Let's talk consciousness.

[Ranvier]

Sy Borg, GrayArea, and Value

In order for physical matter to "materialize", the particle-wave requires an 'observer', however we wish to define the 'observer'. We're using very 'unscientific' language in order to find a proper relationship between concepts. All three 'marbles' contain three sets of information (as 'insight' about three marbles), with total of 9 dimensions of information (only from God's perspective as an 'observer'). The night's sky is saturated with light but without the Moon, we would only see blackness of space. In this context, Moon is the 'observer' of the Sun and we are the 'observer' of both.

"Sensing" isn't a mere acquisition of meaningless data. Our senses constantly receive vast amount of meaningless data that can't be interpreted without some sort of pattern recognition ("reason"). Therefore, "sensing" is a meaningful transfer of valuable information (pattern), which elicits a response. Data without any pattern is meaningless and won't elicit any response (can't even register as data).
These patterns result not only in emergence of our universe but also conception of life and NOT Random evolution of life. These aren't mere positive and negative feedback loops of neurons or endocrine system. There is a pattern ("reason") why these feedback loops of autonomic ("unconscious") mechanisms have evolved, with information being passed down in our DNA.

[Sculptor1]

If "energy" was a viable avenue of understanding, a person's personality could be transferred from one brain to another.
Suh an idea is common myth in drama, comedy and myth.
Books such as "Laughing Gas", by P.G.Woodhouse. and films like "BIG",normalise this sort of absurd thinking. THis is an extension of the myth of a soul, common to ancient Greece and handed over to the Christian cults.

However, we know how absurd the idea of a brain transplant would be. The only organ in the body it would make no sense to transplant reveals the simply and irrefutable logic that we, that is our personality, who and what we are as individuals, is not about "energy", it is the unique material structure of our cerebral matter.

If we want to understand consciousness, then we need to look at how, the cerebral cortex encodes our person in the material structures of neural matter.

[Ranvier]

If "energy" was a viable avenue of understanding, a person's personality could be transferred from one brain to another.
Suh an idea is common myth in drama, comedy and myth.
Books such as "Laughing Gas", by P.G.Woodhouse. and films like "BIG",normalise this sort of absurd thinking. THis is an extension of the myth of a soul, common to ancient Greece and handed over to the Christian cults.

However, we know how absurd the idea of a brain transplant would be. The only organ in the body it would make no sense to transplant reveals the simply and irrefutable logic that we, that is our personality, who and what we are as individuals, is not about "energy", it is the unique material structure of our cerebral matter.

If we want to understand consciousness, then we need to look at how, the cerebral cortex encodes our person in the material structures of neural matter.

Again, we don't really "know" what's [energy]. What we call "energy" is a change between states of particle-wave (matter). [Energy] most likely 'exists' in other forms, logically, since our universe exists. [We] are [energy] of both 'energy' (change in matter) and a manifestation of "force" resulting from that change. Some call it a force of "Free Will" to act in accordance with "reason" or not. Our physical body (brain) is "energy" that contains information. Ex. A book is a physical object that contains information about paper, glue, ink, or physical dimensions. There is also another level (dimension) of information contained within the ink arranged in a specific pattern. One can learn to recite a poem in French, without any cognition of the poem. One can translate the poem into a known language to gain cognition without the comprehension of what it means. Someone else can provide information for the mind to gain comprehension of what the poem means but still without understanding and appreciation of the "true" meaning without the [Reason].

Yes, we can 3D print human brain with some level of precision, without the need to transplant. It would be even more accurate to know every quantum state of matter of that brain and synthesize the brain directly from "energy". It's interesting "how" the brain works but it's not as fascinating as the [Reason] why it works.

[RJG]

With that said, I've been wondering for some time about how the brain becomes aware of itself. And I think I may have a basic gist.

I will first divide awareness into two main parts:
1. The things we would become aware of, once we actually become aware. In other words, Qualia.
2. The awareness itself, which allows us to be aware of 1.

1. X
2. Consciousness-of-X

1. X = a physical bodily reaction/sensation
2. Consciousness-of-X = the “knowing” of the physical bodily reaction/sensation

Without something to be conscious of, there is nothing to be conscious of. And if there is nothing to be conscious of, then there is no consciousness. [Without X, there can be no Consciousness-of-X]

Therefore, without pre-existing bodily reactions/sensations there can be no consciousness; no conscious experiences; no knowing of bodily experiences (reactions/sensations). The "X" logically precedes the "consciousness-of-X". Therefore, consciousness is only a passive (after-the-fact) experience; it cannot "do" anything.

