.g. the various modes, but I would disagree with it being 'the reason' for consciousness.

[CCoburn]

I'm sure I jousted the OP again and now this thread is headed in an H. P. Lovecraft From Beyond sort of direction, but could also be intervened at any time to prevent the pineal gland from popping out of Dr. Pretorious' third eye spot.

This is likely heading in a direction beyond material constructs to a more supernatural arena of analogies and extrapolation to form viable premises, arguments, and conclusions resulting in a more theological type setting.