Sum of consciousness >0

[PhDwannabe]

the brain is a fractal pyramid.

 

it divides into 3 parts (midbrain, cerebellum, and cerebral cortex)

each of which divides into 3 parts (input, output, and processor)

each of which likewise divides into 3 parts and so on and so on.

 

this probably continues right down to neurons.

 

 

 

the cerebellum is concerned with 'how' to do what we do.

the cerebral cortex is concerned with 'what' to do.

the midbrain is concerned with 'why' we do what we do.

 

Ringer already said so, and nobody really acknowledged it, so I'll just add my own comment to the pile: this is not how the nervous system is organized.

[questionposter]

I don't know about that granpa!

 

I think a greater deal (than we are collectively prepared to admit to ourselves) of what we humans do is driven by subconscious instincts and impulses.

 

Why does a problem gambler gamble away his pay cheque and then steal money from his boss to chase his/her losses despite knowing that the long term consequences will be severe?

 

Why do some males give into temptation and commit adultry despite the risk of losing their family and home?

 

This sort of behaviour is clearly not driven by rational logic.

 

I could give you many other examples.

 

 

 

Intelligence is not quantified by determining the number of neurones you have in your brain.

 

If a neurone contains 0.00X% of the total consciousness then logically the number of neurones a person has determines the level of consciousness they have.

 

That is just silly.

 

A person who has had a stroke that affects the left side of their body would therefore have less consciousness than a normal person.

 

Again that's just silly and demonstrably not true.

 

The level of consciousness can be affected by a stroke depending on what part of the brain is damaged.

 

A stroke that affects the motor cortex or the visual cortex is unlikely to have any noticeable effect on a persons consciousness or personality.

 

However a stroke that affects the frontal lobes is extremely likely to have a noticeable effect on a persons consciousness or personality.

 

Ever heard of the brain injury patient Phineas Gage? Google him and find out what happened to him.

 

While not the precise location of 'the self' the frontal lobes are extremely important in its gensis. And any damage to this region of the brain severely degrades and damages 'the self'.

 

The hippocampi in each temporal lobe are heavily involved in laying down long term memory - they are equivalent to the reading/recording head of a computer hard disk. Any damage to these regions also degrades 'the self' since each of us are partly the sum of our memories and experiences.

 

So again, it is the complex interactions of these brain regions that generate 'the self' and consciousness.

 

While it can no doubt be quantified to some extent through memory and cognitive tests and the like, individual neurones alone have nothing to do what ever with that level of consciousness. It is about how well integrated and functional theses critical regions of the brain are.

 

Actually now that I think about it, how your assuming I'm thinking about it might actually be true. A bacterium doesn't have any neurons, or even a brain, so we say it doesn't have so much consciousness. Things like bugs have a brain, but they are pretty small, so we also say bugs don't have so much consciousness. Things that are larger are harder to determine, but with that it isn't necessarily a size issue, but its still a numbers issue, the number of connections between cells. A smaller brain can have more consciousnesses by having more connections per unit of volume. This is why we say people and dolphins and chimps have a lot of consciousnesses. There's probably other ways things can have consciousness besides connections since single celled organisms have consciousness themselves.

[Greg Boyles]

Actually now that I think about it, how your assuming I'm thinking about it might actually be true. A bacterium doesn't have any neurons, or even a brain, so we say it doesn't have so much consciousness. Things like bugs have a brain, but they are pretty small, so we also say bugs don't have so much consciousness. Things that are larger are harder to determine, but with that it isn't necessarily a size issue, but its still a numbers issue, the number of connections between cells. A smaller brain can have more consciousnesses by having more connections per unit of volume. This is why we say people and dolphins and chimps have a lot of consciousnesses. There's probably other ways things can have consciousness besides connections since single celled organisms have consciousness themselves.

 

I agree.

 

But you should realise that if all the neurones were alive and well but not firing off impulses to each other then the level of consciousness would be zero no matter how complex the interconnections were.

 

In exactly the same way that a motorbike does not generate speed and noise unless it is running and in gear.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[questionposter]

I agree.

 

But you should realise that if all the neurones were alive and well but not firing off impulses to each other then the level of consciousness would be zero no matter how complex the interconnections were.

 

In exactly the same way that a motorbike does not generate speed and noise unless it is running and in gear.

 

But as argued before, a brain couldn't have consciousness unless the individual cells had consciousness and worked individually with each other. Similarly, this is how the relationship between atoms and cells is being argued.

 

There's also the matter of bacterium and single cells, because not every type of cell is a neuron, and not every single celled organism has a nucleus, yet they have consciousness.

Edited September 30, 2011 by questionposter

[Greg Boyles]

But as argued before, a brain couldn't have consciousness unless the individual cells had consciousness and worked individually with each other. Similarly, this is how the relationship between atoms and cells is being argued.

 

There's also the matter of bacterium and single cells, because not every type of cell is a neuron, and not every single celled organism has a nucleus, yet they have consciousness.

 

 

Single cells DO NOT have conciousness or self awareness.

 

 

I am confident in saying that this is a universally accepted biological fact.

 

 

And I never said that individual neurones have consciousness - you have completely misunderstood what I was saying.

 

 

I will try again for what it is worth.

 

 

When a neurone does what it does in firing off nerve impulses to neighbouring neurones it contributes to the generation of conciousness within the brain, i.e. the continuous stream of nerve impulses is a small part of consciousness not the neurones themselves.

 

 

 

Back to the motor cycle analogy.....

 

 

 

It is not the piston of the spark plug that is a small part of the speed of the bike. It is the coordinated movement of the piston and the coordinated sparking of the spark plug that are small parts of the speed of the bike.

 

 

 

If the piston does not move or the spark plug does not spark then the motorcycle does not move and generates no speed.

 

 

 

Similarly if the neurones in your brain do not fire impulses then you would be nothing more than an inanimate meat sack.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[Greg Boyles]

Single cells DO NOT have conciousness or self awareness.

 

 

I am confident in saying that this is a universally accepted biological fact.

 

 

And I never said that individual neurones have consciousness - you have completely misunderstood what I was saying.

 

 

I will try again for what it is worth.

 

 

When a neurone does what it does in firing off nerve impulses to neighbouring neurones it contributes to the generation of conciousness within the brain, i.e. the continuous stream of nerve impulses is a small part of consciousness not the neurones themselves.

 

 

 

Back to the motor cycle analogy.....

 

 

 

It is not the piston of the spark plug that is a small part of the speed of the bike. It is the coordinated movement of the piston and the coordinated sparking of the spark plug that are small parts of the speed of the bike.

 

 

 

If the piston does not move or the spark plug does not spark then the motorcycle does not move and generates no speed.

 

 

 

Similarly if the neurones in your brain do not fire impulses, or the propagation of those impulses was disrupted by severe brain injury resulting in a coma, then the conscious and self aware entity that calls itself questionposter would simply no longer exist.

 

If your brain was some how repaired so that impulses could again flow as normal then the conscious and self aware entity that calls itself questionposter would exist.

 

Much like flicking a light switch on and off.

 

And a light switch analogy pretty much matches the reality doesn't it......with fainting, a blow to the head, sleeping or a stroke etc.

 

You might think that this reduces our humanity to insignficance but on the contrary, I think it makes our humanity even more amazing and precious.

 

Think about it.......simple chemistry and physiology can generate a fragile self aware conscious entity that is capable of such incredible scientific acheivments, including being able to question its own existence.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[questionposter]

Single cells DO NOT have conciousness or self awareness.

 

 

I am confident in saying that this is a universally accepted biological fact.

 

 

And I never said that individual neurones have consciousness - you have completely misunderstood what I was saying.

 

 

I will try again for what it is worth.