So, contrary to popular belief - "We can't consciously do anything, ...we can only be conscious of what we’ve already done".

[Ranvier]

With that said, I've been wondering for some time about how the brain becomes aware of itself. And I think I may have a basic gist.

I will first divide awareness into two main parts:
1. The things we would become aware of, once we actually become aware. In other words, Qualia.
2. The awareness itself, which allows us to be aware of 1.

1. X
2. Consciousness-of-X

1. X = a physical bodily reaction/sensation
2. Consciousness-of-X = the “knowing” of the physical bodily reaction/sensation

Without something to be conscious of, there is nothing to be conscious of. And if there is nothing to be conscious of, then there is no consciousness. [Without X, there can be no Consciousness-of-X]

Therefore, without pre-existing bodily reactions/sensations there can be no consciousness; no conscious experiences; no knowing of bodily experiences (reactions/sensations). The "X" logically precedes the "consciousness-of-X". Therefore, consciousness is only a passive (after-the-fact) experience; it cannot "do" anything.

So, contrary to popular belief - "We can't consciously do anything, ...we can only be conscious of what we’ve already done".

Not necessarily true. If in my imagination I can come up with an alternative, it must be at least possible. I can no longer have "certainty". [We] could be a floating brain in space with information being chemically induced (drugs) or supplied by direct stimulation. [We] could be outright a simulation of information itself, as in a quantum computer simulation. What makes things "real" is our [reason] and reasoning about that information. Ex. if everyone was on drugs "perceiving" butterflies with every sense of the word and the butterflies respond to our actions within "reason", it would be indistinguishable from "real" butterflies.

[Ranvier]

So, contrary to popular belief - "We can't consciously do anything, ...we can only be conscious of what we’ve already done".

We can "consciously' decide to do something, within "reason", to "consciously" observe an outcome of that "reason".

[Ranvier]

In other words, you don't just observe yourself "consciously" doing things unconsciously (as some king of hostage trapped in the body). I imagine it may feel that way in a drunken body, performing differently as intended.

[Sculptor1]

If "energy" was a viable avenue of understanding, a person's personality could be transferred from one brain to another.
Suh an idea is common myth in drama, comedy and myth.
Books such as "Laughing Gas", by P.G.Woodhouse. and films like "BIG",normalise this sort of absurd thinking. THis is an extension of the myth of a soul, common to ancient Greece and handed over to the Christian cults.

However, we know how absurd the idea of a brain transplant would be. The only organ in the body it would make no sense to transplant reveals the simply and irrefutable logic that we, that is our personality, who and what we are as individuals, is not about "energy", it is the unique material structure of our cerebral matter.

If we want to understand consciousness, then we need to look at how, the cerebral cortex encodes our person in the material structures of neural matter.

Again, we don't really "know" what's [energy]. What we call "energy" is a change between states of particle-wave (matter). [Energy] most likely 'exists' in other forms, logically, since our universe exists. [We] are [energy] of both 'energy' (change in matter) and a manifestation of "force" resulting from that change. Some call it a force of "Free Will" to act in accordance with "reason" or not. Our physical body (brain) is "energy" that contains information. Ex. A book is a physical object that contains information about paper, glue, ink, or physical dimensions. There is also another level (dimension) of information contained within the ink arranged in a specific pattern. One can learn to recite a poem in French, without any cognition of the poem. One can translate the poem into a known language to gain cognition without the comprehension of what it means. Someone else can provide information for the mind to gain comprehension of what the poem means but still without understanding and appreciation of the "true" meaning without the [Reason].

Yes, we can 3D print human brain with some level of precision, without the need to transplant. It would be even more accurate to know every quantum state of matter of that brain and synthesize the brain directly from "energy". It's interesting "how" the brain works but it's not as fascinating as the [Reason] why it works.

Whatever "we" say it is; it is.

[Ranvier]

Whatever "we" say it is; it is.

Indeed. What's truly amazing, a miracle one may remark, is the fact that [We] experience pain: both physical & emotional. How & why can "energy" <> "consciousness" <> "information" ([We]) experience pain? Is pain "real" or just a crafty "illusion", similar to "consciousness"? Is "consciousness" intimately tied to pain & pleasure? How is the purpose of the body in pursuit of pleasure & avoidance of pain different from the "reason", often in conflict with the purpose? The "reason" will endure the pain of the body on behest of the benefit of future self. This is a different level of amazing to ignore "real" pain in exchange for possible future benefit.

