The reason why science has trouble with consciousness
- Mgrinder
- Premium Member
- Posts: 904
- Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
- Contact:
The reason why science has trouble with consciousness
The basic idea is that physics (the most basic of the sciences) has two categories for things (that have a causal nature i.e. cause things to happen) in nature : physical laws and measurable quantities. Physical laws are things like the conservation of momentum, the uncertainty principle, schrodenger's equation, the laws of thermodynamics, etc. Measurable quantities are things like, time, mass, length, charge, number of atoms, color charge, etc. Physical laws are rules, and measurable quantities follow the rules.
It is not quite true to say that physical laws have a causal nature. How can one properly say that a rule causes things? Rather it seems more proper to say that whatever physical process is behind a law of nature is what causes events to come out the way they do.
It seems to me that consciousness (which we know to exist) is always implicitly assumed to be akin to a measurable quantity. If one is a dualist, one assumes that there is a realm of thoughts, and thoughts float around in the mind realm or something like that. This treats consciousness as something like a measurable quantity, like an object in "mental space". Materialism, emergentism, panpsychism, all seem to make this assumption as well. However, instead of a measurable object in "mental space", it is some weird "object" in physical space. For instance, a materialist might think consciousness is like an electric field or something.
It is my assumption however, that consciousness is more akin to a physical law than a measurable quantity. If one assumes that consciousness is, somehow, part of the laws of nature, many of the troubles that science has with consciousness disappear.
For one thing, if consciousness is somehow part of the laws of nature, you shouldn't be able to measure it. We cannot measure the conservation of energy, rather we deduce it from data. Interestingly, we can't seem to measure consciousness, we don't detect it with instrumentation, we only know it exists from our personal experience. Score one.
For another thing, when investigating the brain, if you assume that consciousness is part of the laws of nature somehow, but you don't acknowledge this, what will happen? All you will find in the brain are measureable quantities like charges, and ions, and neurons. Then you will apply the known physical laws (which somehow include consciousness, but you don't say this, because you're not considering the possibility) to these measurable quantities, your model will work because these physical laws are correct, and consciousness will never come up. Of course, this is what happens, consciousness is not part of the scientific story of the brain. Score two.
Finally, there is a parallel between the laws of nature and consciousness. A physical law makes things come out in a certain way, rather than another. Two balls collide, and their ending velocities is calculable for the law of conservation of momentum. Whatever is behind the conservation of momentum makes the collision come out the way it does.
Consciousness also makes events come out the way they do. I make a decision to water my garden, it happens, instead of the hose staying on the ground. Consciousness, if it really an "immaterial" thing (whatever that means) seems consistent with another "immaterial" thing we know to exist, namely whatever is behind some physical laws.
***********
As to how consciousness could be part of the laws of nature, please read my essay. The basic idea is that every time a particle of matter (like an electron) changes state, a calculation must be made, and this “calculation” involves a moment of consciousness, a qualia. Also, whenever a molecule (a collection of bonded atoms) changes state, a qualia for this interaction would occur as well. Basically, whenever a wavefunction for an object “collapses”, a qualia is produced (or used?) in order for nature to “calculate” what will happen next.
Thus, in this conception of reality, there are innumerable qualia occurring all the time, in every piece of matter, as particles in matter change state. It is like there are little “souls” popping up everywhere, all the time, that quickly die forever. The vast majority of these qualia are not much like the qualia that we humans experience, however there are a few that occur in living cells that make up the sort of experiences that humans and animals have. The difference between these few particle interactions in living cells that constitute animal experiences and the vast majority of other particle interactions (including many in living cells) is that some particle interactions in living cells can access memories, a sense of self, and sense data from outside and inside the organism.
This is the only way I can conceive of how consciousness could be part of the laws of nature.
-
- Posts: 383
- Joined: May 25th, 2016, 5:34 pm
Re: The reason why science has trouble with consciousness
We humans call our inferences of Nature's trends to be "laws" but they are only inferences by us about observations and data we have made about Nature.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: The reason why science has trouble with consciousness
- The Beast
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: The reason why science has trouble with consciousness
- Mgrinder
- Premium Member
- Posts: 904
- Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
- Contact:
Re: The reason why science has trouble with consciousness
As I say a few times in my essays, it is close to panpsychism, but it seems different. The difference is that panpsychism (which is not a clear doctrine, none of them are, so you don't really know what it or any of them (materialism, emergentism etc) are really proposing) seems to assume all particles have "mental properties" in the same way some particles have an electric charge, or a certain mass. However in this theory, nothing has mental properties, rather consciousness is the means by which particles figure out what to do next. It's not a property like charge or mass, it is more like a mechanism by which particles calculate what to do next.Burning ghost wrote:Sounds very much like panpsychism.
-- Updated Tue May 31, 2016 7:22 am to add the following --
What's your point?YIOSTHEOY wrote:Nature has no "laws".
We humans call our inferences of Nature's trends to be "laws" but they are only inferences by us about observations and data we have made about Nature.
Suppose you are right, what bearing does this have on the OP? None that I can see.
Suppose you are wrong, what bearing does this have on the OP? None that I can see.
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: The reason why science has trouble with consciousness
There is something very important missing here --> force.Mgrinder wrote:The basic idea is that physics (the most basic of the sciences) has two categories for things (that have a causal nature i.e. cause things to happen) in nature : physical laws and measurable quantities. Physical laws are things like the conservation of momentum, the uncertainty principle, schrodenger's equation, the laws of thermodynamics, etc. Measurable quantities are things like, time, mass, length, charge, number of atoms, color charge, etc. Physical laws are rules, and measurable quantities follow the rules.
Yes, there are known physical laws, and we deduce the "rules of nature" based on our knowledge of those laws. And yes, there are "measurable quantities" as you say, which must obey those known laws or "rules" as you put it. Although normally we just use the term "matter". We say there are physical laws, and then there is physical matter which obeys those laws. Simple logic. But your use of the term "measurable quantities" is more broad and encompassing than "matter", so I would endorse it.
Nevertheless, just physical laws and "measurable quantities" are not enough to explain causation, and physics knows this. That is why the concept of force and energy are included.
So actually there are three categories of things in explaining causation in physics: 1. physical laws, 2. matter, or "measurable quantities", which are assumed to exist, and 3. force - whether mechanical, chemical, conscious, or otherwise, which is the driver behind the phenomena we witness. Laws and "stuff" are not enough. There must also be force acting on that "stuff" within those known laws.
See? This is the reason for your confusion.It is not quite true to say that physical laws have a causal nature. How can one properly say that a rule causes things? Rather it seems more proper to say that whatever physical process is behind a law of nature is what causes events to come out the way they do.
