User Tag List

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 61 to 67 of 67

Thread: Consciousness is???

  1. #61
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 79.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    24,009
    Thanks
    8,434
    Thanked: 23,073
    Rep Power
    21474866
    I have two further observations, and they are related.

    First, the brain wouldn't work at all without the noise. (Read: "stochastic variability").

    Second, quantum phenomena are the one and only source of truly random numbers in this universe. There is no computational algorithm that can create a random number. There is no computer that can generate a random number. The only place true randomness happens, is in quantumland.

  2. #62
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 79.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    24,009
    Thanks
    8,434
    Thanked: 23,073
    Rep Power
    21474866
    Hm. A little too far out there for some?

    Good morning, this is your Sunday morning lesson on evolution. Let me show you how this plane lands.

    Taking a very Broad View, we can look at all the different kinds of nervous systems in all the different kinds of organisms on Earth.

    To start with, at the most primitive level, in organisms like the Hydra, we see what basically amounts to chemical control, over things like the movements of cilia. For example, a hydra will change direction upon contact, and it will also hover over food. Both of these "behavior" have nothing to do with a nervous system, since there is none. They are chemical in nature.

    So moving forward, we have the lowly earthworm, the flatworm Planaria - these are the first creatures with "our" basic body plan - bilaterally symmetric, with nerve chords running the length of the organism - segmented (under genetic control), and with a brain on top ("cephalized"). This same basic body plan is there after maintain in all animals.

    But there is something very important that happened between the Hydra and the flatworm. Namely, the internal development of the synaptic Junction. Neurotransmitters, housed in vesicles, released by vesicular fusion into the synaptic membrane, controlled by calcium ions, which enter the synapse along with the action potential. You had to have one set of working nerves before you could build on that...

    So then, in relation to the bilateral symmetry, amphioxus is one of the first organisms with adecussating interneuron (one that crosses the midline), it mediates a coiling reflex that allows the organism to avoid threats from the opposite side. This type of connection eventually gives rise to the corpus callosum in highly cephalized animals like humans.

    then, in addition to cataloging the variety of reflexes related to the body pattern, one can catalog environmental and social behaviors. For example, feeding. For another example, avoidance reflexes and self-protection. For another example, aggressive social behavior.

    Fruit flies have plenty of goal-directed behavior, and they also have social behavior. The drosophila brain has been well cataloged, not perfectly map like the flatworm but very well-studied anatomically and physiologically.

    The question is, at what level does something become conscious?

    My claim is that dogs are unquestionably conscious. They display empathic Behavior, therefore they are conscious. That is my claim, and some would dispute that, but I think it would be very hard to disprove. And somewhat easier to prove, by "overwhelming preponderance of evidence".

    So what's in a dog brain, that, say, frogs don't have? And then for that matter, what's in a human brain, that dogs don't have?

    The answer to that last one, is "not much".

    We just have more neurons, that's all. The one big difference is that our frontal lobes are very highly developed. It seems to be more a difference in precision, rather than any overwhelming change in anatomy or physiology.

    And, interesting ly enough, one of the hot topics of research right now is spiritual Behavior. Humans have it, and elephants have it. Elephants actually go through a mourning and burial ritual for their dead. There are other animals to do similar things, but the behavior is not as highly developed, as ours or that of the elephant.

    It's so far it does appear that spiritual behavior requires specific circuits in the frontal cortex. Yes of course, it will be a very long time before we figure anything out in this regard. First we have to understand what Consciousness is. And before that we have to understand what awareness is.

  3. #63
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 79.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    24,009
    Thanks
    8,434
    Thanked: 23,073
    Rep Power
    21474866
    One of the lessons we learn from studying comparative physiology, is that behavior precedes experience. And that would be true in the spiritual too, probably. Spiritual Behavior precedes spiritual experience, if it follows the same pattern as everything else in nerve land. Which presents quite an interesting problem for anyone trying to study it.

