Philosophy Discussion Forums

The key words are "cause" and "determine". If you really do think that there are laws of physics which prescribe how Nature behaves, rather than simply describing it, then you have to remember that the thought, inside a physical brain, which came to the rational conclusion that those prescriptive laws exist is itself a product of those prescriptive laws.

Togo1 wrote:I think what he's asking is what the basis is for believing that physics causes or determines conscious experiences. It may seem like common sense, but is there a reason to think this is the case?

I would say that if we believe that physical reality exists, it implies that it determines conscious experience.

Conscious experience is the only thing we can prove that exists. Why do we believe that physics exists as well? It is because of the symmetries or in other words patterns we see in our conscious experience. We cannot explain the reason for the form of our conscious experiences. In other words we do not know why we experience the patterns in our conscious experiences that we do. For example, if I look up I see a ceiling. Why? The existence of conscious experience doesnt explain why, but physics does. Thus something more must exist than our own conscious experiences to explain how our conscious experiences change and its patterns. This more that exists is what determines our conscious experiences. The more we study our conscious experiences it seems to give us information about "the outside world". So we simply believe that physics exists because we believe that it is what determines the shape of our conscious experiences. If it wasn't for that, there is no reason to believe that physics is an existing part of nature.

So based on this we can draw two possible conclusion:

1. We only need physics to exist in order to explain the patterns we consciously experience. In that case it exists in order to explain the pattern we see in our conscious experiences, hence they must be related somehow.

2. Physics is wrong it is just a construct of e.g. the matrix virtual reality theory stuff. As such physics could be an illusion (not seperate reality) and we do not know what determines the change in our conscious experiences.

I personally prefer option 1, and my article shows exactly how it is possible and that it is a simple solution.

Zayl wrote:

Togo1 wrote:I think what he's asking is what the basis is for believing that physics causes or determines conscious experiences. It may seem like common sense, but is there a reason to think this is the case?

I would say that if we believe that physical reality exists, it implies that it determines conscious experience.

Conscious experience is the only thing we can prove that exists. Why do we believe that physics exists as well? It is because of the symmetries or in other words patterns we see in our conscious experience. We cannot explain the reason for the form of our conscious experiences. In other words we do not know why we experience the patterns in our conscious experiences that we do. For example, if I look up I see a ceiling. Why? The existence of conscious experience doesnt explain why, but physics does. Thus something more must exist than our own conscious experiences to explain how our conscious experiences change and its patterns. This more that exists is what determines our conscious experiences. The more we study our conscious experiences it seems to give us information about "the outside world". So we simply believe that physics exists because we believe that it is what determines the shape of our conscious experiences. If it wasn't for that, there is no reason to believe that physics is an existing part of nature.

I'm not convinced your explanation justifies the words in bold, above. It's a good and well presented set of reasons to have a physical model of the wider world, but there is no reason to believe that that physical world/models our conscious experiences, any more than there is to believe that our conscious experiences determine the physical world.

Zayl wrote: 1. We only need physics to exist in order to explain the patterns we consciously experience. In that case it exists in order to explain the pattern we see in our conscious experiences, hence they must be related somehow.

This conclusion falls short of suggesting that physics must determine our conscious experience, it only claims that they must be related.

Zayl wrote:2. Physics is wrong it is just a construct of e.g. the matrix virtual reality theory stuff. As such physics could be an illusion (not seperate reality) and we do not know what determines the change in our conscious experiences.

This is too strong to be the only alternative. You're leaving out the most obvious challenge to your position, which is that physics is right as far as it goes, but does not apply to everything.

Zayl said: I would say that if we believe that physical reality exists, it implies that it determines conscious experience. (1)

Conscious experience is the only thing we can prove that exists. (2)

Your conclusion (in italics) does not match your premise: If statement (2) is true, than (1) is false, i.e., consciousness determines awareness of physical reality rather than the reverse.

Togo1 wrote:

Zayl wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


I would say that if we believe that physical reality exists, it implies that it determines conscious experience.

Conscious experience is the only thing we can prove that exists. Why do we believe that physics exists as well? It is because of the symmetries or in other words patterns we see in our conscious experience. We cannot explain the reason for the form of our conscious experiences. In other words we do not know why we experience the patterns in our conscious experiences that we do. For example, if I look up I see a ceiling. Why? The existence of conscious experience doesnt explain why, but physics does. Thus something more must exist than our own conscious experiences to explain how our conscious experiences change and its patterns. This more that exists is what determines our conscious experiences. The more we study our conscious experiences it seems to give us information about "the outside world". So we simply believe that physics exists because we believe that it is what determines the shape of our conscious experiences. If it wasn't for that, there is no reason to believe that physics is an existing part of nature.

I'm not convinced your explanation justifies the words in bold, above. It's a good and well presented set of reasons to have a physical model of the wider world, but there is no reason to believe that that physical world/models our conscious experiences, any more than there is to believe that our conscious experiences determine the physical world.

Zayl wrote: 1. We only need physics to exist in order to explain the patterns we consciously experience. In that case it exists in order to explain the pattern we see in our conscious experiences, hence they must be related somehow.

This conclusion falls short of suggesting that physics must determine our conscious experience, it only claims that they must be related.

Zayl wrote:2. Physics is wrong it is just a construct of e.g. the matrix virtual reality theory stuff. As such physics could be an illusion (not seperate reality) and we do not know what determines the change in our conscious experiences.

I suppose the main issue was to explain why physics and consciousness must be related and it seems that you agree on that part so far?

According to my model consciousness and physics is the same and as such determine each other. This means that physics determines consciousness and consciousness determines physics. That would be by displacing entities within confinements.

If you consider the fact that our conscious experiences and how they change are two different things, there is something else than our conscious experiences in themselves which does determine how they change, no? That which determines it is not anything which we are aware of. This is how it is impossible that conscious experiences in themselves determine how they change. It is simply because it is beyond our conscious awareness. It seems that you here suggests that there could be something which determines physics and conscious experiences? Anything is possible, but I don't consider it a likely possibility. This is due to the following explanations:

Togo1 wrote:This is too strong to be the only alternative. You're leaving out the most obvious challenge to your position, which is that physics is right as far as it goes, but does not apply to everything.

Physics per definition is right (more or less) as far as it goes, but does not explain my model per definitions.

If physics is right it is quite obvious that physical processes in the brain determines conscious experiences. This is proved by brain scans that show how physical areas in the brain relate to different conscious experiences. Also that electrical activity relates to conscious experiences as well. As you say physics does not explain all, but somehow this must cause our conscious experience. Either that or everything about physics, brain scans everything is an illusion. Before you say that conscious experiences causes the activity and not vice versa it would contradict the purpose of the how the body functions. E.g. why would we need to see through our eyes and interpret this information through the brain if it does not cause a conscious experience?

Zayl wrote:If physics is right it is quite obvious that physical processes in the brain determines conscious experiences. This is proved by brain scans that show how physical areas in the brain relate to different conscious experiences. Also that electrical activity relates to conscious experiences as well. As you say physics does not explain all, but somehow this must cause our conscious experience. Either that or everything about physics, brain scans everything is an illusion. Before you say that conscious experiences causes the activity and not vice versa it would contradict the purpose of the how the body functions. E.g. why would we need to see through our eyes and interpret this information through the brain if it does not cause a conscious experience?

It should be obvious that our conscious experience is determined by the entire body, not just neural tissue.

Also, it should be noted that ultimate cause is unknown, so all we can really say is that their appears to be a relationship between our physiology and our conscious experiences, but of course this would be expected. Before even doing any testing, I would assume a strong correlation between the physical body and our conscious experiences, wouldn't you?

Atreyu wrote:

Zayl wrote:If physics is right it is quite obvious that physical processes in the brain determines conscious experiences. This is proved by brain scans that show how physical areas in the brain relate to different conscious experiences. Also that electrical activity relates to conscious experiences as well. As you say physics does not explain all, but somehow this must cause our conscious experience. Either that or everything about physics, brain scans everything is an illusion. Before you say that conscious experiences causes the activity and not vice versa it would contradict the purpose of the how the body functions. E.g. why would we need to see through our eyes and interpret this information through the brain if it does not cause a conscious experience?

It should be obvious that our conscious experience is determined by the entire body, not just neural tissue.

Also, it should be noted that ultimate cause is unknown, so all we can really say is that their appears to be a relationship between our physiology and our conscious experiences, but of course this would be expected. Before even doing any testing, I would assume a strong correlation between the physical body and our conscious experiences, wouldn't you?

I disagree. There's only connection between the brain and the body. Obviously the brain is connected to the entire body through nerves etc. The correlation with the brain and consciousness is so detailed that there is no doubt that the brain determines conscious experience.

For example:

1. The brain interprets by filters what you should focus on in a mental picture of your conscious experience.
2. There are detailed exact correlations between electrical activity in certain areas on the brain depending on what we consciously experience. E.g. visual is in the back of the brain, memory somewhere else, sound somewhere else and language in neo cortex and so on and so on. It is like different parts of the brain determine different qualia.
3. We can even tell which molecules in the brain are responsible for positive and negative emotions.