[RJG]

If in my imagination I can come up with an alternative, it must be at least possible.

I'm not sure how this statement relates to my response, but nonetheless it is an interesting statement that doesn't seem to make immediate sense to me. It seems to me that possibilities are determined by 'logic', not by "imagination". With imagination, we can conjure up all kinds of nonsensical (non logical) notions or alternatives. If it doesn't pass the muster of logic, then it can't be possible.

For example, we can imagine the existence of married bachelors, but this does not mean that they actually can exist, or are possible. If something is logically impossible, then no amount of imagination can make it possible.

[We] could be a floating brain in space with information being chemically induced (drugs) or supplied by direct stimulation. [We] could be outright a simulation of information itself, as in a quantum computer simulation.

Agreed. We are not necessarily that object that we see in the mirror.

What makes things "real" is our [reason] and reasoning about that information. Ex. if everyone was on drugs "perceiving" butterflies with every sense of the word and the butterflies respond to our actions within "reason", it would be indistinguishable from "real" butterflies.

I think objective reality ("real" things) exist independently of our subjective perceptions. For example, if all humans died on this planet, wouldn’t planet Earth still exist? Reality exists whether or not we humans are around to perceive it.

We can "consciously' decide to do something, within "reason", to "consciously" observe an outcome of that "reason".

How is it logically possible to consciously cause (decide and do) anything? Conscious causation is an oxymoron (a logical contradiction). We can only experience (be conscious of) something that has already happened. This is a very important point!

Consciousness is AFTER-the-fact and Causation is BEFORE-the fact. Hence the oxymoron.

P1. Causation<X -- causation precedes (comes 'before') that which it causes. As in all causal (cause and effect) relationships, cause 'precedes' that which it causes. One cannot cause-X, unless it 'precedes' X.

P2. X>Consciousness -- consciousness follows (comes 'after') that which it is conscious of. One cannot be conscious-of-X, without a pre-existing X to be conscious of.

Conclusion. Causation<X>Consciousness -- The conscious causation-of-X is therefore logically (and mathematically) impossible. One term defeats the other. "Conscious causation" is therefore an oxymoron; on par with "square circles" and "married bachelors". The before/after relationship defeats itself.

In other words, you don't just observe yourself "consciously" doing things unconsciously (as some king of hostage trapped in the body).

As weird as it sounds -- We don't consciously move our bodies about. We are only just conscious of our bodies moving about.

If it is possible to set aside one's indoctrinated beliefs, and look at this from a pure logical perspective, then it will be very clear. But, unfortunately most people can't do this as they seemingly are programmed to defend their indoctrinated beliefs rather than suspending them to consider a logical perspective.

[value]

Sensing" isn't a mere acquisition of meaningless data. Our senses constantly receive vast amount of meaningless data that can't be interpreted without some sort of pattern recognition ("reason"). Therefore, "sensing" is a meaningful transfer of valuable information (pattern), which elicits a response. Data without any pattern is meaningless and won't elicit any response (can't even register as data).

Data without a pattern is a non-sensical idea.

What would be the basis for the idea that the senses receive 'meaningless data' that is later to be 'processed' subjectively?

In the case that it would be established that the idea is invalid, at what level is meaning 'assigned'? Is it possible that the meaning of data is pre-assigned and distributed (given) as it were to be met with a fundamental 'unknown world' in which a conscious observer receives that meaning as a passive mirror?

If that were to be so then from a fundamental perspective there would be nothing to be observed since the meaning to be observed would be pre-known fundamentally (which means 'before' an observer can assume a role as passive mirror by which that which is observed becomes fundamentally meaningless). Therefore the meaning of data must be assigned by the observer in my opinion.

[Ranvier]

If in my imagination I can come up with an alternative, it must be at least possible.

I'm not sure how this statement relates to my response, but nonetheless it is an interesting statement that doesn't seem to make immediate sense to me. It seems to me that possibilities are determined by 'logic', not by "imagination". With imagination, we can conjure up all kinds of nonsensical (non logical) notions or alternatives. If it doesn't pass the muster of logic, then it can't be possible.

For example, we can imagine the existence of married bachelors, but this does not mean that they actually can exist, or are possible. If something is logically impossible, then no amount of imagination can make it possible.

An imagined alternative doesn't imply "illogical". The assumption being that we're considering minds that aren't in the realm of "insane" but operate in the realm of "reason". With this in mind, you have inadvertently uncovered a problem with language of words:
"...we can imagine the existence of married bachelors, but this does not mean that they actually can exist, or are possible".
I can imagine a bachelor of science and another bachelor of arts, both being married.

What makes things "real" is our [reason] and reasoning about that information. Ex. if everyone was on drugs "perceiving" butterflies with every sense of the word and the butterflies respond to our actions within "reason", it would be indistinguishable from "real" butterflies.

I think objective reality ("real" things) exist independently of our subjective perceptions. For example, if all humans died on this planet, wouldn’t planet Earth still exist? Reality exists whether or not we humans are around to perceive it.

We're addicted to thinking within human conceptual framework, where it's extremely challenging to think outside of that matrix. What you think to be the concept "Earth", doesn't "exist" outside of human conceptual framework. The concept of "Earth" is meaningless to bacteria or a distant meteor passing by somewhere in a different galaxy. Ex. From the point of view of the Moon, where exactly does "Earth" begin and where does it end? Are the birds flying above the ground part of "Earth" or is "Earth" found somewhere at the center of mass? Would "Earth" still be a planet without the Sun, traveling alone through the vastness of space? From the perspective of muon decaying into electron and two types of neutrinos, the entire notion of "Earth" would be "irrational". So no, if we didn't exist, "Earth" wouldn't "exist".

We can "consciously' decide to do something, within "reason", to "consciously" observe an outcome of that "reason".

How is it logically possible to consciously cause (decide and do) anything? Conscious causation is an oxymoron (a logical contradiction). We can only experience (be conscious of) something that has already happened. This is a very important point!

Seems obvious but I should explain. You can consciously decide to be the cause of events leading to an outcome. You can for instance consciously decide to write "I love you" on a piece of paper and leave it for your spouse, which will most likely cause at least a smile. Moving a glass on a table is a conscious choice that caused the glass to move. Our entire legal system would be in trouble, if you could cause fire without consequences. You have to explain your logic, as most likely we're lost in translation of words that have different meanings in our minds. I notice a strange relationship of "conscious" = "experience" in your mind. There is of course a difference between "conscious" (awareness) and "consciousness". I imagine you do have "consciousness", and you're conscious of your consciousness?

"Consciousness is AFTER-the-fact and Causation is BEFORE-the fact. Hence the oxymoron".

How did you arrive to that conclusion? Without "consciousness" you wouldn't even be able to comprehend "causation". This entire OP is about "consciousness" and the fact that we don't have a firm grip on the concept. However, whatever "consciousness" is, it "exists" outside of "time", as you're able to draw conclusions from memories of the "past" and imagine outcomes in the "future". It's somewhat obvious or who would be able to convince you of the logic in going to school, on behalf of the benefit of future self?

"As weird as it sounds -- We don't consciously move our bodies about. We are only just conscious of our bodies moving about".

If it is possible to set aside one's indoctrinated beliefs, and look at this from a pure logical perspective, then it will be very clear. But, unfortunately most people can't do this as they seemingly are programmed to defend their indoctrinated beliefs rather than suspending them to consider a logical perspective.

Ok, You don't have to convince me much to step out of the "indoctrinated" matrix but it must make "sense". How would your "logic" be beneficial to human survival? "We don't consciously move our bodies about"... should I find my body in the middle of the road with a car approaching at high velocity towards my body, can I consciously decide to run or just experience what happens?

[Ranvier]

Sensing" isn't a mere acquisition of meaningless data. Our senses constantly receive vast amount of meaningless data that can't be interpreted without some sort of pattern recognition ("reason"). Therefore, "sensing" is a meaningful transfer of valuable information (pattern), which elicits a response. Data without any pattern is meaningless and won't elicit any response (can't even register as data).

Data without a pattern is a non-sensical idea.

What would be the basis for the idea that the senses receive 'meaningless data' that is later to be 'processed' subjectively?

In the case that it would be established that the idea is invalid, at what level is meaning 'assigned'? Is it possible that the meaning of data is pre-assigned and distributed (given) as it were to be met with a fundamental 'unknown world' in which a conscious observer receives that meaning as a passive mirror?

If that were to be so then from a fundamental perspective there would be nothing to be observed since the meaning to be observed would be pre-known fundamentally (which means 'before' an observer can assume a role as passive mirror by which that which is observed becomes fundamentally meaningless). Therefore the meaning of data must be assigned by the observer in my opinion.