  4. #64
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Overall activity: 4.0%

    CWF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    532
    Thanks
    135
    Thanked: 361
    Rep Power
    3571423
    Behavior preceding experience is probably true overall due to the fact that actions have consequences. As to spiritual it is recorded in (shudder, shudder) the Bible that God gives His Spirit to those who obey Him. (Since this is the Science Forum I will placate those inclined to embrace only secular versions of science by not naming chapter and verse, but only the Book, which is Acts, so as not to offend the oft offended.)

    A notable example of those who hold science in the secular version as that which is singularly accurate, is the intellectual tight rope that they are forced to walk in order to morph the evolution garbage into a theory that is palatable to the religionists. Evolution accepts Intelligent Design as a cause, possibly, that is, because science now has left no alternative to hang a hat on, and make it believable.

  5. #65
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 79.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    24,009
    Thanks
    8,434
    Thanked: 23,073
    Rep Power
    21474866
    Quote Originally Posted by CWF View Post
    Behavior preceding experience is probably true overall due to the fact that actions have consequences. As to spiritual it is recorded in (shudder, shudder) the Bible that God gives His Spirit to those who obey Him. (Since this is the Science Forum I will placate those inclined to embrace only secular versions of science by not naming chapter and verse, but only the Book, which is Acts, so as not to offend the oft offended.)
    Well, that may end up being quite true, even in an almost literal way. We just don't know yet. Assertions are not good enough in science, we require repeatable observation and independent verification.

    However the computational manifold in the human brain does appear to be a Calabi-Yau variant, although there is as yet no "scientific" evidence for that.

    A notable example of those who hold science in the secular version as that which is singularly accurate, is the intellectual tight rope that they are forced to walk in order to morph the evolution garbage into a theory that is palatable to the religionists. Evolution accepts Intelligent Design as a cause, possibly, that is, because science now has left no alternative to hang a hat on, and make it believable.
    Intelligent design has nothing to do with evolution.

    Those are two different, entirely different, concepts.

    How many times do you have to be told this before you will understand?

    Evolution is a MECHANISM, it says nothing whatsoever about Origins.

    One way or the other.

    Origins are OUT OF SCOPE for the theory of evolution.

    Do you understand?

    I've pointed this out a hundred times already.

    The only thing I said about the Bible, is there's nothing in it that contradicts Darwin.

  6. #66
    Alumni Member V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialCreated Blog entryVeteranRecommendation Second Class
    Overall activity: 70.0%

    Northern Rivers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Northern Rivers AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    21,258
    Thanks
    18,182
    Thanked: 17,108
    Rep Power
    21474862
    We are all holograms. Quantum quanta. Vibrations. That's where we "go" when we go.
    If you don't practice...you'll sound like it. And, if you don't tune, your life will sound like it, too. Listen to the intervals. That's where it all hides from you.....

  7. #67
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Overall activity: 4.0%

    CWF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    532
    Thanks
    135
    Thanked: 361
    Rep Power
    3571423
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsqtr View Post
    Well, that may end up being quite true, even in an almost literal way. We just don't know yet. Assertions are not good enough in science, we require repeatable observation and independent verification.

    However the computational manifold in the human brain does appear to be a Calabi-Yau variant, although there is as yet no "scientific" evidence for that.



    Intelligent design has nothing to do with evolution.

    Those are two different, entirely different, concepts.

    How many times do you have to be told this before you will understand?

    Evolution is a MECHANISM, it says nothing whatsoever about Origins.

    One way or the other.

    Origins are OUT OF SCOPE for the theory of evolution.

    Do you understand?

    I've pointed this out a hundred times already.

    The only thing I said about the Bible, is there's nothing in it that contradicts Darwin.
    " Assertions are not good enough in science, we require repeatable observation and independent verification" ??? Really?? Then your next "however" sentence is purposed to excuse you for making the assertion that the brain has a computational manifold similar to the Calabi-Yau fantasy that nobody has ever seen.

    If my calabi-yau manifolded memory would allow me, I would respectfully ask you if your own manifold would allow you to recall that Darwin's book was titled 'On the Origin of Species'? And history will also serve to remind that Darwin and Wallace were both considered the fathers of evolution, and that Darwin was following what his own grandpop was surmising before him? And that the roots of the evolution stuff goes back to antiquity?

    Seems that there are calabi-yau's all over the damned place, right?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •