Posted on 08/09/2005 5:17:08 PM PDT by beavus
At a physics meeting last October, Nobel laureate David Gross outlined 25 questions in science that he thought physics might help answer. Nestled among queries about black holes and the nature of dark matter and dark energy were questions that wandered beyond the traditional bounds of physics to venture into areas typically associated with the life sciences.
One of the Gross's questions involved human consciousness.
He wondered whether scientists would ever be able to measure the onset consciousness in infants and speculated that consciousness might be similar to what physicists call a "phase transition," an abrupt and sudden large-scale transformation resulting from several microscopic changes. The emergence of superconductivity in certain metals when cooled below a critical temperature is an example of a phase transition.
In a recent email interview, Gross said he figures there are probably many different levels of consciousness, but he believes that language is a crucial factor distinguishing the human variety from that of animals.
Gross isn't the only physicist with ideas about consciousness.
Beyond the mystics
Roger Penrose, a mathematical physicist at Oxford University, believes that if a "theory of everything" is ever developed in physics to explain all the known phenomena in the universe, it should at least partially account for consciousness.
Penrose also believes that quantum mechanics, the rules governing the physical world at the subatomic level, might play an important role in consciousness.
It wasn't that long ago that the study of consciousness was considered to be too abstract, too subjective or too difficult to study scientifically. But in recent years, it has emerged as one of the hottest new fields in biology, similar to string theory in physics or the search for extraterrestrial life in astronomy.
No longer the sole purview of philosophers and mystics, consciousness is now attracting the attention of scientists from across a variety of different fields, each, it seems, with their own theories about what consciousness is and how it arises from the brain.
In many religions, consciousness is closely tied to the ancient notion of the soul, the idea that in each of us, there exists an immaterial essence that survives death and perhaps even predates birth. It was believed that the soul was what allowed us to think and feel, remember and reason.
Our personality, our individuality and our humanity were all believed to originate from the soul.
Nowadays, these things are generally attributed to physical processes in the brain, but exactly how chemical and electrical signals between trillions of brain cells called neurons are transformed into thoughts, emotions and a sense of self is still unknown.
"Almost everyone agrees that there will be very strong correlations between what's in the brain and consciousness," says David Chalmers, a philosophy professor and Director of the Center for Consciousness at the Australian National University. "The question is what kind of explanation that will give you. We want more than correlation, we want explanation -- how and why do brain process give rise to consciousness? That's the big mystery."
Just accept it
Chalmers is best known for distinguishing between the 'easy' problems of consciousness and the 'hard' problem.
The easy problems are those that deal with functions and behaviors associated with consciousness and include questions such as these: How does perception occur? How does the brain bind different kinds of sensory information together to produce the illusion of a seamless experience?
"Those are what I call the easy problems, not because they're trivial, but because they fall within the standard methods of the cognitive sciences," Chalmers says.
The hard problem for Chalmers is that of subjective experience.
"You have a different kind of experience -- a different quality of experience -- when you see red, when you see green, when you hear middle C, when you taste chocolate," Chalmers told LiveScience. "Whenever you're conscious, whenever you have a subjective experience, it feels like something."
According to Chalmers, the subjective nature of consciousness prevents it from being explained in terms of simpler components, a method used to great success in other areas of science. He believes that unlike most of the physical world, which can be broken down into individual atoms, or organisms, which can be understood in terms of cells, consciousness is an irreducible aspect of the universe, like space and time and mass.
"Those things in a way didn't need to evolve," said Chalmers. "They were part of the fundamental furniture of the world all along."
Instead of trying to reduce consciousness to something else, Chalmers believes consciousness should simply be taken for granted, the way that space and time and mass are in physics. According to this view, a theory of consciousness would not explain what consciousness is or how it arose; instead, it would try to explain the relationship between consciousness and everything else in the world.
Not everyone is enthusiastic about this idea, however.
'Not very helpful'
"It's not very helpful," said Susan Greenfield, a professor of pharmacology at Oxford University.
"You can't do very much with it," Greenfield points out. "It's the last resort, because what can you possibly do with that idea? You can't prove it or disprove it, and you can't test it. It doesn't offer an explanation, or any enlightenment, or any answers about why people feel the way they feel."
Greenfield's own theory of consciousness is influenced by her experience working with drugs and mental diseases. Unlike some other scientists -- most notably the late Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, and his colleague David Koch, a professor of computation and neural systems at Caltech -- who believed that different aspects of consciousness like visual awareness are encoded by specific neurons, Greenfield thinks that consciousness involves large groups of nonspecialized neurons scattered throughout the brain.
