Does our consciousness exist in a higher dimension?

[whap2005]

I know there are already some fringe theories out there that try to tie the enormous computational powers of our brain to quantum mechanics, but is it possible that our consciousness actually exists at least partly in a higher dimension? It can be argued that we are interdimensional beings since we can physically enter the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd dimensions. Although it is impossible to physically represent a 4th dimensional object, our brains are still able to imagine or see a 4D object purely in thought, which seems to me should be impossible if our brains existed only in just 3 dimensions. We are fairly certain that our consciousness originates from inside our brains, but like an extra dimensional object it is impossible to physically see or represent it in 3 dimensions. If our brains or a portion of our brains does exist in a higher dimension how would we know? Since we are physically bound in 3 dimensions we would only be able to physically see and interact with the 3D portion of it.

[Mokele]

No. I can alter someone's consciousness very easily with plain old 3-D drugs, or more permanently with a nice 3-D bone saw and scalpel.

 

There's no evidence higher spatial dimensions even exist, much less have any functional impact on the mundane details of neuron firing.

[bascule]

According to the best evidence we have today, the brain is a classical physical system:

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009

 

No evidence exists of quantum mechanical behavior or anything involving "higher dimensions". As far as we can tell the brain is an electrochemical computer.

[Baby Astronaut]

There's no evidence the mind's sitting in another dimension, but even if the mind were to reside beyond our 3d senses, that'd probably also make it extremely difficult to test.

 

So it can only be a speculation at best, for the time at least. Until (and *if*) someone finds supporting data.

 

Now if we're assuming the mind did interface with the brain from another dimension, then we can make other assumptions from there: if the brain's damaged in 3d, that communication might become damaged as well, the mind still functioning elsewhere and the brain severely distorting the communication and/or its back-up memory files corrupted.

 

However, again that's all pure speculation which doesn't give us much except in the form of really interesting philosophical conversations.

[whap2005]

No. I can alter someone's consciousness very easily with plain old 3-D drugs, or more permanently with a nice 3-D bone saw and scalpel.

 

There's no evidence higher spatial dimensions even exist, much less have any functional impact on the mundane details of neuron firing.

 

The string theory folks have pretty much proven the the existance of other dimensions mathmatically and may do so experimentally with the Hadron. Black holes have never been observed directly but we were able to prove their existance mathmatically long before we were able to observe their effects on matter in space.

[bascule]

Now if we're assuming the mind did interface with the brain from another dimension, then we can make other assumptions from there: if the brain's damaged in 3d, that communication might become damaged as well, the mind still functioning elsewhere and the brain severely distorting the communication and/or its back-up memory files corrupted.

 

The problems with this hypothesis is that people with damaged brains will report that they are experiencing internal problems with their thinking, not just sensory ones.

 

Brain damage and the above provide excellent evidence that consciousness is brain-based.

 

The string theory folks have pretty much proven the the existance of other dimensions mathmatically

 

Well of course higher dimensions exist mathematically, but that does not mean that they exist physically.

[Mokele]

The string theory folks have pretty much proven the the existance of other dimensions mathmatically and may do so experimentally with the Hadron. Black holes have never been observed directly but we were able to prove their existance mathmatically long before we were able to observe their effects on matter in space.

 

I'll start listening when they have empirical data, not a moment sooner. Plenty of theories with pretty math have died when the data didn't support them.

[Edtharan]

but like an extra dimensional object it is impossible to physically see or represent it in 3 dimensions

This statement is incorrect. It is possible to represent a higher dimensional object in lower dimensions. For instance, most games now days have 3 dimensional graphics, but your computer monitor only displays in 2 dimensions.

 

Here we have a higher dimensional object (3 dimensions) viewable on a lower dimensional object (2d).

 

Around 20 years ago (as part of a school project) I represented a 4 dimensional object on a 2 dimensional computer monitor (a 4D cube - a hyper cube - you can see many such examples on the net). So we can even represent multiple higher dimensions on the lower form as well.

 

Not only that, we can "unfold" higher dimensional object onto a lower dimension as well. When you see a Map of the Earth on a piece of paper, what you are seeing is a 3D object (the sphere of the Earth) unfolded onto a 2D object (the piece of paper the map is printed on).

 

you might also have done paper folding where you take a cross shaped object and folded into a cube. A cross is a 2 dimensional object, and a cube is a 3 dimensional object. You have folded a lower dimensional object into a higher dimensional object (or if you started with a cube and unfolded it you will have gone from a higher dimension to a lower one).

 

So from this, your statement "it is impossible to physically see or represent it in 3 dimensions" is clearly false, and as your argument seems to require this statement to be true, then your reasoning from this is also false.

 

So just because we can imagine a higher dimensional object does not necessitate our brains existing within that higher dimension.

 

As for the rest of your post:

 

Quantum mechanics are not needed to explain the computational power of the brain. The brain is a Neural Network, which is arranged so as to be an (very complex) associative network for the various sensory inputs to behaviours. Such systems have been reproduced without any use of quantum mechanics (on computer) and these produce the same general behaviours that the components (neurons and their connections) does in our brain (we just haven't got the computing power to reach the complexity that the brain has).

[darkenlighten]

The problems with this hypothesis is that people with damaged brains will report that they are experiencing internal problems with their thinking, not just sensory ones.

 

Brain damage and the above provide excellent evidence that consciousness is brain-based.