 

 

When a neurone does what it does in firing off nerve impulses to neighbouring neurones it contributes to the generation of conciousness within the brain, i.e. the continuous stream of nerve impulses is a small part of consciousness not the neurones themselves.

 

 

 

Back to the motor cycle analogy.....

 

 

 

It is not the piston of the spark plug that is a small part of the speed of the bike. It is the coordinated movement of the piston and the coordinated sparking of the spark plug that are small parts of the speed of the bike.

 

 

 

If the piston does not move or the spark plug does not spark then the motorcycle does not move and generates no speed.

 

 

 

Similarly if the neurones in your brain do not fire impulses then you would be nothing more than an inanimate meat sack.

 

The brain could not have consciousness unless individual cells had consciousness no matter how small it may be. This is an accepted fact that is even taught in schools.

Edited October 3, 2011 by questionposter

[PhDwannabe]

The brain could not have consciousness unless individual cells had consciousness no matter how small it may be. This is an accepted fact that is even taught in schools.

No, it, um, isn't.

[Ringer]

No, it, um, isn't.

 

 

I think our statements are seen only by us.

[PhDwannabe]

I think our statements are seen only by us.

I am indeed getting kind of a ghostly feeling.

[Greg Boyles]

The brain could not have consciousness unless individual cells had consciousness no matter how small it may be. This is an accepted fact that is even taught in schools.

 

 

Rubbish questionposter.

 

Either you weren't paying attention in class, you have an intelligence deficit or your teacher(s) are incompetent in science.

 

Here is a challenge for you - you cite one single biology text book that states that single cells are conscious and self aware.

 

You wont find one because it is not accepted science fact, at present at least.

 

Even in the scientific paper below that proposes a shift in the emphasis from whole complex brain source of consciousness to a single neurone source of conscious, please note that the assumption is that it is the electric impulses travelling along the neurones dendritic processes is what makes the neirone conscious.

 

The neurone is not conscious in and of itself without the electrical impulses.

 

http://cogprints.org/3891/1/snt-9html.htm

 

ABSTRACT:

 

 

 

A theory is outlined that shifts the presumed locus of mind/brain interaction from the whole brain level to that of single neurons.� Neuroanatomical and neurophysiological evidence is offered in support of the existence of single neurons that may individually receive dendritic input of sufficient complexity and diversity to account for the full content of conscious experience, and of an arrangement in which the output of multiple such neurons summate to achieve amplification of the individually emitted messages.� An ultramicroscopic extension of the theory is suggested as a way of moving forward on the philosophically difficult aspects of the mind/brain problem.

 

 

 

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION

 

 

 

The purpose of this paper is to suggest a shift in emphasis from the large to the small in the search for a brain correlate for the mind.� By most accounts, the mind is assumed to correlate with the integrated activity of large populations of neurons distributed across multiple cortical and subcortical brain regions (Sperry 1969, Damasio 1999, Edelman and Tononi 2000, John 2001).� Nonlinear dynamic mechanisms are then invoked to provide for the "binding" of the dispersed neuronal activity into a unified stream of consciousness (Hardcastle 1994).� By this view, activity within any single neuron correlates with merely a fragment of the total conscious experience; it is only through the integration of these fragments that a single whole-brain consciousness is assumed to emerge.

 

 

 

A contrasting model is outlined in the present paper that places the mind/brain interface not at the whole brain level but at the level of the single neuron.� Specifically, the model proposes that a single brain at any given moment harbors many separate conscious minds, each one assumed to be associated with the activity of a different individual neuron.� The model proposes, that is, that what is usually regarded as a person�s single conscious experience correlates not with an integrated neuronal network, but individually with single neurons that separately and redundantly encode the entire conscious content.� Consequently, at any given time, a multitude of conscious beings are assumed to be associated with a single person�s brain, all having identical or at least similar experiences.� Axonal outputs from multiple such neurons are then conjectured to summate, providing amplification of the message being emitted by any one of them.� The overall scheme is one in which conscious behavior, while appearing to be the product of a single macroscopic mind, is actually the result of the superposed output of a chorus of minds, each associated with a different individual neuron.

 

 

 

The proposed theory makes the following assumptions:

 

 

 

a) Each neuron in the nervous system is independently conscious, the electrical activity in each neuron's dendritic tree serving as the neural correlate of consciousness (NCC) for that neuron.

 

 

 

b) For most neurons, such as those in the hypothalamus or those in the posterior sensory cortices, or for cortical interneurons, the conscious activity of the neuron would be expected to be simple and would additionally be unable to directly affect the organism's macroscopic behavior.� Such neurons would not, therefore, contribute to what is usually taken as a person�s conscious behavior.

 

�

 

c) For a subpopulation of neurons in the lateral prefrontal cortices, however, the arrangement is such that:� i) the conscious activities of the individual neurons are of a complexity and diversity sufficient to match that usually ascribed to the much of the brain as a whole; and ii) a large number of such neurons having more or less the same conscious activity at any given time summate their outputs to achieve amplification of the message emitted by any one of them.

 

 

 

d) As a result of this arrangement, the conscious content of an organism's macroscopic behavior is seen to derive from the summated action of an ensemble of independently conscious neurons.� Consequently, single neurons in the model serve independently as separate NCC's; there is no combining of the individual consciousnesses into a superordinate whole-brain consciousness.

 

Edited October 3, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[Greg Boyles]

The brain could not have consciousness unless individual cells had consciousness no matter how small it may be. This is an accepted fact that is even taught in schools.

 

Please note that split brain patients, where the corpus collosum has been divided in order to contain severe epileptic siezures to one hemisphere, have shown that the two hemispheres of the brain at least (and quite possibly other components and regions of the brain), are entirely capable of generating seperate and independant conscious and self aware entities.

 

So split brain patients are a literal and physical case of split personality disorder. One personaity controls the left side of the body and the other personality controls the opposite side of the body.

 

As to the minimum amount of brain that is capable of generating a conscious entity, who knows. But clearly the smaller the mount of brain the less sophisticated will be the conscious state.

 

But until science comes to a different consensus, individual cells do not have any consciousness or self awareness.

 

They certainly respond to stimuli and avoid obstacles but that is in the same sense as a robot.

[questionposter]

Well, I asked someone who teaches biology, and they told me it's possible individual cells have consciousness, but they did not say it's been proven either way and continued to say he taught as if they didn't because the data is not of much use right now and it's not proven. I googled some stuff and it seems like there's reasoning and research supporting the consciousness of cells, but it seems there isn't anything that the biology community is safe to call "proof" as it's such a touchy subject and there isn't a concrete definition of consciousness. I don't and know if my question is answerable.

The only thing I can really say at this point is that based on the articles I've read, there could easily be minute consciousness due to the fact that the brain does not work as a single cohesive thing, but rather that data and information is almost "debated" over by all the individual cells and parts of the brain and that even something such as a "though" had been forming in your brain's subconscious for hours and being processed by all the different parts.

And then there's also emotions, and that's sort of complicated how all the cells know all the data from that and how your subconscious acts.

Edited October 18, 2011 by questionposter

[Greg Boyles]

Well, I asked someone who teaches biology, and they told me it's possible individual cells have consciousness, but they did not say it's been proven either way and continued to say he taught as if they didn't because the data is not of much use right now and it's not proven. I googled some stuff and it seems like there's reasoning and research supporting the consciousness of cells, but it seems there isn't anything that the biology community is safe to call "proof" as it's such a touchy subject and there isn't a concrete definition of consciousness. I don't and know if my question is answerable.

The only thing I can really say at this point is that based on the articles I've read, there could easily be minute consciousness due to the fact that the brain does not work as a single cohesive thing, but rather that data and information is almost "debated" over by all the individual cells and parts of the brain and that even something such as a "though" had been forming in your brain's subconscious for hours and being processed by all the different parts.

