A Speculative Theory on Consciousness

[john5746]

Possible evidence that rats at least are aware of what they don't know, which some humans still struggle with:

 

http://www.newsweek.com/id/35401/page/1

 

I am constantly amazed at the abilities of animals. I think the main separation is the complexity of our language. Maybe the crow only thinks in pictures, but something is going on in that little head.

 

[mooeypoo]

Yes, Elephants self-reflect, in your definition of the term, and reflect on their histories, because they can return to elephant graveyards, and even mourn. Just to clear something up though, self-reflection theory is my own terminology. Youw won't find anything on the net.

 

Now, i must go for now.

 

(By the way, one of the tests found that the elephant recognized when something was stuck to its head... and was amazed by it... playing with it... i can't remember what it was...) I'll look it out.

 

This is getting quite tedious. Why would you answer only part of my question and refuse to answer the rest? I asked for resources, and I even explained *why* I am asking. You "stating" elephants have self reflection is moot without you proving that they do, and that we can actually detect it.

 

I actually believe that most animals have some sort of ability to "self reflect", even if for a very "flat" sense of the term, but I don't go so far as to state this as a fact and start a theory from it.

 

You should notice, btw, that even the resources that were brought forth are not *quite* scientific -- Newsweek, for that matter, is not a peer review publication by a long shot, neither is the "New Scientist".

 

Klaynos did find a publication in what appears to be a peer review publication, but it strictly states about the Elephants' ability to recognize their reflection - not to "self reflect" as in philosophy or advanced thought.

 

I am, again, not quite sure how this can even be tested. How could we possibly know if an elephant is curious about its past, the meaning to its life or the characteristics of his behaviour. Unless we speak elephant, I don't see it happening.

 

But it's very possible that I am wrong, and that this can be tested. Which is why I request, again, those studies you spoke about, Graviphoton.

 

This, again, doesn't mean that you are wrong. It just means that there are no evidence yet.

 

This entire subject is interesting, and I am a fan of philosophy, specifically about the nature of man vs beast (if it is even separate). I just can't accept the premises you put forth just on the basis of you saying they happened. I don't think it's fair of you to ask this of us, either.

So it seems that the current problem is that you just seem to either not have these studies or, for some reason that is beyond me, not care to share them with us.

 

.. why?

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You should notice, btw, that even the resources that were brought forth are not *quite* scientific -- Newsweek, for that matter, is not a peer review publication by a long shot, neither is the "New Scientist".

 

New Scientist does, however, often cite the journal where they got their material from.

[Graviphoton]

Well, actually Kalynos, this is wha my theory entails.

 

A self-reflecting things, can reflect on their own beings. This means being aware quite literally of their own reflections.

[Klaynos]

New Scientist does, however, often cite the journal where they got their material from.

 

That is exactly how I got my journal reference

 

But I could remember reading it in newscientist and knew they nearly always gave a reference. And an arxiv reference as well if they've got one now it seems.

[Graviphoton]

Mooey

 

Because you impatient boy, i had too to college when i read this. Learn to get some patience about you, because these questions posited, you will find, i am not obliged to answer. I will though, because i am not a total prat. Suffice to say, i've had a really long day, and i won't be able to address them tonight, because i am going for a soak, and then an early night.

 

But here is someting added to my speculative theories of consciousness... (Done last night).

 

"If consciousness is in fact defined (and different) at every moment of time, it should also be related to points in space: the truly subjective observer system should be related to space-time points." from "Quantum Theory and Time Asymmetry", Zeh (1979).

Consciousness must have its own subrealm of freedom. Any freedom of reality is normally considered a dimension, by definition, is an intrinsic degree of freedom.

Since we observe a three-dimensional realm, in apparently, a zero-dimensional condition, or holography, it stands to reason that they are dimensions sub of the normal four vectors of spacetime. The zero-dimensionality of their relations can be seen as an illusion, because there needs to be a mathematical and actual coupling which takes place between mind and matter. Amit Goswami, most renowned in his field, and author of a textbook on quantum physics which is used in academies across the world, knows of the fact there is a connection. He is author of the well known book, ‘’How Consciousness Creates Matter.’’

 

The world we see, even though it not really being the external world, somehow registers the events unfolding in the outside world, through a simple photon firing off the retina cell. This single event also activated numerous other events which centerfold the holograph that represents the reality we see.

 

More physical processes are involved, at the microscopic level. When a photon (a particle of light) hits off the retina, changes occur inside of the cells. A molecule called the Cis-Retinal changes into a Trans-Retinal; it isn't a chemical change, but rather a change in the spatial structure of the molecule. This changes a protein that is already present in the cells of the retina, and this protein attaches itself to another protein, because of a chemical change in the original protein. More happens.

 

Molecules are cut in half, which in turn causes electrical channels to become closed off; and this series of events causes an electrical imbalance, which is then transported through electrolyte and nerve activity to the brain. This is all quite amazing. This alone I think is proof that settles the dispute between whether a model of consciousness requires quantum mechanics that is non-classical or not, because of obviously in this case, considering that single photon, consciousness and the perception of it certainly requires that quantum non-classical method. The photon must collapse upon arrival, and is the cause of a singular information received by the brain.

[mooeypoo]

New Scientist does, however, often cite the journal where they got their material from.

Yup, which is what Klaynos gave out, and which I did speak about (ahem).

 

It's titled, however, " Self-recognition in an Asian elephant".

 

Self recognition (as I said..) is not the same as self-reflection. The only article in a peer reviewed publication is, therefore, not proving anything to the case of self-reflection in animals.

 

Or if (and how) we can even measure it.

 

~moo

 

Mooey

 

Because you impatient boy,

That's quite rude.

 

First, I'm a woman, not a man, and most certainly not a boy.

Second, I'm not impatient, I'm asking for citing, and explain *why* I am. It's really getting out of the scope of this forum if you start answering rudely whenever I speak to you without even reading what I ask for.

 

I wasn't rude to you, I expect the same in return.

 

The fact I demand rigorous proof for claims does not make me your personal enemy. Stop degrading the argument away from the fact you cannot support your own claims.

 

i had too to college when i read this. Learn to get some patience about you, because these questions posited, you will find, i am not obliged to answer. I will though, because i am not a total prat. Suffice to say, i've had a really long day, and i won't be able to address them tonight, because i am going for a soak, and then an early night.

 

So, all those who ask you to back your statements with references need to 'learn to get some patience about them' too? Other than being a tid bit condescending, that sentence, it also might cause a bit of a problem, seeing as half of the posts in your many threads are filled with such requests.

 

Instead of degrading down to personal levels, I again ask that you either back your statements up with scientific proof, or stop calling them facts when they are not, or, simply, stop posting in a forum where you obviously don't wish to follow the rules of.

 

Did you even read the rules by now? It doesn't seem so. I am trying to be very patient with you and not go into personal attacks, I don't think I have ever been rude to you other than request (firmly, perhaps, after you ignored it many times) to back your statements up, stop ignoring questions and errors, and start being serious about scientific rigor.

 

Why do you feel the need to try and use personal attacks here is beyond me.

 

Or perhaps not. In any case, I suggest we go back to teh matter at hand: Your theory. It's unproven until backed-up by evidence, which you havent' done. People have done it for you, and even that was not quite what you claimed.

 

It's not about patience, it's about the bottom line. You start a theory by a flawed, unproven, controversial premise. That would cause your theory to be (understatement:) shaky, to say the least.

 

 

 

But here is someting added to my speculative theories of consciousness... (Done last night).

 

"If consciousness is in fact defined (and different) at every moment of time, it should also be related to points in space: the truly subjective observer system should be related to space-time points." from "Quantum Theory and Time Asymmetry", Zeh (1979).

 

Consciousness must have its own subrealm of freedom. Any freedom of reality is normally considered a dimension, by definition, is an intrinsic degree of freedom.

Again with the 'musts' and 'surely'ies. Consciousness is undefined, and therefore does not have a 'must'. The sentence and quote above, btw, is not a proof of anything either. It is an assumption.

IF consciousness is defined at every moment of time....--> the rest.

Is it defined at every moment of time? Is it even defined at all? What is it?

 

We cannot possibly have a conversation about this without basic definitions, whether you like it or not. I might be the "voice of rigor" in the threads here, so you might hate me more, but don't let that fact stand between you and what I'm *saying*.

 

This is a science forums network. We think, write and analyze according to the scientific method. Assumptions are nothing more than assumptions as long as they are not based on facts, observation or other data.

Speculations need to be based on fact, observation or factual data to be considered for a logical debate.

There are rules here.

Stop ignoring them.

 

The rest of your posts is just another aspect of your theory. Very interesting stuff, really, but it's all still in the realm of fantasy until you bring forth some proof.