 

I disagree with your logic here. Just because a person is brain damaged and has been disabled to perform the lost function, does not constitute the origin of that function, just that the link is broken or the path to the origin has been broken.

[Mokele]

I disagree with your logic here. Just because a person is brain damaged and has been disabled to perform the lost function, does not constitute the origin of that function, just that the link is broken or the path to the origin has been broken.

 

However, when we can stick electrodes into the brain and evoke that function directly, that's pretty conclusive.

[CharonY]

Also I would consider Occams razor here.

[Mr Skeptic]

It can be argued that we are interdimensional beings since we can physically enter the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd dimensions.

 

Oh? Feel free to enter one of those three dimensions any time you like, to demonstrate. Already being there doesn't count.

 

Although it is impossible to physically represent a 4th dimensional object, our brains are still able to imagine or see a 4D object purely in thought, which seems to me should be impossible if our brains existed only in just 3 dimensions.

 

Cool, my computer must exist in hundreds of dimensions then, much more than a human.

 

We are fairly certain that our consciousness originates from inside our brains, but like an extra dimensional object it is impossible to physically see or represent it in 3 dimensions.

 

Bah, we do that all the time. Either a visual projection onto a lower dimension, or via lower dimensional slices if the internal structure is important. Eg, take a picture.

 

If our brains or a portion of our brains does exist in a higher dimension how would we know? Since we are physically bound in 3 dimensions we would only be able to physically see and interact with the 3D portion of it.

 

We could change our shape at will then, as seen in this 3D world, or vanish completely from it. All you would have to do is move in a different dimension; moving a little would change your shape, moving a lot you would exit the 3D portion. For example, if you were to touch a sheet of paper, a part of your 3D self would be on the 2D paper. You could change your shape by putting your various fingers on it, or leave the 2D paper by lifting your hand off.

[vordhosbn]

However, when we can stick electrodes into the brain and evoke that function directly, that's pretty conclusive.

Well, i can stick a Viagra pill in my stomach and get two day hard-on, but that hardly seems to bring the conclusion that sexual activity is stomach-based.

[darkenlighten]

Yea I agree with vordhosbn, the logic you are using is still weak. Though, I'm not arguing your idea. Even though I do think that sometimes the consciousness is something past the physical, but I have no evidence to back it up. And I'm not really too sure about it being in "another dimension".

[michel123456]

The world you are living in has 4 dimensions, not 3. It is not difficult to represent. Look around you. Three dimensions is dead space, the fourth dimension is motion, life. If you want an extra dimension, you have to talk about a 5th dimension at least.

Consciousness: you have to define what it is precisely before asking such questions like where it is. If you don't know what you are talking about, you don't know what you are looking for, and even if you see it in front of your eyes you won't recognize it. It is just like you were looking for a grumblasfvdfgdvdbc. Where can you find a grumblasfvdfgdvdbc? Does a grumblasfvdfgdvdbc exist? Silly questions.

[bascule]

Also I would consider Occams razor here.

 

Yes, certainly there's Occam's razor to consider, but also lack of any actual evidence of the brain performing anything which transcends the scope of classical mechanics

[Baby Astronaut]

In regards to showing a 4D (or higher) on a lower dimension. Can we show any of those on 1D?

 

Yes, certainly there's Occam's razor to consider, but also lack of any actual evidence of the brain performing anything which transcends the scope of classical mechanics

whap2005 asked if that's possible: not exactly a scientific question. It might be possible, just not scientific if can't be measured, observed, tested...

[bascule]

whap2005 asked if that's possible: not exactly a scientific question. It might be possible, just not scientific if can't be measured, observed, tested...

 

Yes, the Hameroff hypothesis regarding a mechanism which shields microtubules from quantum decoherence cannot be outright dismissed. However there's still no evidence the proposed effect is occurring.

 

In regard to consciousness, I'm less concerned about what is possible than what is actual

[Galindo]

I think it has to exist at a higher dimension. Sure when we walk down the street we are conscious of a passerby and cars honking their horns, but are we conscious of the stars in the sky, what that passerby may be thinking, and are we conscious of what other animals are possibly thinking as well.

 

Consciousness is a topic that remains a mystery in today's world because people simply don't know how to observe or record it.

[Mokele]

And do you actually have any evidence of this?

[Galindo]

And do you actually have any evidence of this?

 

No evidence. But tell me how one would go about observing and recording consciousness? So my hypothesis is that their is consciousness in a higher dimension, we just do not know how to observe and record it, let alone experience it.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Galindo

[CharonY]

So it is the pink unicorn all over?

[whap2005]

And do you actually have any evidence of this?

 

Of course he doesn't, and that's really the problem. There are many complex systems in nature that we don't fully understand but for most we at least have a basic understanding or theory on how it works. I'm surprised that there aren't any good scientific theories or models for how consciousness forms.

[michel123456]

There is something else.

Each time scientists provide some new theory (string theory, extra dimensions, a.s.o.) people automatically put all the unknown stuff into it. That make scientists very hesitant to accept anything new. Each time they slightly open the door, all the world's craps come in. Very bad.

 

For example, why is this thread lying under Quantum Theory?

[bascule]

No evidence. But tell me how one would go about observing and recording consciousness? So my hypothesis is that their is consciousness in a higher dimension, we just do not know how to observe and record it, let alone experience it.

 

Where does your hypothesis propose the interface between the body and this higher dimensional mind takes place?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

For example, why is this thread lying under Quantum Theory?

 

This thread really belongs in Speculations...