I just happen to think that self-awareness simply doesn't fit into four dimensional space-time. I'm starting to suspect that this conclusion is irrefutably logically valid, but I have no idea how you'd try to validate it any more that we already are by for example the experience of reading this very sentence.
Hi Wes! I agree. I think the characteristics of consciousness are too distinct from the purely physical to fit into the physical spacetime region.
Hmm. That's always been a thing for sure, but I generally accept the idea of space-time as pretty valid at least mechanically. I think perception can jack with itself dramatically and makes time seem like more than it is. Actually as I think about it is it that consciousness does necessarily force time to be more than it is? I think it does (inherently subjectively time is much more than time (in the personal and mechanistic senses, respectively)) ... that's interesting.
I agree that spacetime is independently real with an underlying logic of physical laws. I am just not sure physical spacetime is fundamental to the existence of consciousness.
So you're saying that everything can be statistically modeled except consciousness (as a necessity of your assertion)? I could buy that as a generalization but I'm not sure it adds anything unless taken as an exact statement which I'd have to disagree with. Well, that is to say that I cannot say for sure that consciousness could not be statistically modeled - just that maybe it's too complex or the math is as yet underdeveloped to encompass such a complicated system. I guess I'm not sure either, if there are systems in nature besides consciousness that cannot be statically modeled.
My understanding is that Newtonian and General Relativity physics (within their realm) could produce exact cause and effect predictions if we were able to input all existing physical factors. The lower level Quantum physics cannot make exact predictions but can make statistically predictions. All of these predictions are based on cause and effect and their underlying physical forces, fields and laws.
The ability to predict the consciousness is dependent on the origin and location of the consciousness. If the origin of consciousness is physical and the control of the consciousness is based on physical factors, then we should be able to exactly or statistically predict the consciousness. However if the origin or location of the consciousness lies in another dimension, then we may not be able to predict consciousness. If this other dimension is non-physical, then the 4d laws of physics would not apply. Then I believe we probably would lose any ability to predict the actions of the consciousness.
I did say "if' the origin of consciousness is physical. The emergent theory of consciousness assumes the consciousness as an emergent entity from the brain. This theory is based on the alterations of consciousness when the brain is altered. These alterations definitely demonstrate linkage between the brain and the consciousness. However linkage doesn't demonstrate origin. Dualists assume the brain and consciousness are two separate entities. Assuming the brain and consciousness as two separate entities, we would have the same alteration of consciousness when the brain is altered. So the experimental results of science could equally support either the emergent theory or the dualist theory. Currently science doesn't know the origin of the consciousness. So I try to be careful about limiting understanding of the consciousness by not assuming the emergent theory is proven fact.
Here is an interesting on-line book by a Berkeley professor on consciousness.
http://www.thymos.com/tat/title.html
He thoroughly covers the history and current status of consciousness studies. He personally believes the consciousness is a fundamental property of all matter but covers pretty much every theory that has been around since the Greeks. I don't agree with his favorite theory but it is a good and comprehensive read on many consciousness theories.
Well, I'm not the expert but is there some QM type stuff that would negate that claim? Anyone? I guess you're saying that you believe the physical universe to be collapsible to a single equation or rather that a model that could wouldn't be fully explanatory of all natural phenomena since where does consciousness fit in with all that there? I'd agree with that last part, but suspect that there can't really be a single accurate equation by which consciousness couldn't somehow be construed.
Actually no. I don't believe everything is collapsible to a single equation. Quantum physics allows statistical predictions but not exact predictions which rules out the single equation. Also if consciousness is independent of the physical, then "free will" also prevents collapsing everything to a single equation. So I agree with you that there can't be a single accurate equation.
I just had the thought "I am a species of my own.". By that I mean you too. I mean that in a way, mind is an 'integration' (I guess I mean analogous of the relationship of the integral to differentiation) of evolution in that mind itself evolves. It's evolution on top of evolution. Maybe just eh? . hehe.
Hehe. Have you ever considered the reverse? You are looking at the non-physical consciousness as arising from the physical mind. Bearing in mind that spacetime and matter arose from the non-physical energy of the big bang, what might this suggest about the relationship between the non-physical consciousness and the physical brain? Which is more fundamental-the physical or the non-physical? Or which is more fundamental-energy or matter?
What is the composition of consciousness regardless of its location? Is consciousness composed of space, time, matter, energy or some unknown quantity? If consciousness is in a higher dimension, it could be composed of all of the above and we would be unable to detect it. However spacetime and matter do not show the qualities of consciousness within our spacetime. Energy produces the forces and then fields which create and control matter and spacetime. Energy is the driving force and even creator of our physical universe. So could energy also be the driving force of conscious thought within a higher dimension of conscious existence? If so, then consciousness would be energy but undetectable because it is located in a higher dimension. Seems like a reasonable hypothesis assuming we don't have some totally unknown quantity beyond energy, matter and spacetime.