No, of course rules and laws do not cause things. Obviously. But that mysterious "physical process" behind a law of nature is what we ordinarily call force. Sometimes, we use the word "energy", and say something like "the energy was manifest at this point...". It's force, be it mechanical - like water falling down a mountain, or a comet falling to the earth, or conscious - like the intention of some God, or chemical - like the electrons and protons attracting each other, or whatever.
It's some force, whatever it may be, which is applied at some "point", which causes things to happen. The question is what that force is, can it be quantified, is it conscious or mechanical, etc. But the way you are describing how physics views causation is simply confusing and misleading.
This paragraph reveals clearly why science has trouble with consciousness. Because they begin speaking about it and looking for it and studying it before they have defined it. Just as you have done here. Surely you can see the ludicrousness of this.It seems to me that consciousness (which we know to exist) is always implicitly assumed to be akin to a measurable quantity. If one is a dualist, one assumes that there is a realm of thoughts, and thoughts float around in the mind realm or something like that. This treats consciousness as something like a measurable quantity, like an object in "mental space". Materialism, emergentism, panpsychism, all seem to make this assumption as well. However, instead of a measurable object in "mental space", it is some weird "object" in physical space. For instance, a materialist might think consciousness is like an electric field or something.
Also, we do not ordinarily think of thoughts and "mental space" as measurable quantities. Quite the contrary. I disagree that most of us implicitly assume some vague, and as usual, undefined, concept like consciousness is a measurable quantity. Any more than people that believe in God think God is a measurable quantity.
Trying to measure something like "consciousness", "feeling", "spirit", or the like, is akin to trying to shrink infinity by dividing it by a very large number over and over. You think you are doing something, but infinity remains as it always was, in spite of your calculation. The same is true of "consciousness". The more we try to define it, measure it, quantify it, even see it, the more elusive it becomes. We try to "pin it down" into technical terms but we end up never even grasping it.
Well, I think most of us would say that consciousness would follow the laws of nature, like everything else. There are laws concerning consciousness, but we do not know them, and it could perhaps be quantified, but not by our consciousness. Actually, "consciousness" is not a physical law nor a quantity of any kind, so it's difficult to comment on what it's more like. How can we say which, of two known concepts, some unknown and undefined concept is more like?It is my assumption however, that consciousness is more akin to a physical law than a measurable quantity. If one assumes that consciousness is, somehow, part of the laws of nature, many of the troubles that science has with consciousness disappear.
First, let's define "consciousness" and then perhaps we can say what it is more like.
Well, yes. We deduce the existence of consciousness from our personal experience, just as we deduced all the laws of nature from our personal experience.For one thing, if consciousness is somehow part of the laws of nature, you shouldn't be able to measure it. We cannot measure the conservation of energy, rather we deduce it from data. Interestingly, we can't seem to measure consciousness, we don't detect it with instrumentation, we only know it exists from our personal experience. Score one.
Everything is "part" of the laws of nature in the sense of being subject to them. Why would consciousness be any different? Of course consciousness is a "part of the laws of nature". The only problem is that we cannot formulate consciousness into a law, so we can't say anything for sure.
Obviously it's possible to formulate a law or laws to explain consciousness. The question is, can our consciousness do that? Obviously, it cannot. Therefore, consciousness cannot be formulated into a law, and therefore cannot be regarded as some kind of "law". It has to be regarded as a property which allegedly exists in the Universe and applies to some things (such as ourselves), but which we will never be able to verify outside of ourselves because it cannot be quantified, nor even calculated (laws), nor even seen nor tangibly manifest in any way. We all have our own ideas as to what "consciousness" is, but for now the term must be said to be concept, an idea. It certainly cannot be said to be a "law", since we don't even know for sure that it actually exists.
It is by studying the brain that neurologists are trying to find the laws which govern consciousness. The laws which govern consciousness are not the same things as consciousness itself. It seems to me that you are trying to say that "consciousness" is a law of the Universe like gravity or electro-magnetism. Conceptually, it is not. We do not view a conscious entity the same way we do a law. There is the thing or property that allegedly exists, and then there are the laws which govern how those things behave with each other, or how the properties of things change.For another thing, when investigating the brain, if you assume that consciousness is part of the laws of nature somehow, but you don't acknowledge this, what will happen? All you will find in the brain are measureable quantities like charges, and ions, and neurons. Then you will apply the known physical laws (which somehow include consciousness, but you don't say this, because you're not considering the possibility) to these measurable quantities, your model will work because these physical laws are correct, and consciousness will never come up. Of course, this is what happens, consciousness is not part of the scientific story of the brain. Score two.
Yes, but we do not know what is behind the physical laws! Just mechanical forces? Conscious entities? We do not know.Finally, there is a parallel between the laws of nature and consciousness. A physical law makes things come out in a certain way, rather than another. Two balls collide, and their ending velocities is calculable for the law of conservation of momentum. Whatever is behind the conservation of momentum makes the collision come out the way it does.
Consciousness also makes events come out the way they do. I make a decision to water my garden, it happens, instead of the hose staying on the ground. Consciousness, if it really an "immaterial" thing (whatever that means) seems consistent with another "immaterial" thing we know to exist, namely whatever is behind some physical laws.
And the mere fact that we don't know if the force or thing behind a law or phenomenon is conscious or mechanical shows that consciousness cannot be regarded as a law. A law describes the rules which explain the phenomena we see in certain conditions, and describes what will happen given certain conditions. It is not a cause, as you say. Consciousness is an alleged cause for many things. When I say "I did that", I'm asserting consciousness (myself) as a cause of the phenomena. I'm also asserting, at the same time, that I am conscious. This shows that ordinarily "consciousness" is referred to as an alleged property that might apply to certain things. It is not ordinarily associated with "laws" or a "law", like gravity or conservation of momentum.
***********
Well, whatever works. I, however, like most people, have no problem conceiving how consciousness, being a part of nature itself, could also be a part of the laws of nature. Why wouldn't it be? The laws of nature apply to nature, and consciousness is a part of nature, like everything else. Nothing is not a "part of the laws of nature". Everything is subject to Her whims, when you take "Nature" in the most broad and encompassing way.As to how consciousness could be part of the laws of nature, please read my essay. The basic idea is that every time a particle of matter (like an electron) changes state, a calculation must be made, and this “calculation” involves a moment of consciousness, a qualia. Also, whenever a molecule (a collection of bonded atoms) changes state, a qualia for this interaction would occur as well. Basically, whenever a wavefunction for an object “collapses”, a qualia is produced (or used?) in order for nature to “calculate” what will happen next.