 

 

Please don't call me "girl" next time (instead of "boy", hmm) okay?

 

We're all adults here, and we don't need to degrade the argument down to levels of personal attacks and rudeness. If you don't think you should give citations and base your claims on reality, explain why.

 

I don't think I was ever rude to you, I expect the same in return.

 

~moo

Edited May 27, 2008 by mooeypoo
multiple post merged

[Klaynos]

Graviphoton, just a quick question, you mention college a few times, what is it you study, and in what country?

[Graviphoton]

I apologize for getting your sex wrong. Hardly the end of the world.

 

And, i am not avoiding the rules. I give my work pretty consistent i think, given the amount i post. Granted i cannot reference everything, but then i have already made this clear, that if anyone thinks they can, its a fantasy upon itself. We often go through life learning knowledge which we cannot state through a reference.

 

As for my last post, you completely ignored the fact i gave a reference, and secondly, this reference is backed up by wiki, stating it does in fact have experimental conditions as a spacetime theory. Linde also shares the notion of what was said about consciousness having its own degrees of freedom.

 

Kalynos

 

Studying, physics, biology and chemistry.

 

(now i need to go. Bath is run, and as i said, early night.)

 

oh... Britain, Scotland.

[Klaynos]

I apologize for getting your sex wrong. Hardly the end of the world.

 

And, i am not avoiding the rules. I give my work pretty consistent i think, given the amount i post. Granted i cannot reference everything, but then i have already made this clear, that if anyone thinks they can, its a fantasy upon itself. We often go through life learning knowledge which we cannot state through a reference.

 

Interestingly if you read some peer reviewed papers you'll see than they do infact reference pretty much everything, I've written two papers recently over a few thousand words each on which nearly every sentence was referenced due to the fact none of the work was my own knowledge but stuff I'd read.

 

As for my last post, you completely ignored the fact i gave a reference, and secondly, this reference is backed up by wiki, stating it does in fact have experimental conditions as a spacetime theory. Linde also shares the notion of what was said about consciousness having its own degrees of freedom.

 

Kalynos

 

Studying, physics, biology and chemistry.

 

(now i need to go. Bath is run, and as i said, early night.)

 

oh... Britain, Scotland.

 

Interesting, highers I presume...

[mooeypoo]

I apologize for getting your sex wrong. Hardly the end of the world.

As usual, you haven't read the post before replying to it. Sex wasn't the problem. Nor was the problem you getting it wrong (for the 10th time), I really don't care what you think I am. Your rudeness was. But I forgive you.

 

As for my last post, you completely ignored the fact i gave a reference, and secondly, this reference is backed up by wiki, stating it does in fact have experimental conditions as a spacetime theory. Linde also shares the notion of what was said about consciousness having its own degrees of freedom.

 

Wiki is not a scientific reference. We didn't ignore anything, we plainly stated that your references are irrelevant (did you read your own references?) or are just not good enough. I personally have a newsletter back from 2000, where my bible-class teacher at school wrote about the viability of prayer to the overall good-health of high school students. She referenced quite a lot of medical papers, none of which spoke about prayer. I was doubtful of her conclusion as well, not just in yours.

 

I would also do no justice to any theory if I cite that article. Not because it's old, but because it's crap. It's unbased, unfounded and unscientific, it is non-repeatable, it is simply non science. It's an opinion piece, not a science piece. Get the differences straight, please, that might explain why we simply don't accept your cites when tehy are opinions, or when they are talking about a completely different subject.

 

 

 

 

I commend your ability to run away from presenting facts and answering questions. Looking at the past 50+ posts in this and other threads, you seem quite consistent in doing that. Kudos to you.

 

Good luck in school.

 

~moo

[Graviphoton]

Now whose being rude, you hypocritical GIRL.

 

Wiki can be trusted however, even though it has been known to contain mistakes. But the references it contains of spacetime theories must be right. They are too bold to be a mistake.

 

But that's not the point. I know they exist anyway. And if i say i got your sex wrong, all it means is that i called you a boy, rather than a girl. So what i said, you are reading far too much into. Period.

 

Klaynos

 

Yes, for a National Diploma.

[Pangloss]

Thread closed pending moderator review over ad homs.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think this one will remain closed.

 

Graviphoton, threads in this forum must abide by the Speculations Forum Policy or they'll be canned. You are no exception, regardless of any commonsense rules of behavior you might have.

 

The heated language and blatant disregard for referencing and the rules need to go.