There are probably many more similar examples. There should be no doubt that the brain determines our conscious experience.

-- Updated June 24th, 2016, 2:58 am to add the following --

edit: In the 2nd sentence I meant to say that there is only connection between the brain and cosnciousness such as that the rest of the body is excluded, and as such play an indirect role in the cause and effect relationship between the body and our conscious experiences.

The question in terms of physics is how neurons firing in various dynamic patterns can produce the phenomenon of conscious awareness. At present we are a long way from answering that question. As always, correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

Greta wrote:The question in terms of physics is how neurons firing in various dynamic patterns can produce the phenomenon of conscious awareness. At present we are a long way from answering that question. As always, correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

Well due to breakthrough research published this February, the present has already answered it

http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInfor ... erID=64011

It turns out that the only thing which varies during physical processes in the brain is the structures of confinements. Each electron, proton and neuron remains the same internally. Thus this similarity during processing in the brain cannot result in a difference such as different qualia. That which determines different qualia is what changes, which would be the structures of confinement. The structures of confinements must change during processes in the brain since an entanglement confines superpositions, and superpositions confine protons and neurons, and superpositions and entanglements obviously vary during processes in the brain. In other words different quantum configurations determine different conscious experiences. For more details check the article.

I have presented the argument much more clearly and another journal (the first journal i sent it to) is taking it seriously and it is currently under a 3 months long evaluation process.

Zayl wrote:

Greta wrote:The question in terms of physics is how neurons firing in various dynamic patterns can produce the phenomenon of conscious awareness. At present we are a long way from answering that question. As always, correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

Well due to breakthrough research published this February, the present has already answered it

http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInfor ... erID=64011

It turns out that the only thing which varies during physical processes in the brain is the structures of confinements. Each electron, proton and neuron remains the same internally. Thus this similarity during processing in the brain cannot result in a difference such as different qualia. That which determines different qualia is what changes, which would be the structures of confinement. The structures of confinements must change during processes in the brain since an entanglement confines superpositions, and superpositions confine protons and neurons, and superpositions and entanglements obviously vary during processes in the brain. In other words different quantum configurations determine different conscious experiences. For more details check the article.

I have presented the argument much more clearly and another journal (the first journal i sent it to) is taking it seriously and it is currently under a 3 months long evaluation process.

Hah! I would need step-by-step links between the patterns of neurons firing with qualia - with no black boxes. The "structures of confinement" would seem to be the conditioning of neurons with experience. The analogy I use these days is that of a river bed through which water can only flow in a particular way unless there is a major incident.

Maybe there is something to your ideas? Roger Penrose and Stuart Hamerhoff spoke extensively about microtubules and quantum entanglement, and it's understood that quantum phenomena can exist in such a "noisy" environment for extremely short periods of time. Still, that too provides zero clarity as to why certain dynamic configurations of neurons should produce qualia. Expression of fundamental Platonic shapes??

Greta wrote:

Zayl wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Well due to breakthrough research published this February, the present has already answered it

http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInfor ... erID=64011

It turns out that the only thing which varies during physical processes in the brain is the structures of confinements. Each electron, proton and neuron remains the same internally. Thus this similarity during processing in the brain cannot result in a difference such as different qualia. That which determines different qualia is what changes, which would be the structures of confinement. The structures of confinements must change during processes in the brain since an entanglement confines superpositions, and superpositions confine protons and neurons, and superpositions and entanglements obviously vary during processes in the brain. In other words different quantum configurations determine different conscious experiences. For more details check the article.

I have presented the argument much more clearly and another journal (the first journal i sent it to) is taking it seriously and it is currently under a 3 months long evaluation process.

Hah! I would need step-by-step links between the patterns of neurons firing with qualia - with no black boxes. The "structures of confinement" would seem to be the conditioning of neurons with experience. The analogy I use these days is that of a river bed through which water can only flow in a particular way unless there is a major incident.

Maybe there is something to your ideas? Roger Penrose and Stuart Hamerhoff spoke extensively about microtubules and quantum entanglement, and it's understood that quantum phenomena can exist in such a "noisy" environment for extremely short periods of time. Still, that too provides zero clarity as to why certain dynamic configurations of neurons should produce qualia. Expression of fundamental Platonic shapes??

The thing is that consciousness is everywhere, it is matter itself. Our consciousness however, we who experience the macroscopic interpretations of a human being are confined to processes within our brain. Thus it is nothing special about microtubules which creates consciousness. However it could be that microtubules is where the human consciousness does occur. Quantum phenomena exist in any noisy environment, because quantum mechanics is everything related to particle level and interactions. So structures of confinements aren't a condition for neurons or nature, it is the simple model which explains the laws of physics ontologically.