Thus, in this conception of reality, there are innumerable qualia occurring all the time, in every piece of matter, as particles in matter change state. It is like there are little “souls” popping up everywhere, all the time, that quickly die forever. The vast majority of these qualia are not much like the qualia that we humans experience, however there are a few that occur in living cells that make up the sort of experiences that humans and animals have. The difference between these few particle interactions in living cells that constitute animal experiences and the vast majority of other particle interactions (including many in living cells) is that some particle interactions in living cells can access memories, a sense of self, and sense data from outside and inside the organism.
This is the only way I can conceive of how consciousness could be part of the laws of nature.
It seems that perhaps you are arguing for something else? Almost like you are merely trying to argue for panpsychism.
-
- Posts: 383
- Joined: May 25th, 2016, 5:34 pm
Re: The reason why science has trouble with consciousness
I like to point out erroneous assumptions as I discover them going along in the rant.Mgrinder wrote:As I say a few times in my essays, it is close to panpsychism, but it seems different. The difference is that panpsychism (which is not a clear doctrine, none of them are, so you don't really know what it or any of them (materialism, emergentism etc) are really proposing) seems to assume all particles have "mental properties" in the same way some particles have an electric charge, or a certain mass. However in this theory, nothing has mental properties, rather consciousness is the means by which particles figure out what to do next. It's not a property like charge or mass, it is more like a mechanism by which particles calculate what to do next.Burning ghost wrote:Sounds very much like panpsychism.
-- Updated Tue May 31, 2016 7:22 am to add the following --
What's your point?YIOSTHEOY wrote:Nature has no "laws".
We humans call our inferences of Nature's trends to be "laws" but they are only inferences by us about observations and data we have made about Nature.
Suppose you are right, what bearing does this have on the OP? None that I can see.
Suppose you are wrong, what bearing does this have on the OP? None that I can see.
That way the O/P can come back and amend his statements, which then represents an amendment of his/her thinking.
That is the bearing. That is the point.
- Mgrinder
- Premium Member
- Posts: 904
- Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
- Contact:
Re: The reason why science has trouble with consciousness
Force and energy are measurable quantities that follow physical laws. For every force, there is an equal and opposite force on different objects. That's a physical law, and forces are subject to it. Energy before and after an event is conserved. That's a physical law, and energy is subject to it.Atreyu wrote:I'll try you follow your line of reasoning here, step by step, since you are a regular here and seem committed to the subject.
There is something very important missing here --> force.Mgrinder wrote:The basic idea is that physics (the most basic of the sciences) has two categories for things (that have a causal nature i.e. cause things to happen) in nature : physical laws and measurable quantities. Physical laws are things like the conservation of momentum, the uncertainty principle, schrodenger's equation, the laws of thermodynamics, etc. Measurable quantities are things like, time, mass, length, charge, number of atoms, color charge, etc. Physical laws are rules, and measurable quantities follow the rules.
Yes, there are known physical laws, and we deduce the "rules of nature" based on our knowledge of those laws. And yes, there are "measurable quantities" as you say, which must obey those known laws or "rules" as you put it. Although normally we just use the term "matter". We say there are physical laws, and then there is physical matter which obeys those laws. Simple logic. But your use of the term "measurable quantities" is more broad and encompassing than "matter", so I would endorse it.
Nevertheless, just physical laws and "measurable quantities" are not enough to explain causation, and physics knows this. That is why the concept of force and energy are included.
No. Forces follow laws. As above.Atreyu wrote: So actually there are three categories of things in explaining causation in physics: 1. physical laws, 2. matter, or "measurable quantities", which are assumed to exist, and 3. force - whether mechanical, chemical, conscious, or otherwise, which is the driver behind the phenomena we witness. Laws and "stuff" are not enough. There must also be force acting on that "stuff" within those known laws.
No, the way you are describing how physics views causation is misleading, not me, I think. As above.Atreyu wrote:See? This is the reason for your confusion.It is not quite true to say that physical laws have a causal nature. How can one properly say that a rule causes things? Rather it seems more proper to say that whatever physical process is behind a law of nature is what causes events to come out the way they do.
No, of course rules and laws do not cause things. Obviously. But that mysterious "physical process" behind a law of nature is what we ordinarily call force. Sometimes, we use the word "energy", and say something like "the energy was manifest at this point...". It's force, be it mechanical - like water falling down a mountain, or a comet falling to the earth, or conscious - like the intention of some God, or chemical - like the electrons and protons attracting each other, or whatever.
It's some force, whatever it may be, which is applied at some "point", which causes things to happen. The question is what that force is, can it be quantified, is it conscious or mechanical, etc. But the way you are describing how physics views causation is simply confusing and misleading.
So you seem to agree with me? It's hard to tell.Atreyu wrote:This paragraph reveals clearly why science has trouble with consciousness. Because they begin speaking about it and looking for it and studying it before they have defined it. Just as you have done here. Surely you can see the ludicrousness of this.It seems to me that consciousness (which we know to exist) is always implicitly assumed to be akin to a measurable quantity. If one is a dualist, one assumes that there is a realm of thoughts, and thoughts float around in the mind realm or something like that. This treats consciousness as something like a measurable quantity, like an object in "mental space". Materialism, emergentism, panpsychism, all seem to make this assumption as well. However, instead of a measurable object in "mental space", it is some weird "object" in physical space. For instance, a materialist might think consciousness is like an electric field or something.
I don't know how you think of it, I was describing how a dualist appears to think about it. As for what you think, you seem very sure of yourself on this subject, yet are totally unable to phrase what consciousness is. Yet I can. Who is defining consciousness clearly? Me. try reading my essay.Atreyu wrote: Also, we do not ordinarily think of thoughts and "mental space" as measurable quantities. Quite the contrary. I disagree that most of us implicitly assume some vague, and as usual, undefined, concept like consciousness is a measurable quantity. Any more than people that believe in God think God is a measurable quantity.
So we agree it is not a measurable quantity.Atreyu wrote: Trying to measure something like "consciousness", "feeling", "spirit", or the like, is akin to trying to shrink infinity by dividing it by a very large number over and over. You think you are doing something, but infinity remains as it always was, in spite of your calculation. The same is true of "consciousness". The more we try to define it, measure it, quantify it, even see it, the more elusive it becomes. We try to "pin it down" into technical terms but we end up never even grasping it.
Ah. Now you are treating it like a measurable quantity. If it follows the laws of nature, then it is a measurable quantity. Just before you were agreeing with me that it was not. it is interstign how sure of yourself you are, yet you have no clear definition of consciousness. I do.Atreyu wrote:It is my assumption however, that consciousness is more akin to a physical law than a measurable quantity. If one assumes that consciousness is, somehow, part of the laws of nature, many of the troubles that science has with consciousness disappear.
