Zone1 Science Can NOT Explain True Consciousness

[sealybobo]

We are consciousness. Many are not aware and think they should strive to be more conscious through thinking about it. That won’t work.

There was a time we thought we thought with our hearts not our brains. How were we to know right?

 

[Leo123]

Yea
I don’t have faith in things that are improbable

People used to think flying was improbable but the Wright bros had faith.

 

[rightwinger]

People used to think flying was improbable but the Wright bros had faith.

The Wright Brothers had science which they used to figure out manned flight

 

[Leo123]

The Wright Brothers had science which they used to figure out manned flight

They had faith in the science.

 

[Leo123]

There was a time we thought we thought with our hearts not our brains. How were we to know right?

What does that have to do with my post?

 

[scruffy]

So if it doesn't come from God, then where does it come from?

Define terms carefully

"Consciousness" is something much more sophisticated than simple awareness.

Simple awareness, is what they measure in psychophysics experiments. Prick the finger with a pin, and measure how long it takes for the subject to say "ouch".

Between awareness and consciousness, there is also perception. Flash multi color lights in a random order and ask the subject to report the color. "Red" is something more than simple awareness, it attaches "attributes" to an event. There is a flash of light "and" it's red.

The simplest example of consciousness is goal driven navigation. Rat in maze seeks food pellet. The navigation itself is not consciousness, but the reconstruction of the 3-d map is. The organism gets "views" as it turns its head and body, and as it moves in the maze, and from those it reconstructs the navigation space, including information from mistakes.

And there are even more sophisticated feature in higher organisms, like mirror neurons.

Nevertheless, the computational aspects of consciousness are built on top of simple awareness. You are "aware that" you are conscious. And, science is beginning to explain simple awareness. It is an "unfolding", in the mathematical sense - a lifting into a higher dimensional space. It's the same thing you do in engineering, when you have a nasty singularity that you can't do math on - you "lift" the dynamic into the next highest dimension (usually with a transform), in such a way that the singularity becomes smooth, so you can do math on it. A transform changes the basis, so for instance with a Fourier transform the basis becomes frequency instead of time. In awareness, the brain changes the basis to a collection of "windows" instead of "points". You can look at it like expanding a window around the current moment, where the "past" part of it involves memory, and the "future" part of it involves prediction. The brain "joins" the two halves of the time line, at the singularity, which is always physically constrained to live at exactly "now", the current moment. It does this so it can do math "across the singularity", which involves things like Bayesian probabilities, back propagation, and phase coding. In this way, the analog self is given the illusion of "continuity".

The key words in the physics of awareness are: allocentric, and egocentric. They mean, either "you" are the origin of the coordinate system (egocentric), or there is an external coordinate system (allocentric). For instance, if you have a scientist in a room running an experiment where a cat is looking at a dot on a screen, egocentric is the cat's view (distance to screen, number of degrees left or right, or up or down), whereas allocentric is the scientist's view (distance of dot from the center of the screen, distance of cat from screen, etc)

In simple awareness, the cat's view and the scientist's view become one and the same, in the limit as the extent of the window shrinks to zero.

In more complicated configurations like perception, the brain has one of these windows at every point along a time line defined by sensory and motor wiring, and the juxtaposition of all those windows forms a "dust" (actually a "dense cloud"), which becomes the mathematical basis for the calculations being performed for consciousness.

At least three changes of basis are required for consciousness. The first is the egocentric to allocentric conversion. The second is the synthesis of an additional dimension by juxtaposing neighboring windows. The third is the application of what amounts to "wavelet transforms" against those windows.

There is specific architecture in the brain to support all this, and it's highly conserved in evolution, the basic pattern of it hasn't changed since goldfish.

 

[BreezeWood]

They had faith in the science.

they had faith and science ...

- same as columbus who's faith for land across the void came to fruition - faith and science walk hand in hand, till faith without fruition proves illogical, as the case for the desert religions.

 

[scruffy]

Here's an example of lifting, and an example of how it can be applied.

 

[toobfreak]

Science Can NOT Explain True Consciousness​

So if it doesn't come from God, then where does it come from?

A slide rule cannot measure where the mind begins and ends. All qualities which exist in finite measure in the temporal world of man must therefore exist in infinite measure in the Astral domain of God. Therefore, for there to exist the finite consciousness, wisdom and knowledge of man, there must be infinite consciousness, wisdom and knowledge in God because mankind is after all, but a plenary portion of God.

 

[Leo123]

they had faith and science ...

- same as columbus who's faith for land across the void came to fruition - faith and science walk hand in hand, till faith without fruition proves illogical, as the case for the desert religions.

They also had to have faith in the science otherwise they would have failed.

 

[scruffy]

Oh - I forgot to explain - the singularity in brain information processing arises because of the problem of "now".

(If you understand what's being said here, you'll understand the vocabulary in the earlier post too).

Our brains can never know what's happening "exactly now", because of conduction delays. For electrical transmission in neurons it's about 1-10 msec, and even if you consider the biophysical opening and closing of ion channels there are still conduction delays.