That's an interesting way to see it. I like it. There are slight differences in my view, but they are quite similar. For instance I see consciousness evidently lodged as the 'fifth' dimension, in addition to space-time rather than independent of it. I think the body is the four dimensional conduit to the fifth dimension. Maybe it even literally creates it, rather than just linking to it.. either way it exists because I am. For some time I've argued that it's the experience of meaning (consciousness) that you cannot place into spacetime. I mean... where would you put it? Not the biochemical process... the feeling.
Actually I look at the consciousness in a similar manner.
But I am still struck by the creation of spacetime from the pure energy of the bigbang-the physical from the non-physical. So we have non-physical(bigbang energy) to 4d physical(spacetime/matter) to more non-physical (the consciousness/awareness). What are the commonalities between the non-physical energy of the bigbang and the non-physical consciousness? If they are both pure energy, then they should have commonalities distinct from the 4d physical universe. And they may share a common source or location.
From a physics standpoint, pure energy is distinct. It exists in a region defined by the speed of light. A region where time doesn't exist-thus no beginning nor end. A region where distance doesn't exist. It is a region impossible for matter to reach without first converting to pure energy. If the consciousness is pure energy, it logically should originate and may possibly exist in this same or similar location.
Here is a site discussing the speed of light region based on General Relativity which you might interesting. It discusses the intriguing aspects of timelessness and distanceless existing at the speed of light. Interestingly, energy exists at the speed of light . Also the link below is a quote from the site using a photon (pure energy) to demonstrate existence at the speed of light. Energy does not experience spacetime as we perceive spacetime.
http://www.hotquanta.com/ontime_continued.html
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we extending the traveller's experience to that of light then it appears that photons experience no space or time. Relativistic space-time geometry appears to concur, events that can be connected by a light ray occur with ‘zero’ space-time separation regardless of their physical separation in space. In effect, it would seem that light occupies a time-space no-man’s land in which photons individually experience no space and no time during their transfer from the source to the destination.
If relativity holds, then a photon appears to go from one present to another without experiencing space or time. It just ‘is’, without time or space, very like a ‘time capsule’ of energy frozen in stasis that only ‘comes alive’ when it interacts.
----------------------------------------------------
Would you say that consciousness is the process of abstraction? You see I think the abstract exists but can only be accessed by the condition of consciousness. The "abstract dimension" is really what I'm talking about with all this, but it gets a little jumbled because it's so closely related to consciousness as I've stated.
I don't know. I think you are saying a region of abstract knowledge or information which exists in a higher dimension above the 4d spacetime which is accessed by the consciousness. If you are correct, then the consciousness would not be the source of thought. It simply taps into a source of pre-existing thought if I understand you correctly. Didn't Plato have a similar idea with his perfect "forms".
So basically evolution uses genetics and chemistry to create brains that can access the dimension of abstraction in order to further their understanding of themselves and as such the universe becomes aware of itself.
I agree with the theory of physical evolution producing brains capable of sensing our universe in a unique and powerful manner. But rather than the physical tapping into a higher dimensional non-physical consciousness, I lean towards the consciousness tapping into the physical. I think this is a more logical viewpoint, because the consciousness contains the ability of intention and free will. However the consciousness seems to be locked into the physical, once it links with the body. Of course, the alternative of a physical accident is also possible.
But if there is another dimension in which abstraction or consciousness exists, does the brain create this dimension or has it always existed? If it has always existed, then the consciousness/ abstraction/awareness has always existed independent of the brain in a higher dimension. So then which originates the linkage between the brain and the consciousness? We would have a choice between physical accident or a pre-existing consciousness choosing to link with the body.
Okay so I guess I'm saying it also seems obvious that there is some other "force" that makes stuff alive and drives evolution. What do you think? (pardon, I've just been meandering a bit for the last two paragraphs, just trying to find something new in this)
I agree. I am leaning towards consciousness as an energy in a higher dimension linked with our 4d spacetime. Once I reach the idea of consciousness as energy, then I look at how physics understands energy. Which then leads to the region of pure energy at the speed of light independent of spacetime as an origin of consciousness. Although I am not convinced that the consciousness exists at the speed of light while linked to the brain. I think the linkage moves it out of the speed of light region but still not in our spacetime or it would be perceptible. Which then means, consciousness would be temporarily in a higher dimension while linked with the brain. OR...it remains in the speed of light region but links to the brain-which then perceives existence as filtered and limited by the brain within our spacetime.
For the last three years, I have been interested in the consciousness, light, dimensions and time. I found it very confusing until I reached the point where I know longer believed in the emergent theory. After considering dualism seriously, the consciousness begins to make more sense for me.
And as you can see, I have no problem following wherever dualism may lead no matter how far fetched.
Well, good posts man, nice to 'meet you' so to speak.
Same here, Wes! This is something I can talk about all day. It is definitely interesting and mind expanding whether we am totally wrong or not.