Well, I think most of us would say that consciousness would follow the laws of nature, like everything else.
Done in my essay. take a look.Atreyu wrote: There are laws concerning consciousness, but we do not know them, and it could perhaps be quantified, but not by our consciousness. Actually, "consciousness" is not a physical law nor a quantity of any kind, so it's difficult to comment on what it's more like. How can we say which, of two known concepts, some unknown and undefined concept is more like?
First, let's define "consciousness" and then perhaps we can say what it is more like.
The statement is that the action of consciousness is just like the action of the laws of nature. Laws of nature make measurable quantities come out in a certain way over time, rather than another. Consciousness also makes measurable quantities come out in a certain way, rather than another. They have the same role in nature, hence they are part of the same phenomenon.Atreyu wrote:Well, yes. We deduce the existence of consciousness from our personal experience, just as we deduced all the laws of nature from our personal experience.For one thing, if consciousness is somehow part of the laws of nature, you shouldn't be able to measure it. We cannot measure the conservation of energy, rather we deduce it from data. Interestingly, we can't seem to measure consciousness, we don't detect it with instrumentation, we only know it exists from our personal experience. Score one.
Everything is "part" of the laws of nature in the sense of being subject to them. Why would consciousness be any different? Of course consciousness is a "part of the laws of nature". The only problem is that we cannot formulate consciousness into a law, so we can't say anything for sure.
Obviously it's possible to formulate a law or laws to explain consciousness. The question is, can our consciousness do that? Obviously, it cannot. Therefore, consciousness cannot be formulated into a law, and therefore cannot be regarded as some kind of "law". It has to be regarded as a property which allegedly exists in the Universe and applies to some things (such as ourselves), but which we will never be able to verify outside of ourselves because it cannot be quantified, nor even calculated (laws), nor even seen nor tangibly manifest in any way. We all have our own ideas as to what "consciousness" is, but for now the term must be said to be concept, an idea. It certainly cannot be said to be a "law", since we don't even know for sure that it actually exists.
No we don't. However, what if nature needs a calculation mechanism to figure out what to do next? And this calcualtion mechanism involves qualia? Then consciousness would be part of the laws of nature, it would also be "behind" the laws fo nature.Atreyu wrote:It is by studying the brain that neurologists are trying to find the laws which govern consciousness. The laws which govern consciousness are not the same things as consciousness itself. It seems to me that you are trying to say that "consciousness" is a law of the Universe like gravity or electro-magnetism. Conceptually, it is not. We do not view a conscious entity the same way we do a law. There is the thing or property that allegedly exists, and then there are the laws which govern how those things behave with each other, or how the properties of things change.For another thing, when investigating the brain, if you assume that consciousness is part of the laws of nature somehow, but you don't acknowledge this, what will happen? All you will find in the brain are measureable quantities like charges, and ions, and neurons. Then you will apply the known physical laws (which somehow include consciousness, but you don't say this, because you're not considering the possibility) to these measurable quantities, your model will work because these physical laws are correct, and consciousness will never come up. Of course, this is what happens, consciousness is not part of the scientific story of the brain. Score two.
Yes, but we do not know what is behind the physical laws! Just mechanical forces? Conscious entities? We do not know.Finally, there is a parallel between the laws of nature and consciousness. A physical law makes things come out in a certain way, rather than another. Two balls collide, and their ending velocities is calculable for the law of conservation of momentum. Whatever is behind the conservation of momentum makes the collision come out the way it does.
Consciousness also makes events come out the way they do. I make a decision to water my garden, it happens, instead of the hose staying on the ground. Consciousness, if it really an "immaterial" thing (whatever that means) seems consistent with another "immaterial" thing we know to exist, namely whatever is behind some physical laws.
You are still conceiving consciousness as a measurable quantity, something subject to the laws of nature. It seems to me. In my conception, is IS a law of nature (roughly). It is not subject to the rules, it IS the rules (in a sense).Atreyu wrote: And the mere fact that we don't know if the force or thing behind a law or phenomenon is conscious or mechanical shows that consciousness cannot be regarded as a law. A law describes the rules which explain the phenomena we see in certain conditions, and describes what will happen given certain conditions. It is not a cause, as you say. Consciousness is an alleged cause for many things. When I say "I did that", I'm asserting consciousness (myself) as a cause of the phenomena. I'm also asserting, at the same time, that I am conscious. This shows that ordinarily "consciousness" is referred to as an alleged property that might apply to certain things. It is not ordinarily associated with "laws" or a "law", like gravity or conservation of momentum.
***********
Well, whatever works. I, however, like most people, have no problem conceiving how consciousness, being a part of nature itself, could also be a part of the laws of nature. Why wouldn't it be? The laws of nature apply to nature, and consciousness is a part of nature, like everything else. Nothing is not a "part of the laws of nature". Everything is subject to Her whims, when you take "Nature" in the most broad and encompassing way.As to how consciousness could be part of the laws of nature, please read my essay. The basic idea is that every time a particle of matter (like an electron) changes state, a calculation must be made, and this “calculation” involves a moment of consciousness, a qualia. Also, whenever a molecule (a collection of bonded atoms) changes state, a qualia for this interaction would occur as well. Basically, whenever a wavefunction for an object “collapses”, a qualia is produced (or used?) in order for nature to “calculate” what will happen next.
Thus, in this conception of reality, there are innumerable qualia occurring all the time, in every piece of matter, as particles in matter change state. It is like there are little “souls” popping up everywhere, all the time, that quickly die forever. The vast majority of these qualia are not much like the qualia that we humans experience, however there are a few that occur in living cells that make up the sort of experiences that humans and animals have. The difference between these few particle interactions in living cells that constitute animal experiences and the vast majority of other particle interactions (including many in living cells) is that some particle interactions in living cells can access memories, a sense of self, and sense data from outside and inside the organism.
This is the only way I can conceive of how consciousness could be part of the laws of nature.
It seems that perhaps you are arguing for something else? Almost like you are merely trying to argue for panpsychism.
I am not trying to argue for panpsychism. I am arguing for my own theory, which resembles panpsychism, but is not.
-- Updated Tue May 31, 2016 12:35 pm to add the following --
YIOSTHEOY wrote:YIOSTHEOY wrote:Nature has no "laws".
We humans call our inferences of Nature's trends to be "laws" but they are only inferences by us about observations and data we have made about Nature.I like to point out erroneous assumptions as I discover them going along in the rant.mgrinder wrote: What's your point?
Suppose you are right, what bearing does this have on the OP? None that I can see.
Suppose you are wrong, what bearing does this have on the OP? None that I can see.
Nice of you to call my carefully worded and argued position a "rant". heh.
Kind of failed here, didn't you? Who would disagree with the statement that the laws of nature we have discovered are inferences by us? I wouldn't.YIOSTHEOY wrote: That way the O/P can come back and amend his statements, which then represents an amendment of his/her thinking.
That is the bearing. That is the point.
Still, that has no bearing on the OP. The OP states that we normally assume consciousness is a measurable quantity rather than a physical law. If our physical laws, as well as they work (and they work extremely well), are not quite right, that does not matter. We still conceive consciousness as a measurable quantity. Maybe we shouldn't.
-
- Posts: 383
- Joined: May 25th, 2016, 5:34 pm
Re: The reason why science has trouble with consciousness
It is not an issue of quality. The quality might be perfect.
The issue is length.
In a rebuttal I can see getting long and winded.
But O/P's need to be rather short and sweet.
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: The reason why science has trouble with consciousness
Mgrinder wrote:Force and energy are measurable quantities that follow physical laws. For every force, there is an equal and opposite force on different objects. That's a physical law, and forces are subject to it. Energy before and after an event is conserved. That's a physical law, and energy is subject to it.
Yes, but you were asserting how physics explains causation, and in doing so you conveniently left out a very important principle, namely, the idea of force. You were making it sound as if physics says that natural laws cause things to happen, but physics does not. Causation in physics is ascribed to various forces, known or unknown, and the natural laws are merely explanations of how those forces interact and behave.
Yes, but those forces are necessary otherwise nothing would happen. So causation is NOT explained in physics by merely referring to laws and "measurable quantities". The idea of force is also needed, and you've conveniently disregarded this obvious truth.No. Forces follow laws. As above.Atreyu wrote: So actually there are three categories of things in explaining causation in physics: 1. physical laws, 2. matter, or "measurable quantities", which are assumed to exist, and 3. force - whether mechanical, chemical, conscious, or otherwise, which is the driver behind the phenomena we witness. Laws and "stuff" are not enough. There must also be force acting on that "stuff" within those known laws.
Well, I agree that science hasn't defined it, but I disagree that we can define it via qualia and "particles making decisions". Consciousness cannot be defined solely by referring to some allegedly existing nano-particles. A simple and practical definition is needed.So you seem to agree with me? It's hard to tell.Atreyu wrote:This paragraph reveals clearly why science has trouble with consciousness. Because they begin speaking about it and looking for it and studying it before they have defined it. Just as you have done here. Surely you can see the ludicrousness of this.
No, I can define it. But before I do, I have to laugh at your "definition". To say that consciousness is a bunch of qualia "making decisions" is an abstract and far-fetched "definition". Try this one for size:I don't know how you think of it, I was describing how a dualist appears to think about it. As for what you think, you seem very sure of yourself on this subject, yet are totally unable to phrase what consciousness is. Yet I can. Who is defining consciousness clearly? Me. try reading my essay.
Consciousness is the ability of an organism to be aware of, and to have a certain degree of control over, itself and it's immediate environment.
See how simple and practical this is? Compare this to your complex theory of qualia.
Yep, we agree here.So we agree it is not a measurable quantity.Atreyu wrote: Trying to measure something like "consciousness", "feeling", "spirit", or the like, is akin to trying to shrink infinity by dividing it by a very large number over and over. You think you are doing something, but infinity remains as it always was, in spite of your calculation. The same is true of "consciousness". The more we try to define it, measure it, quantify it, even see it, the more elusive it becomes. We try to "pin it down" into technical terms but we end up never even grasping it.
Don't get fiesty. I clearly defined it above.Ah. Now you are treating it like a measurable quantity. If it follows the laws of nature, then it is a measurable quantity. Just before you were agreeing with me that it was not. it is interstign how sure of yourself you are, yet you have no clear definition of consciousness. I do.Atreyu wrote: Well, I think most of us would say that consciousness would follow the laws of nature, like everything else.
Something need not be a "measurable quantity" to follow the laws of nature. All something has to be is a part of nature, which everything is, in order to follow the laws of nature. Measurable or not, all things in nature follow the laws of nature.
This is quite false. The "action of consciousness" is quite different than all the known physical laws of nature. Known physical laws could be completely mechanical, and may need no conscious input either in their creation nor in their maintenance. In fact, modern physics acts as if this is so, without explicity asserting it. Consciousness, however, is definitely not mechanical. They are completely different phenomenon. The only thing they have in common is that both could be said to be a cause. But in each case the underlying nature of that cause will be completely different. In one case, the cause is completely mechanical and the phenomenon in question had to occur based on the given conditions. But in the other case, the cause is completely conscious and the phenomenon in question only occurred because of the decision or intention of that consciousness.The statement is that the action of consciousness is just like the action of the laws of nature. Laws of nature make measurable quantities come out in a certain way over time, rather than another. Consciousness also makes measurable quantities come out in a certain way, rather than another. They have the same role in nature, hence they are part of the same phenomenon.
Quite different phenomenon, and quite different causations. Your qualia theory is merely trying to make them the same (mechanical), which obliterates any hope of ever approaching an understanding of consciousness. Your definition of consciousness is basically a futile attempt to turn it into a mechanical/physical phenomena. This is typical of the contemporary thinker. Just like the guys who try to explain consciousness solely by talking about neurons and electrical impulses.
Nice try, but you cannot reduce the concept of consciousness to "thinking qualia", electrical circuitry, firing neurons, or even a "natural law". Consciousness is outside of the boundaries of each of those concepts.
I already think that consciousness is a "part of the laws of nature", and I don't need to do a bunch of mental gymnastics involving qualia to arrive at that conclusion, and neither do scores of other reasonable philosophers. It's a simple and sound philosophical principle that everything in nature, conscious or otherwise, follows the laws of nature. How could it be otherwise? We don't need to imagine a conscious entity violating the laws of nature at will. A conscious entity can conform to the laws of nature (in fact, it has to) while also making decisions. There is no need to imagine a conscious entity as "unnatural" or as some kind of "violation of the laws of nature", or even as some kind of abstraction outside of nature.No we don't. However, what if nature needs a calculation mechanism to figure out what to do next? And this calcualtion mechanism involves qualia? Then consciousness would be part of the laws of nature, it would also be "behind" the laws fo nature.
Yes, consciousness is a part of nature, and therefore it conforms to all of its laws. There is no need to make such a simple concept so unnecessarily complex.
Well, now you have said something interesting. I agree with you, if your general principle here is to assert that consciousness is "behind" the laws of nature, or that it "created" or "maintained" them. In other words, the natural laws are the way they are because the Consciousness of the Universe is the way it is. Now, if that is what you're basically saying, then I agree and find this to be an interesting point.You are still conceiving consciousness as a measurable quantity, something subject to the laws of nature. It seems to me. In my conception, is IS a law of nature (roughly). It is not subject to the rules, it IS the rules (in a sense).
I am not trying to argue for panpsychism. I am arguing for my own theory, which resembles panpsychism, but is not.
But I'll pass on your qualia diversion. Not necessary to discuss this important idea at all....
- Mgrinder
- Premium Member
- Posts: 904
- Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
- Contact:
Re: The reason why science has trouble with consciousness
First, I didn't leave it out. Quoting from my longer essay: "The causal structure of physics (the most basic of the sciences) is simple. There are physical laws (rules), then there are things which follow the rules (physical laws). Physical laws are things like conservation of energy or momentum, or Snell’s law, or the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, etc.Atreyu wrote:Mgrinder wrote:Force and energy are measurable quantities that follow physical laws. For every force, there is an equal and opposite force on different objects. That's a physical law, and forces are subject to it. Energy before and after an event is conserved. That's a physical law, and energy is subject to it.
Yes, but you were asserting how physics explains causation, and in doing so you conveniently left out a very important principle, namely, the idea of force.
Then there are the things which follow these rules (physical laws), such as mass, time, length, displacement, momentum, energy, forces, number of atoms, etc. These things which follow the rules are measurable quantities." Note force is in there.
I didn't include it in my shorter writeup here, but I did include it in my longer writeup. My omission in my shorter summary was not a nefarious attempt at subterfuge, as you would make it out.
You could say the same thing of time and space, without them, nothing would happen either.Atreyu wrote: You were making it sound as if physics says that natural laws cause things to happen, but physics does not. Causation in physics is ascribed to various forces, known or unknown, and the natural laws are merely explanations of how those forces interact and behave.
Yes, but those forces are necessary otherwise nothing would happen.(Nested quote removed.)
No. Forces follow laws. As above.
You are ignoring the fact that I defeated your argument where you claimed that forces were not subject to laws. They are. You are just reasserting what you said before, and ignore what I have pointed out. If forces were a third category, they would not be subject to physical laws. But they are.
Causation is, I find, far from an easy concept. As far as I can make out, it has something to do with the idea that, if you subtract a causal factor from a situation, everything changes. For instance, a meteor crashes into a school, destroying it. There is grass near the school. If you subtract the grass from the situation, the meteor still destroys the school. Hence the grass was not a causal factor in the schools destruction. But the meteor was.Atreyu wrote: So causation is NOT explained in physics by merely referring to laws and "measurable quantities". The idea of force is also needed, and you've conveniently disregarded this obvious truth.
You cannot subtract measurable quantities or physical laws from scientific explanations of things. Hence both are causal factors.
What forces are responsible for in physics is movement. Roughly speaking, they are the source of all movement. Thus they are quite important. Hence physicists talk about the four known forces in nature (gravity (though its status as a force is arguably disputed by GR), electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) and unifying them. Unifying them would find the source of all movement, explaining (more or less) all movement. There is an undeniable causal nature to them. At no point do I deny this. I state it explicitly that all measurable quantities (including forces) have a causal nature to them. Without them, nothing would work.
However, forces, just like time and space and charge, etc. are subject to physical laws. The values forces take on as time evolves and particles interact are not random, but subject to known laws. Forces are measurable quantities that are subject to laws. Just like space and time. They are not a third category.
Hence there are two causal factors going on. One has something to do with the bare existence of measurable quantities and the values they are taking on, and the other is, after everything is said and done, what the values of these measurable quantities will be. There is a mix of causes. Physical laws (whatever is behind them) seem responsible for the latter. They seem to make things come out as they do. It seems to me that consciousness has the same role.
I define consciousness as the means by which particles calculate what to do next. It is a calculation mechanism. That's a definition.Atreyu wrote:Well, I agree that science hasn't defined it, but I disagree that we can define it via qualia and "particles making decisions". Consciousness cannot be defined solely by referring to some allegedly existing nano-particles. A simple and practical definition is needed.(Nested quote removed.)
So you seem to agree with me? It's hard to tell.
You are misrepresenting my definition. AS above, it is a calculation mechanism that all particles use.Atreyu wrote:No, I can define it. But before I do, I have to laugh at your "definition". To say that consciousness is a bunch of qualia "making decisions" is an abstract and far-fetched "definition". Try this one for size:I don't know how you think of it, I was describing how a dualist appears to think about it. As for what you think, you seem very sure of yourself on this subject, yet are totally unable to phrase what consciousness is. Yet I can. Who is defining consciousness clearly? Me. try reading my essay.
Sorry, but I don't find it very impressive or useful. It is self referential in that you say consciousness is awareness. That doesn't help. You don't say why it exists, what it does in nature, how it relates to the rest of nature, what qualia are, etc.. It does not answer the hard problem of consciousness.Atreyu wrote: Consciousness is the ability of an organism to be aware of, and to have a certain degree of control over, itself and it's immediate environment.
See how simple and practical this is? Compare this to your complex theory of qualia.
Mine does.
Do the laws of nature follow the laws of nature? Do rules follow rules? Does a rule follow itself? Does logic follow its own logic? If consciousness IS the rules, then what?Atreyu wrote:
Something need not be a "measurable quantity" to follow the laws of nature. All something has to be is a part of nature, which everything is, in order to follow the laws of nature. Measurable or not, all things in nature follow the laws of nature.
The answer is that the idea of a rule following a rule doesn't make sense. The idea just doesn't apply.
All things in nature do not follow the laws of nature - the laws themselves don't. Get it? They ARE the laws.
This is the point I am trying to make. If consciousness IS the rules, it does not follow the rules. Measurable quantities follow the rules, but if consciousness IS the rules, that is why it is not a measurable quantity, that is why we cannot detect it. It's the rules, not something subject to them.
To hopefully be more clear, consciousness has a role in nature, it performs a function in nature. It makes events come out in a certain way. What does science call something that makes things come out in a certain way? It calls it a physical law. That's all science can "see" of consciousness, its effects. It cannot measure it because it categorizes it as a physical law.
There is no reason to believe the automatic hypothesis. It is perfectly possible that every time a particle changes state, a calculation involving qualia must be made. It is just normally assumed otherwise. However, there is no contradiction to assume what I say. In doing so, consciousness is given a role in nature consistent with science and our intuition about consciousness.Atreyu wrote:This is quite false. The "action of consciousness" is quite different than all the known physical laws of nature. Known physical laws could be completely mechanical, and may need no conscious input either in their creation nor in their maintenance. In fact, modern physics acts as if this is so, without explicity asserting it. Consciousness, however, is definitely not mechanical. They are completely different phenomenon.The statement is that the action of consciousness is just like the action of the laws of nature. Laws of nature make measurable quantities come out in a certain way over time, rather than another. Consciousness also makes measurable quantities come out in a certain way, rather than another. They have the same role in nature, hence they are part of the same phenomenon.