Noise, randomness, neutrinos passing through your body are all "data". In case of neutrinos it doesn't even register as data in your mind, similarly to sounds or light frequencies outside of your perception. Only "data" that has some pattern recognizable by your sensory perception, becomes "information". Even valuable information is mostly ignored by your conscious mind, to optimize processing for only information in your focus. Ex. You're sitting in a quiet collage library reading a book, where your mind is fully aware (proprioception) of a painting hanging on the wall but it's totally ignored until the painting falls to the ground, redirecting your attention to the loud sound of painting impacting the ground.

[Ranvier]

The "focus" of your "consciousness" is the interesting part. You can choose to think about anything you want, anything you can imagine. "How", "Why", and "What" decides what one chooses to think about? I'm interested with the [Reason]. What is it, where does it come from?
Yeah, we can resort to the tired clichés of nurture vs nature, both valid but it doesn't answer the question. What's the pattern?

[RJG]

It seems to me that possibilities are determined by 'logic', not by "imagination". With imagination, we can conjure up all kinds of nonsensical (non logical) notions or alternatives. If it doesn't pass the muster of logic, then it can't be possible.

An imagined alternative doesn't imply "illogical".

True, but I never said or implied that.

For example, we can imagine the existence of married bachelors, but this does not mean that they actually can exist, or are possible. If something is logically impossible, then no amount of imagination can make it possible.

I can imagine a bachelor of science and another bachelor of arts, both being married.

Yes, people can interpret the meaning of “married bachelor” different ways. But you know better. You knew the intended meaning of my words. My point is that “imagination” does not determine “possibilities”. Logic does.

How is it logically possible to consciously cause (decide and do) anything? Conscious causation is an oxymoron (a logical contradiction). We can only experience (be conscious of) something that has already happened. This is a very important point!

Seems obvious but I should explain. You can consciously decide to be the cause of events leading to an outcome. You can for instance consciously decide to write "I love you" on a piece of paper and leave it for your spouse, which will most likely cause at least a smile.

Stating/repeating an indoctrinated belief does not make it anymore convincing or truthful. You seemingly automatically take it for granted that “you can consciously decide…” as a truthful fact without ever questioning the truthfulness of this belief. If you are able and willing to take an honest look at the logic of this belief, then it will become very clear that you have been misled (indoctrinated) into believing a falsehood (a logical impossibility).

If it is possible to set aside one's indoctrinated beliefs, and look at this from a pure logical perspective, then it will be very clear. But, unfortunately most people can't do this as they seemingly are programmed to defend their indoctrinated beliefs…

Ok, You don't have to convince me much to step out of the "indoctrinated" matrix but it must make "sense".

Great! And yes, absolutely, it must make sense via deductive logic. There are many logical proofs of the impossibility of conscious causation (consciously deciding or doing anything). I presented one earlier in a syllogism. We can review that if you wish, but first lets start with a basic question to help better understand HOW "you can consciously decide”.

Question #1 – HOW do you “consciously decide” something? (please don't repeat "you consciously decide", tell me HOW you do it). In other words, does it require thoughts and/or feelings, or something else? Be specific. [Question #2 will follow after this question is answered]

As weird as it sounds -- We don't consciously move our bodies about. We are only just conscious of our bodies moving about.

How would your "logic" be beneficial to human survival?

This is irrelevant to truth finding. Logic provides us with truths (and falses), and not necessarily with being “beneficial to human survival”.

...should I find my body in the middle of the road with a car approaching at high velocity towards my body, can I consciously decide to run or just experience what happens?

NO, you cannot consciously decide to jump out of the way, or do anything. Consciously deciding, or consciously doing anything is logically impossible. And YES, your body reactively responds and then you become conscious of the reaction that your body took.

In the case of the speeding car rushing towards my body, my body can react by jumping out of the way, or maybe by freezing out of fear and getting squashed/run over, or however it responds to the stimuli. (flight or fright). Whatever it does, I won’t be conscious of what my body did until AFTER it did it. (…well, except if I got squashed dead then I could not know or be conscious of my bodily reaction).

As another example, imagine that someone takes a swing to punch you in the face, and you will notice afterward that your hand reacted (lifted to protect your face) without your conscious permission. The body does not need our conscious permission to act/react. It acts/reacts, and then we become conscious of that action/reaction. Logically it can be no other way.