Important for Greenfield's theory is a distinction between 'consciousness' and 'mind,' terms that she says many of her colleagues use interchangeably, but which she believes are two entirely different concepts.
"You talk about losing your mind or blowing your mind or being out of your mind, but those things don't necessarily entail a loss of consciousness," Greenfield said in a telephone interview. "Similarly, when you lose your consciousness, when you go to sleep at night or when you're anesthetized, you don't really think that you're really going to be losing your mind."
Like the wetness of water
According to Greenfield, the mind is made up of the physical connections between neurons. These connections evolve slowly and are influenced by our past experiences and therefore, everyone's brain is unique.
But whereas the mind is rooted in the physical connections between neurons, Greenfield believes that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, similar to the 'wetness' of water or the 'transparency' of glass, both of which are properties that are the result of -- that is, they emerge from -- the actions of individual molecules.
For Greenfield, a conscious experience occurs when a stimulus -- either external, like a sensation, or internal, like a thought or a memory -- triggers a chain reaction within the brain. Like in an earthquake, each conscious experience has an epicenter, and ripples from that epicenter travels across the brain, recruiting neurons as they go.
Mind and consciousness are connected in Greenfield's theory because the strength of a conscious experience is determined by the mind and the strength of its existing neuronal connections -- connections forged from past experiences.
Part of the mystery and excitement about consciousness is that scientists don't know what form the final answer will take.
"If I said to you I'd solved the hard problem, you wouldn't be able to guess whether it would be a formula, a model, a sensation, or a drug," said Greenfield. "What would I be giving you?"
I know that is what you think. I just don't know why you think it.
Back to Mr. Frog's universe and his well. Let's assume he is out of the well and into the ocean. What has happened to the others? (I think you can understand the question)
They managed to avoid mentioning most of the more interesting theories of conscienousness - Dennett's, Minsky's, etc..
Aaargh. I meant consciousness. Wasn't conscious of what I was doing.
Kant - The Critque of Pure Reason
Human reason, in one sphere of its cognition, is called upon to
consider questions, which it cannot decline, as they are presented
by its own nature, but which it cannot answer, as they transcend every
faculty of the mind.
It falls into this difficulty without any fault of its own. It
begins with principles, which cannot be dispensed with in the field
of experience, and the truth and sufficiency of which are, at the same
time, insured by experience. With these principles it rises, in
obedience to the laws of its own nature, to ever higher and more
remote conditions. But it quickly discovers that, in this way, its
labours must remain ever incomplete, because new questions never cease
to present themselves; and thus it finds itself compelled to have
recourse to principles which transcend the region of experience, while
they are regarded by common sense without distrust. It thus falls into
confusion and contradictions, from which it conjectures the presence
of latent errors, which, however, it is unable to discover, because
the principles it employs, transcending the limits of experience,
cannot be tested by that criterion. The arena of these endless
contests is called Metaphysic.
...We come now to metaphysics, a purely speculative science, which
occupies a completely isolated position and is entirely independent
of the teachings of experience. It deals with mere conceptions--not,
like mathematics, with conceptions applied to intuition--and in it,
reason is the pupil of itself alone.
...This critical science is not opposed to the dogmatic procedure of
reason in pure cognition; for pure cognition must always be
dogmatic, that is, must rest on strict demonstration from sure
principles a priori--but to dogmatism, that is, to the presumption
that it is possible to make any progress with a pure cognition,
derived from (philosophical) conceptions, according to the
principles which reason has long been in the habit of employing--
without first inquiring in what way and by what right reason has
come into the possession of these principles. Dogmatism is thus the
dogmatic procedure of pure reason without previous criticism of its
own powers, and in opposing this procedure, we must not be supposed
to lend any countenance to that loquacious shallowness which arrogates
to itself the name of popularity, nor yet to scepticism, which makes
short work with the whole science of metaphysics.
... The Human Intellect, even in an Unphilosophical State,
is in Possession of Certain Cognitions "a priori".
... But, for the present, we may content ourselves
with having established the fact, that we do possess and exercise a
faculty of pure a priori cognition; and, secondly, with having pointed
out the proper tests of such cognition, namely, universality and
necessity.