And the results of our decisions are regular phenomena. We make intentional decisions, yes, but what is the result? The results are not necessarily random and unpredictable and follow no laws. Rather the results of our decisions seem to fall into regular patterns. If our decisions (indeed the decisions of every bit of matter as every bit changes state) come out in a certain way that can be phrased as a mathematical law, then what are we? Physical laws. (at least that is how science will have to categorize consciousness)Atreyu wrote: The only thing they have in common is that both could be said to be a cause. But in each case the underlying nature of that cause will be completely different. In one case, the cause is completely mechanical and the phenomenon in question had to occur based on the given conditions. But in the other case, the cause is completely conscious and the phenomenon in question only occurred because of the decision or intention of that consciousness.
If I am right, then, though you can model particle interactions as automatic, you can also model them as intentional decisions. The thing about intentional decisions is that they follow regular patterns. You always decide what you perceive you value most. This does not rob us of free will, we still must make decisions, it's just that our decisions are predictable. We are still a determining thing, just a predictable determining thing. this does not rob us of causation.
Absolutely not, you're not getting it.Atreyu wrote: Quite different phenomenon, and quite different causations. Your qualia theory is merely trying to make them the same (mechanical), which obliterates any hope of ever approaching an understanding of consciousness. Your definition of consciousness is basically a futile attempt to turn it into a mechanical/physical phenomena. This is typical of the contemporary thinker. Just like the guys who try to explain consciousness solely by talking about neurons and electrical impulses.
The natural laws are the way they are because every time a particle changes state, it must calculate (via qualia) what to do next, based on the information it detects about itself. The result of this calculation is regular and follows a pattern. In the exact same circumstances, the decision is always the same. The result of the decision/calculation can be formulated as a mathematical law, based on measurable quantities.Atreyu wrote: Nice try, but you cannot reduce the concept of consciousness to "thinking qualia", electrical circuitry, firing neurons, or even a "natural law". Consciousness is outside of the boundaries of each of those concepts.
I already think that consciousness is a "part of the laws of nature", and I don't need to do a bunch of mental gymnastics involving qualia to arrive at that conclusion, and neither do scores of other reasonable philosophers. It's a simple and sound philosophical principle that everything in nature, conscious or otherwise, follows the laws of nature. How could it be otherwise? We don't need to imagine a conscious entity violating the laws of nature at will. A conscious entity can conform to the laws of nature (in fact, it has to) while also making decisions. There is no need to imagine a conscious entity as "unnatural" or as some kind of "violation of the laws of nature", or even as some kind of abstraction outside of nature.No we don't. However, what if nature needs a calculation mechanism to figure out what to do next? And this calcualtion mechanism involves qualia? Then consciousness would be part of the laws of nature, it would also be "behind" the laws fo nature.
Yes, consciousness is a part of nature, and therefore it conforms to all of its laws. There is no need to make such a simple concept so unnecessarily complex.
Well, now you have said something interesting. I agree with you, if your general principle here is to assert that consciousness is "behind" the laws of nature, or that it "created" or "maintained" them. In other words, the natural laws are the way they are because the Consciousness of the Universe is the way it is. Now, if that is what you're basically saying, then I agree and find this to be an interesting point.You are still conceiving consciousness as a measurable quantity, something subject to the laws of nature. It seems to me. In my conception, is IS a law of nature (roughly). It is not subject to the rules, it IS the rules (in a sense).
I am not trying to argue for panpsychism. I am arguing for my own theory, which resembles panpsychism, but is not.
Atreyu wrote: But I'll pass on your qualia diversion. Not necessary to discuss this important idea at all....
No idea what you are saying here.
- UniversalAlien
- Posts: 1577
- Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
- Contact:
Re: The reason why science has trouble with consciousness
Now consider this:
Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality
REHOVOT, Israel, February 26, 1998--One of the most bizarre premises of quantum theory, which has long fascinated philosophers and physicists alike, states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality.
In a study reported in the February 26 issue of Nature (Vol. 391, pp. 871-874), researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science have now conducted a highly controlled experiment demonstrating how a beam of electrons is affected by the act of being observed. The experiment revealed that the greater the amount of "watching," the greater the observer's influence on what actually takes place.
See whole article here:The research team headed by Prof. Mordehai Heiblum, included Ph.D. student Eyal Buks, Dr. Ralph Schuster, Dr. Diana Mahalu and Dr. Vladimir Umansky. The scientists, members of the Condensed Matter Physics Department, work at the Institute's Joseph H. and Belle R. Braun Center for Submicron Research.
When a quantum "observer" is watching Quantum mechanics states that particles can also behave as waves. This can be true for electrons at the submicron level, i.e., at distances measuring less than one micron, or one thousandth of a millimeter. When behaving as waves, they can simultaneously pass through several openings in a barrier and then meet again at the other side of the barrier. This "meeting" is known as interference.
Strange as it may sound, interference can only occur when no one is watching. Once an observer begins to watch the particles going through the openings, the picture changes dramatically: if a particle can be seen going through one opening, then it's clear it didn't go through another. In other words, when under observation, electrons are being "forced" to behave like particles and not like waves. Thus the mere act of observation affects the experimental findings............
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1 ... 055013.htm
Would seem to indicate that consciousness was indeed a 'force' - would it not ?
But what the exact force is that is effecting the world is still unknown - And for now, like consciousness itself,
still remains in the realm of the mystical. {Mgrinder's theory given in this post is interesting but can he prove it?}
Now I predict, it is those very computers, that some hold will never be conscious {see: "Can a man-made computer become conscious?" here: http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... start=1800}
will one day be instrumental in mesuring this force of consciousness. The paradox being, that while not conscious in the sense that Humans are 'self-conscious", The super machine of the future becomes the instrument in understanding
what consciousness is - and will show us how to actually measure its force and prove its existence - proving the myth
of Human consciousness to be real.
"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Way of the FUTURE"
-
- Posts: 541
- Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am
Re: The reason why science has trouble with consciousness
-
- Posts: 383
- Joined: May 25th, 2016, 5:34 pm
Re: The reason why science has trouble with consciousness
Yet another problem with your O/P is that you use very flowery language.Mgrinder wrote:I've written up why I believe science has trouble with consciousness here. I will summarize it below, but for a full treatment, please feel free to read the longer version. This essay is related to my theory of consciousness, where I postulate that nature must make a calculation of sorts (involving qualia) every time a particle changes state. Anyways...
