Does our consciousness exist in a higher dimension?

[whap2005]

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

 

This is really the whole point of my thread. There are 2 possibilities. Either the brain's functions reside completely in the realm of classical mechanics or they don’t. Most of us will probably agree that are brains do things that are hard to explain using classical physics as we understand them. I guess a better question would be, what are the best methods figuring out what is possible in the realm of classical physics when taking into account the physical dimensions and characteristics of our brains. Maybe this can be done mathematically somehow? I am just surprised I haven’t seen any real attempts to try to figure out what the computational capacity of the human brain is, and then compare that to what our brains actually do.

 

This is a bit interesting: http://www.merkle.com/brainLimits.html

 

"It seems reasonable to conclude that the human brain has a raw computational power between 10 to the 13th and 10 to the 16th operations per second." The calculation was done using the number of connections inthe brain, the distance between connections, and then factoring in the total energy the brain uses.

 

So if this is a ball park estimate of our brain's power, do you feel it's accurate? If so, is it enough to explain or cover our abilities?

Edited February 6, 2010 by whap2005

[bascule]

Most of us will probably agree that are brains do things that are hard to explain using classical physics as we understand them.

 

I think most scientists will disagree and contend that the brain's behavior appears to fall within the realm of classical mechanics. There are no unexplained mysteries with the brain that quantum mechanics will shed additional light on, and no known behaviors which require a quantum mechanical component.

 

To the best of our knowledge, brains are classical physical systems.

[williamthegreat]

Agh! I could talk about this subject for hours.

 

My interpretation (and very humble this opinion is) - is that consciousness is more than just a physical and chemical process that goes on in the brain. I guess this interpretation borders on the spiritual side, but I like to think that even such a belief is scientifically sound, even if currently unproven

[bascule]

My interpretation (and very humble this opinion is) - is that consciousness is more than just a physical and chemical process that goes on in the brain [...] I like to think that even such a belief is scientifically sound, even if currently unproven

 

Many things are scientifically possible, however there is no evidence of this.

[shakes]

Agh! I could talk about this subject for hours.

 

My interpretation (and very humble this opinion is) - is that consciousness is more than just a physical and chemical process that goes on in the brain. I guess this interpretation borders on the spiritual side, but I like to think that even such a belief is scientifically sound, even if currently unproven

 

Well I guess it would depend on whether or not a thought could be considered a "thing." If a thought is a "thing," an object, then it is an object apparently existing without mass but seemingly possessed of energy. How much action is derived from thought? A thought can produce other thoughts, so is a thought organic in nature? And is not "consciousness" the sum total of thought? So is consciousness an organism of sorts; a kind of parasite on the biological creature? These are really philosophical questions, absolutely immeasurable and therefore impossible to define using the scientific method.

[williamthegreat]

Well I guess it would depend on whether or not a thought could be considered a "thing." If a thought is a "thing," an object, then it is an object apparently existing without mass but seemingly possessed of energy. How much action is derived from thought? A thought can produce other thoughts, so is a thought organic in nature? And is not "consciousness" the sum total of thought? So is consciousness an organism of sorts; a kind of parasite on the biological creature? These are really philosophical questions, absolutely immeasurable and therefore impossible to define using the scientific method.

 

You articulated much better than I ever could - agree 100%

[bascule]

Well I guess it would depend on whether or not a thought could be considered a "thing." If a thought is a "thing," an object, then it is an object apparently existing without mass but seemingly possessed of energy. How much action is derived from thought? A thought can produce other thoughts, so is a thought organic in nature? And is not "consciousness" the sum total of thought? So is consciousness an organism of sorts; a kind of parasite on the biological creature? These are really philosophical questions, absolutely immeasurable and therefore impossible to define using the scientific method.

 

Sounds like you're saying consciousness is metaphysical. So is a running computer program. However, if you make measurements of the information flow within a computer, you can deduce the nature of the program.

 

Barring some sort of mystical magical quantum door into dualism land, we could conceivably do the same for consciousness by measuring the flow of information in the brain.

 

The metaphysical nature of consciousness doesn't make it immeasurable. It just means it's made out of information, not matter/energy.

[vordhosbn]

Barring some sort of mystical magical quantum door into dualism land, we could conceivably do the same for consciousness by measuring the flow of information in the brain.

 

The question, however, is could we measure it with technology, or is it perceptible only by our counciousness itself...

[Sisyphus]

The question, however, is could we measure it with technology, or is it perceptible only by our counciousness itself...

 

I'd say it's vastly more likely to be measured by technology than by itself.

[Megawizard]

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).

 

How would you accurately represent nothing in any of the dimensions you've mentioned. Everything you're saying breaks down. Unless you think there is no such thing as nothing

 

Be careful you might miss the point.