So now that we can model quantum mechanics, space and all the laws of physics as structures of confinements and we can model our consciousness as structures of confinements it becomes a very reliable model only due to its simplicity. Because that is the foundation of logic, that we derive the simple patterns out of our complex macroscopic interpretations. Our macroscopic interpretations turn out to be a sum of simple laws and that is why it is possible that we can predict "reality" at all.

So consider this. If our brain determines different qualia (determines, not creates) then it varies according to molecular processes in the brain. What varies by molecular processes in the brain?

1. Different positions
2. Different Superpositions
3. Different entanglements
4. Nothing else!

Since consciousness relates to the brain and not space, we are those confinements which confine entanglements and superpositions. We can model entanglement as entities confining superpositions. As it was written in my article I can agree that I failed to present it clear. But here and now I think it is quite clear and the most reasonable explanation for qualia that exists today.

Zayl wrote:[Since consciousness relates to the brain and not space, we are those confinements which confine entanglements and superpositions. We can model entanglement as entities confining superpositions. As it was written in my article I can agree that I failed to present it clear. But here and now I think it is quite clear and the most reasonable explanation for qualia that exists today.

Nervous system occupies "space". Five senses are occupied space phenomena ergo all metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts are a resultant of occupied space inter-transformations. This is common sense and does not require rocket science education.

Occupied space experiences > metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept.

Metaphyscial-1, mind/intellect/concept > discovery of patterns, discovery of cosmic absolute laws/principles, application of previous in technological ways to altar the environment to benefit the mind-accessing-creatures { humans }.

1} Cosmic Trinity:

..1a} metaphyscial-1, mind/intellect/concept ergo concepts of Space, Universe, God, Concepts, Infinite, Finite, Eternal, Cats, Dogs etc.....and spirit-of-intent..

--------------------------line-of-demarcation--------------------------------------------

...1b} macro-infinite, non-occupied space,

....1} finite, occupied space Universe aka Uni-Verse

r6

Rr6 wrote:

Zayl wrote:[Since consciousness relates to the brain and not space, we are those confinements which confine entanglements and superpositions. We can model entanglement as entities confining superpositions. As it was written in my article I can agree that I failed to present it clear. But here and now I think it is quite clear and the most reasonable explanation for qualia that exists today.

Nervous system occupies "space". Five senses are occupied space phenomena ergo all metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts are a resultant of occupied space inter-transformations. This is common sense and does not require rocket science education.

Occupied space experiences > metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept.

Metaphyscial-1, mind/intellect/concept > discovery of patterns, discovery of cosmic absolute laws/principles, application of previous in technological ways to altar the environment to benefit the mind-accessing-creatures { humans }.

1} Cosmic Trinity:

..1a} metaphyscial-1, mind/intellect/concept ergo concepts of Space, Universe, God, Concepts, Infinite, Finite, Eternal, Cats, Dogs etc.....and spirit-of-intent..

--------------------------line-of-demarcation--------------------------------------------

...1b} macro-infinite, non-occupied space,

....1} finite, occupied space Universe aka Uni-Verse

r6

While i cannot say that you have understood how general this concept is I cannot say you said anything exactly wrong, besides from the cosmic trinity which I already commented on earlier.

Consciousness=Light. The light of consciousness, is a byproduct of chemical reactions in the brain. Vibrating at a higher frequency then visible light, it may not be observed with the naked eye.

At the most fundamental level, we are beings of light and in the same way that the eye may not see itself, except through reflections, consciousness may not observe itself, except through reflections. We often identify with the reflections and ignore the fact that we are the source.

Steve3007 wrote:The key words are "cause" and "determine". If you really do think that there are laws of physics which prescribe how Nature behaves, rather than simply describing it, then you have to remember that the thought, inside a physical brain, which came to the rational conclusion that those prescriptive laws exist is itself a product of those prescriptive laws.

The laws of nature aren't "ersatz gods"; they aren't supernatural agents determining the course of nature from outside. They're not natural, nature-immanent agents either because they're not agents at all. Natural, physical laws do not have any causal powers by virtue of which they determine or govern natural processes.

-- Updated June 24th, 2016, 11:52 am to add the following --

Atreyu wrote:It should be obvious that our conscious experience is determined by the entire body, not just neural tissue.

The physiological states of the body-minus-brain influence the content of consciousness, but the generation of consciousness takes place only in the brain as the (only) organ of consciousness. What I experience is co-determined by the rest of the body, but that I experience something is determined by nothing but the brain. The state of consciousness as such is caused by, realized in, and confined to the brain.