The basic idea is that physics (the most basic of the sciences) has two categories for things (that have a causal nature i.e. cause things to happen) in nature : physical laws and measurable quantities. Physical laws are things like the conservation of momentum, the uncertainty principle, schrodenger's equation, the laws of thermodynamics, etc. Measurable quantities are things like, time, mass, length, charge, number of atoms, color charge, etc. Physical laws are rules, and measurable quantities follow the rules.
It is not quite true to say that physical laws have a causal nature. How can one properly say that a rule causes things? Rather it seems more proper to say that whatever physical process is behind a law of nature is what causes events to come out the way they do.
It seems to me that consciousness (which we know to exist) is always implicitly assumed to be akin to a measurable quantity. If one is a dualist, one assumes that there is a realm of thoughts, and thoughts float around in the mind realm or something like that. This treats consciousness as something like a measurable quantity, like an object in "mental space". Materialism, emergentism, panpsychism, all seem to make this assumption as well. However, instead of a measurable object in "mental space", it is some weird "object" in physical space. For instance, a materialist might think consciousness is like an electric field or something.
It is my assumption however, that consciousness is more akin to a physical law than a measurable quantity. If one assumes that consciousness is, somehow, part of the laws of nature, many of the troubles that science has with consciousness disappear.
For one thing, if consciousness is somehow part of the laws of nature, you shouldn't be able to measure it. We cannot measure the conservation of energy, rather we deduce it from data. Interestingly, we can't seem to measure consciousness, we don't detect it with instrumentation, we only know it exists from our personal experience. Score one.
For another thing, when investigating the brain, if you assume that consciousness is part of the laws of nature somehow, but you don't acknowledge this, what will happen? All you will find in the brain are measureable quantities like charges, and ions, and neurons. Then you will apply the known physical laws (which somehow include consciousness, but you don't say this, because you're not considering the possibility) to these measurable quantities, your model will work because these physical laws are correct, and consciousness will never come up. Of course, this is what happens, consciousness is not part of the scientific story of the brain. Score two.
Finally, there is a parallel between the laws of nature and consciousness. A physical law makes things come out in a certain way, rather than another. Two balls collide, and their ending velocities is calculable for the law of conservation of momentum. Whatever is behind the conservation of momentum makes the collision come out the way it does.
Consciousness also makes events come out the way they do. I make a decision to water my garden, it happens, instead of the hose staying on the ground. Consciousness, if it really an "immaterial" thing (whatever that means) seems consistent with another "immaterial" thing we know to exist, namely whatever is behind some physical laws.
***********
As to how consciousness could be part of the laws of nature, please read my essay. The basic idea is that every time a particle of matter (like an electron) changes state, a calculation must be made, and this “calculation” involves a moment of consciousness, a qualia. Also, whenever a molecule (a collection of bonded atoms) changes state, a qualia for this interaction would occur as well. Basically, whenever a wavefunction for an object “collapses”, a qualia is produced (or used?) in order for nature to “calculate” what will happen next.
Thus, in this conception of reality, there are innumerable qualia occurring all the time, in every piece of matter, as particles in matter change state. It is like there are little “souls” popping up everywhere, all the time, that quickly die forever. The vast majority of these qualia are not much like the qualia that we humans experience, however there are a few that occur in living cells that make up the sort of experiences that humans and animals have. The difference between these few particle interactions in living cells that constitute animal experiences and the vast majority of other particle interactions (including many in living cells) is that some particle interactions in living cells can access memories, a sense of self, and sense data from outside and inside the organism.
This is the only way I can conceive of how consciousness could be part of the laws of nature.
Philosophy requires as a first step very precise language.
You say "science has trouble with ..." however your flowery language speaks of science as if it has a head, a body, 2 arms and 2 legs, with eyes, ears, and a mouth.
It does not.
You should try this again and be more specific with your language and less flowery.
"Scientists have ..." or "Researchers have ..." etc.
- UniversalAlien
- Posts: 1577
- Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
- Contact:
Re: The reason why science has trouble with consciousness
SCIENCE PROVES THAT HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS AND OUR MATERIAL WORLD ARE INTERTWINED: SEE FOR YOURSELF
Nikola Tesla said it best, “the day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence. To understand the true nature of the universe, one must think it terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” Swami Vivekananda influenced Tesla’s work, an Indian Hindu monk and chief disciple of the 19th century saint Ramakrishna. Tesla was also influenced by other Vedic philosophies.
Science works best when in harmony with nature. If we put these two together, we can discover great technologies that can only come about when the consciousness of the planet is ready to embrace them, like free energy.
See whole article here:Intention of This Article.
I want to make it clear that my intention of presenting this information is to demonstrate that thoughts, intentions, prayer and other units of consciousness can directly influence our physical material world. Consciousness can be a big factor in creating change on the planet. Sending thoughts of love, healing intent, prayer, good intention, and more can have a powerful influence on what you are directing those feelings towards.
The Science
For quite some time now, physicists have been exploring the relationship between human consciousness and its relationship to the structure of matter. Previously it was believed that a Newtonian material universe was the foundation of our physical material reality. This all changed when scientists began to recognize that everything in the universe is made out of energy. Quantum physicists discovered that physical atoms are made up of vorticies of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating. Matter, at it’s tiniest observable level, is energy, and human consciousness is connected to it, human consciousness can influence it’s behavior and even re-structure it.
“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real” – Niels Bohr
“The hypothesis of modern science starts from matter as the basic reality, considering space to be an extension of the void. The phenomenon of creation of stable cosmic matter, therefore, goes beyond the scope of present science. The theory also neither pinpoints the source of cosmic energy that resides in the structure of matter, nor can it explain the cause of material properties that are experienced with the behavior of matter. These are, in brief, the limitations of modern scientific theories at the most basic level of the physical phenomena of nature. When a scientific theory cannot cope with the question of the very origin of the universal matter and energy, how could it ever grasp and explain the phenomenon of consciousness which is evident in living beings?” – Paramahamsa Tewari (0)
The revelation that the universe is not an assembly of physical parts, but instead comes from an entanglement of immaterial energy waves stems from the work of Albert Einstein, Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg, amongst others.
1. The Quantum Double Slit Experiment
The quantum double slit experiment is a great example of how consciousness and our physical material world are intertwined. One potential revelation of this experience is that “the observer creates the reality.” A paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays explains how this experiment has been used multiple times to explore the role of consciousness in shaping the nature of physical reality. (2)
http://www.collective-evolution.com/201 ... ial-world/
"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Way of the FUTURE"
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023