So if you take any point on the body, say a fingertip or something, and you want to know (for consciousness purposes) what's happening at that point "exactly now", you have to do three things.

First, you have to lift the point into a "time line" of future and past, in such a way that the timeline covers the singularity (obviously, there will be some information missing in the middle, because of the conduction delays - BUT - there will be a point that "represents" the equivalent of the current moment in the fingertip). Then, you take the two sources of your time line window, which are memory on the "past" side and prediction on the "future" side, and you move them inward as close as you can get them to the singularity at "now". At some point you can't get them any closer because of the conduction delays. Finally, you "do math" to optimize the missing information in the middle, according to the most logical constraints in memory - thereby "joining" the probability surface and making it continuous.

Okay? So this process occurs at "every" point in the body, which are all at different distances from the brain. It takes 10 msec for information to get from your toe to your brain, but it only takes 2 msec from your eye because it's closer. So computationally, the brain has two choices: either align all the times, or operate in such a way that the exact conduction delays are irrelevant. Probably, the answer is, the brain does both.

 

[Leo123]

Oh - I forgot to explain - the singularity in brain information processing arises because of the problem of "now".

(If you understand what's being said here, you'll understand the vocabulary in the earlier post too).

Our brains can never know what's happening "exactly now", because of conduction delays. For electrical transmission in neurons it's about 1-10 msec, and even if you consider the biophysical opening and closing of ion channels there are still conduction delays.

So if you take any point on the body, say a fingertip or something, and you want to know (for consciousness purposes) what's happening at that point "exactly now", you have to do three things.

First, you have to lift the point into a "time line" of future and past, in such a way that the timeline covers the singularity. Then, you take the two sources of your time line window, which are memory on the "past" side and prediction on the "future" side, and you move them inward as close as you can get them to the singularity at "now". At some point you can't get them any closer because of the conduction delays. Finally, you "do math" to optimize the missing information in the middle, according to the most logical constraints in memory - thereby "joining" the probability surface and making it continuous.

Okay? So this process occurs at "every" point in the body, which are all at different distances from the brain. It takes 10 msec for information to get from your toe yo your brain, but it only takes 2 msec from your eye because it's closer. So computationally, the brain has two choices: either align all the times, or operate in such a way that the exact conduction delays are irrelevant. Probably, the answer is, the brain does both.

When one falls down, time seems to slow. Is that a processing delay?

 

[scruffy]

When one falls down, time seems to slow. Is that a processing delay?

No, it's something different. The vestibular sense affects an area in the basal forebrain called "medial septum" that generates the theta rhythm for most of the rest of the brain. The theta rhythm is involved in the "phase coding" of all forms of sensory input, at the point where it enters procedural memory, which also happens to be the point where information is converted into a time-independent basis - and also the area being controlled in "attention". A lot of the brain rhythms are ultimately tied to heartbeat, breathing, etc, and there is also a pathway from the brainstem into the medial septum - so in addition to the vestibular reaction to the fall, you're also getting some somatic input, and I'm not aware that anyone has the complete skinny, but they've gone as far as figuring out that there are effects of phase coding on time perception, and models for how it could work.

 

[braalian]

They had faith in the science.

Science is the building upon facts which are already known to be true

No “faith” required

 

[fncceo]

Origins of the universe

View attachment 766463

World's most useless mall map.

 

[Insaneworld]

Science is the building upon facts which are already known to be true

No “faith” required

There IS some 'faith' involved in science, and even math. Definitely not as strongly as religion, not the same kind, but not all is 'fact' that can be verified.

One simple way is with the trust we place on results from scientists themselves. We all place faith in the integrity of scientists, which are under a lot of pressure to 'publish or perish' a lot of times, they can be influenced and even bought sometimes. There are a couple cases of data manipulation and fabrication with professors, one from Harvard even.

The much more interesting way, in my opinion, is that faith is placed on the logical consistency of basically all axiomatic systems, meaning that we assume a logical contradiction CANNOT be derived from the axioms. We use this logical consistency to rule out possibilities which lead to contradictions, which happens all the time, especially in math. The most important case of this is Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory - Wikipedia, which is taken as the foundation of math, and whose logical consistency cannot be proven, it MUST be taken as an assumption. That ZF's consistency is not provable in ZF is a result of Kurt Godel. Obviously, there is no point using ZF if it isn't logically consistent, but mathematicians use it because it's assumed to be consistent.

 

[Blues Man]

We are consciousness. Many are not aware and think they should strive to be more conscious through thinking about it. That won’t work.

It's actually when you stop thinking about it can you realize what consciousness is.

 

[Blues Man]

People used to think flying was improbable but the Wright bros had faith.

No they had evidence that some shapes reacted differently than others when moving through the air

 

[BreezeWood]

They also had to have faith in the science otherwise they would have failed.

sure, or really not - science is void of faith and is the compilation for a finished indisputable conclusion for its present time frame - faith to fruition through science.

faith is possibly true whether science confirms the belief or not as physiology must have a spiritual content to function whether science will ever confirm what the spiritual content is or not makes no difference.

 

[BreezeWood]

World's most useless mall map.

the true reflection of all that is -

someone needs a new lite bulb ....