And then there's also emotions, and that's sort of complicated how all the cells know all the data from that and how your subconscious acts.

Let's examine this idea logically.

 

 

 

Let's assume that individual neurones posses 0.0000000X of the total consciousness of a single working brain.

 

 

 

That is all neurones regardless of where they occur in the brain as a nuerone is not aware of what structures or circuits it is part of.

 

 

 

So then the entire brain and all its neurones contribute to consciousness.

 

 

 

When you faint or fall asleep, the neurones in frontal lobes and other key parts of the brain cease firing off impuleses or at least greatly reduce the number of impulese they fire off.

 

But there are plenty of neurones still functionaing normally, e.g. neurones in your visual cortex or auditar regions etc that must be involved in dreams.

 

Logically, if neruones conain a proportion of he total consciousness, there would be a reduction in consciousness as a proportion of neurones cease functioning rather than a total loss of consciousness.

 

 

But a total loss of consciousness is what is oberved.

 

 

This therefore suggestes that consciousness results from information processing in a waking state. And paricularly that key parts of the brain, pricipally the frontal lobes, are responsible for generating it.

[questionposter]

Let's examine this idea logically.

 

 

 

Let's assume that individual neurones posses 0.0000000X of the total consciousness of a single working brain.

 

 

 

That is all neurones regardless of where they occur in the brain as a nuerone is not aware of what structures or circuits it is part of.

 

 

 

So then the entire brain and all its neurones contribute to consciousness.

 

 

 

When you faint or fall asleep, the neurones in frontal lobes and other key parts of the brain cease firing off impuleses or at least greatly reduce the number of impulese they fire off.

 

But there are plenty of neurones still functionaing normally, e.g. neurones in your visual cortex or auditar regions etc that must be involved in dreams.

 

Logically, if neruones conain a proportion of he total consciousness, there would be a reduction in consciousness as a proportion of neurones cease functioning rather than a total loss of consciousness.

 

 

But a total loss of consciousness is what is oberved.

 

 

This therefore suggestes that consciousness results from information processing in a waking state. And paricularly that key parts of the brain, pricipally the frontal lobes, are responsible for generating it.

 

The only way there would be a loss of consciousness in this situation is if there were a loss of cells, your assumptions makes no sense. Your individual cells can have consciousness regardless of whether or not your awake, just like I don't lose my own total consciousness just because I fall asleep. How do individual cells even sleep?

 

Also, don't atoms process whether or not they are perceived or whether or not they are reacting? There's random atoms reacting in chemicals right now and I don't know at all what's going on with them, yet there's still all of this happening. Does reality disappear when I go to sleep? Well, doesn't seem like it, and that's because I'm not the only consciousness to occupy the universe. And then when you perceive atoms, they somehow know whether or not your looking at them.

Edited October 19, 2011 by questionposter

[Greg Boyles]

The only way there would be a loss of consciousness in this situation is if there were a loss of cells, your assumptions makes no sense. Your individual cells can have consciousness regardless of whether or not your awake, just like I don't lose my own total consciousness just because I fall asleep. How do individual cells even sleep?

 

Also, don't atoms process whether or not they are perceived or whether or not they are reacting? There's random atoms reacting in chemicals right now and I don't know at all what's going on with them, yet there's still all of this happening. Does reality disappear when I go to sleep? Well, doesn't seem like it, and that's because I'm not the only consciousness to occupy the universe. And then when you perceive atoms, they somehow know whether or not your looking at them.

 

 

If you don't believe that you loose consciousness when you fall asleep then clearly you are not using the accepted definition of consciousness.

 

 

Consciousness is the ability to respond to the outside world and others. Clearly you are not capable of responding to anything when you are asleep, short of violent jolt or loud noise, so therefore you are not conscious.

 

 

 

I might add that the auditory system does not become inactive when you sleep but rather responds reflexively to noises, hence you can be woken by a loud noise.

 

 

When you turn the power off on your tv it remains where it is, but the image that is normally displayed on the screen certainly does cease to 'be'.

 

Consciousness is not a physical reality than can be touched like the tv - it is more like the image on the tv screen that only exists while the power is on.

[PhDwannabe]

Consciousness is the ability to respond to the outside world and others.

 

Clearly you are not using the accepted definition of consciousness.

[Mystery111]

Ok.... back in my youth (I'm still young but I feel old enough) I studied the fringe theory topics of consciousness and explored many idea's.

 

The sum of consciousness can be achieved if one is willing to take in the idea that the location of consciousness can never be pin-pointed to any where in the human mind. It seems to be an emergent property of a collection of particles, atoms, cells and molecules (the human brain consists on average 10^30 particles [1]) all working in a coherent fashion as to send information into the ''holograph'' of the three-dimensional phenomenon of perception.

 

The reason why it is a phenomenon, is because scientists (physicists included) cannot provide a reasonable explanation as to how the brain takes a two-dimensional image from a photon hitting the retina and reconfigure it into the three-dimensional phenomenon of visual perception. The world we see, is not really the world at large. No human on planet earth has ever seen the ''real world''. Our sight is really a hologram of perception which is generated by the particles in our brain, working in the harmony of coherence... which is a quantum mechanical property itself.

 

So all these particle are consciousness, but there is no location in the human body which we can pin-point and say ''this is the origin of consciousness.''

 

 

(1) - A Brief History of Time, Steven Hawking

 

 

Consciousness is not a physical reality than can be touched like the tv - it is more like the image on the tv screen that only exists while the power is on.

 

I don't know what else you said, but I saw this comment and needed to say something. I try not to make theories on consciousness any more, I find theories outside this realm much more pleasing nowadays.

 

Consciousness is certainly not a physical reality. However touching a tv is not a physical reality either. The reality you sense is still a by-product of electrical signals. Albeit to say, they hold classically enough information to state you are a valid observer of this property of matter which you may come to touch, but it is still a ''recreation of it's corporeal physicality'' inside the brain (which again, manifests as a holographic representation of the world outside). I agree though that

 

''it is more like the image on the tv screen that only exists while the power is on.''

 

The power in the sense I hope you mean it is that the energy exists to keep the brain functioning as we percieve it, and the image is what it produces.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Mystery111

[questionposter]

Ok.... back in my youth (I'm still young but I feel old enough) I studied the fringe theory topics of consciousness and explored many idea's.

 

The sum of consciousness can be achieved if one is willing to take in the idea that the location of consciousness can never be pin-pointed to any where in the human mind. It seems to be an emergent property of a collection of particles, atoms, cells and molecules (the human brain consists on average 10^30 particles [1]) all working in a coherent fashion as to send information into the ''holograph'' of the three-dimensional phenomenon of perception.

 

The reason why it is a phenomenon, is because scientists (physicists included) cannot provide a reasonable explanation as to how the brain takes a two-dimensional image from a photon hitting the retina and reconfigure it into the three-dimensional phenomenon of visual perception. The world we see, is not really the world at large. No human on planet earth has ever seen the ''real world''. Our sight is really a hologram of perception which is generated by the particles in our brain, working in the harmony of coherence... which is a quantum mechanical property itself.

 

So all these particle are consciousness, but there is no location in the human body which we can pin-point and say ''this is the origin of consciousness.''

 

 

(1) - A Brief History of Time, Steven Hawking

 

 

 

I don't know what else you said, but I saw this comment and needed to say something. I try not to make theories on consciousness any more, I find theories outside this realm much more pleasing nowadays.

 

Consciousness is certainly not a physical reality. However touching a tv is not a physical reality either. The reality you sense is still a by-product of electrical signals. Albeit to say, they hold classically enough information to state you are a valid observer of this property of matter which you may come to touch, but it is still a ''recreation of it's corporeal physicality'' inside the brain (which again, manifests as a holographic representation of the world outside). I agree though that

 

''it is more like the image on the tv screen that only exists while the power is on.''

 

The power in the sense I hope you mean it is that the energy exists to keep the brain functioning as we percieve it, and the image is what it produces.

 

So consciousness is not a physical thing, I never said it was, I said it was a phenomena at least, and I can't even say for sure it's that. Honestly I didn't even know individual cells had the possibility of being conscious in the eyes of the scientific community before a few years ago, but a lot of this consciousness thing seems almost like fractals of quantum mechanical concepts. Atoms knowing you look at them? Wtf? Not being able to pinpoint a location of consciousness? Wtf that's like the uncertainty principal. Waves of information existing yet not being physical entities? That's another "wtf?".

 

Oh, and when your asleep, what about when your dreaming? Because many times I found myself making free-will decisions when I dream and I somehow even managed to wake myself up because I remembered that in reality I forgot to turn my alarm on.

Edited October 19, 2011 by questionposter

[Greg Boyles]

Clearly you are not using the accepted definition of consciousness.

 

 

Funny you should mention that because the doco also detailed how such a person is still capable of responding to instructions, e.g. imagine playing a game of tennis in which case the medical staff can pick see the activation of parts of the motor cortex in an MRI scanner.

 

 

But obviously this would not happen to a person who is asleep.

 

 

So the definition of consciousness stands not withstanding those who suffer from ocked in syndrome.

 

However touching a tv is not a physical reality either. The reality you sense is still a by-product of electrical signals. Albeit to say, they hold classically enough information to state you are a valid observer of this property of matter which you may come to touch, but it is still a ''recreation of it's corporeal physicality'' inside the brain (which again, manifests as a holographic representation of the world outside). I agree though that

 

Let's think of a way of measuring the reality of a tv set in a way more impartial than touching it then.

 

Hitting it with sick will make a noise and damage the tv set.

 

Firing some radio waves from a radar will produce a reflection.

 

If a human or other animal walks into it then the tv set will hal their progress.

 

A tv set is 'real' however you want to measure it.

 

However the image on the screen of a tv set cannot be detected by any of these means, other than us 'seeing' it and our brain processing the image.

 

Atoms knowing you look at them? Wtf?

The act of 'observation' does not only involve a human observer. I can also involve some other particle or photon interacting with a particle whose state is uncertain up until the point of interaction. That is generally how humans observe the sub atomic world anyway, but particle interactions happen with or without the presence of humans.

 

Not being able to pinpoint a location of consciousness? Wtf that's like the uncertainty principal. Waves of information existing yet not being physical entities? That's another "wtf?".

 

Not really! All it means is that consciousness is no generated by a single specific region of the brain but rather by the interactions between a number of key areas of the brain.

 

With the tv analogy.....which part of the tv generates the image? Answer.......basically all of the electronic components! Remove any one of those electronic components and the image on the screen will cease to exist.

 

 

Oh, and when your asleep, what about when your dreaming? Because many times I found myself making free-will decisions when I dream and I somehow even managed to wake myself up because I remembered that in reality I forgot to turn my alarm on.

Your are not conscious when you dream. You merely remember, or not, dreams when you wake up. That does not mean you were consciously experiencing the dream. It means that, like the auditory system, other parts of the brain remain active while you sleep thus allowing images etc to be formed and sometimes laid down in short term memory.

[questionposter]

 

 

Your are not conscious when you dream. You merely remember, or not, dreams when you wake up. That does not mean you were consciously experiencing the dream. It means that, like the auditory system, other parts of the brain remain active while you sleep thus allowing images etc to be formed and sometimes laid down in short term memory.

 

That doesn't add up, because I can sense my own existence within a dream and at times make free-will decisions using the same thought processes as though I were conscious.

 

I think your suggesting that consciousness is the process of data itself being processed, and therefore when you go to sleep, you are not conscious because some parts of your brain that generate consciousness are not processing information, but either that 's wrong or consciousness is something else.

[Greg Boyles]

That doesn't add up, because I can sense my own existence within a dream and at times make free-will decisions using the same thought processes as though I were conscious.

 

I think your suggesting that consciousness is the process of data itself being processed, and therefore when you go to sleep, you are not conscious because some parts of your brain that generate consciousness are not processing information, but either that 's wrong or consciousness is something else.

 

You can sense your own existence while you are remebering the dream in a waking state. You are simply confused about this questionposter.

 

If you can truly sense your own existence while dreaming then logically you would be able to direct your dream and choose where you want go in it......as you can do in the real world in a waking state.

 

I challenge you to direct your next dream by choosing to dream about a specific place or thing before you go to sleep.

[questionposter]

You can sense your own existence while you are remebering the dream in a waking state. You are simply confused about this questionposter.

 

If you can truly sense your own existence while dreaming then logically you would be able to direct your dream and choose where you want go in it......as you can do in the real world in a waking state.

 

I challenge you to direct your next dream by choosing to dream about a specific place or thing before you go to sleep.

 

Well, while I"m in my dream I can choose where it goes sometimes if I focus hard, but I don't know about planning it before I sleep, because when you begin the sleeping process and also during it, there's several hormones that are released, including one that's hallucinogenic and causes dreaming in the first place. In fact, I think there's even an illegal version of that chemical that causes dreaming that you can take while your awake.

But definitely when I'm in my dream there's the potential to chose where it goes, I've done it several times before. I mean there's always some random things that pop up or there's always some random paths, but I can chose the general direction they take with all those random things happening and once or twice I even somehow forced myself to wake up, not because the dream ended, but because I remembered that I forgot to turn my alarm on in reality.

Edited October 20, 2011 by questionposter

[Greg Boyles]

Well, while I"m in my dream I can choose where it goes sometimes if I focus hard, but I don't know about before I sleep, because when you begin the sleeping process and also during it, there's several hormones that are released, in including one that hallucinogenic and causes dreaming in the first place. In fact, I think there's even an illegal version of that chemical that causes dreaming that you can take while your awake.

 

 

I put it to you that your perceived ability to direct a dream while dreaming is an illusion that you have created while remembering your dreams later in a waking state.

 

Your notion sounds to much like a hollywood fantasy, along the lines of 'A Nightmare on Elm Street', to be remotely credible to me.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[questionposter]

I put it to you that your perceived ability to direct a dream while dreaming is an illusion that you have created while remembering your dreams later in a waking state.

 

Your notion sounds to much like a hollywood fantasy, along the lines of 'A Nightmare on Elm Street', to be remotely credible to me.

 

But but it's not that I'm remembering them when I wake up, it's that I conscious of what I'm thinking while I'm dreaming, that's why I can remember my thoughts during the dream. If it was just a "waking up" thing, then I wouldn't have any thoughts during the dream. So either I can remain conscious while dreaming because dreams are just an hallucinogenic compund effecting the visual perception centers of your brain along with one or two other things that make it harder to move and focus and nothing more, or the government is planting memories in me.

 

You said you wanted me to see if I could control my actions in a dream, and I said yes which would have defeated some of your previous arguments, and now your saying I"m wrong without even shred of evidence to support I'm wrong, and yet you have the audacity to say I'm making up a hollywood fantasy?

 

Besides, whether or not individual cells have consciousness can't be proven or disproved right now, which was the original discussion, and science doesn't have a concrete definition of consciousness. I will tend to lean towards that consciousness isn't what your describing because the way you describe consciousness can't be substituted into every scenario, and you can lean towards whichever side you want, this discussion is meaningless now.

Edited October 20, 2011 by questionposter