----
Even Kant struggled with this question
The presence of a reasoning facility is accepted "a priori"
Stating this, he still cannot state how we came to possess it or
what it is, only that it is present and logical and is useful in understanding
----
Aha! Excellent question. There are two schools of thought about what happens to the others (and onself...). In Sanskrit these are called dvaita and advaita - dualism or non-dualism, or sometimes monism.
The non-dualism schools claims (actually they say this in various ways, and Buddhism is an offshoot of this school) that all souls/living entities are not a *part* of God in the sense of a separate eternal individual, but are part of God the way a drop of water is part of the ocean. Well, that's their analogy, but if you look at water it is still composed of separate molecules. They state that there is no eternal indidivuality, and in the perfected state, free from defect and conditioning, there is no sense of "I" and "you", only a limitless ocean of light.
They generally also state that this world - this universe, and everything within it - is merely illusion, doesn't even exist, and in the liberated state it all disappears.
Actually, there are many holes in this theory; but it has become so widespread that some variation of monism can be seen everywhere, even in Christian churches. The idea that God is not the Supreme Person but some kind of formless energy, without personal characteristics (and naturally the souls created by Him would not be any better) is very widespread.
It all stems from a teacher named Shankaracharya who taught in the 9th century AD (he didn't invent this philosophy, but he articulated it and taught it widely). The reason he did this is a story in itself.
The other school, dualism or dvaita, actually includes the other school as a subset. This understanding (which clearly I adhere to) states that God is an eternal individual (albeit supreme, all-powerful, unlimited in energy, and never subject to the defects the small souls are) and we, the souls/atmas, are also eternally individual. In other words, our consciousness - our ego - our sense of personal existence is never terminated, never dissolved. The fact that we have an ego now - the deepest sense of "I exist" - is evidence of our real, eternal existence. The soul/spiritual self of pure consciousness is the template for the material, physical body and the subtle body of mind and desires.
There are essentially three levels of realization of God and self that can be attained. That is, levels that extend beyond the appreciation that He is the creator of this manifested world, the provider and controller. I can get into them later, they relate to the topic of eternal individuality.
One of the defects of the non-dualist philosophy is there is no explanation of how or why "God" decided to divide Himself up into little pieces and got Himself under illusion to suffer in the world of birth and death. Especially if He isn't an individual in the first place. They have various explanations but none make sense. Whereas the dualist philosophy or understanding very clearly explains why we are here, in our covered, illusioned state.
Another point that probably needs some explanation is that there is another realm of existence beyond the confines of the universe we find ourseleves in, controlled by time and subject to ultimate destruction. That realm, in Sanskrit, is called Paravyoma, para meaning supreme, and vyoma meaning sky. That realm is the template, which this world is but the reflection of. You could call it the Kingdom of God.
That's true, portions of the wiring is incomplete at birth & for many years after. Ability to access the full abilities of our five senses is not related to our consciousness. Take someone born deaf or blind. Whether those inabilities are physical, neurological or a combination of both doesn't matter. People can be fully conscious without use of all five basic senses.
It was often clear that my newborn son was not seeing the same things in a scene that I was.
Course he's not seeing the same things in a scene you are. Another adult will also experience that same scene differently than you. Our hierarchy about what any of us "see" changes from one moment to the next.
Earlier today, I had a conversation with my youngest son about road kill. When he was little he tended to verbalize his observations as he was riding in the car. Dead things on the road took on a new meaning when they were evaluated & more specifically identified. Now that he's older & driving himself, they've retreated into being an unidentified "something" for him too. If you don't automatically try to identify extremely flat road kill, try it sometime. It makes driving a new adventure. lol
Your son is 17 months. I bet both of his parents notice a lot of airplanes while they are driving. Car seat perspective is perfect for spotting them & at your son's age, it's likely he's begun to make them known to the adults in the vehicle.
Similarly it takes a long time before babies begin to grasp simple concepts.
Grasping concepts & making what is grasped known to another is not the same thing as consciousness. Consciousness is the spark behind our striving to do it & we have that spark before we are born...
Within the past year you've learned one or two things you didn't know before, right? Each of the things you learned are building blocks you can draw on to learn more. Are you more conscious this year? Your son is gaining building blocks faster than you are, which is why he'll eventually catch up with you & pass you by in some areas.
It's not true that a newborn baby has a fully developed mind that is only limited by a difficulty in communication.
Cognitive ability, intellectual activity varies quite a bit between individuals. Communication attaches us to our memories, making them available for us to access. What you see growing in your son is his cognitive ability, not his consciousness.
However you define "consciousness", it is a property of the brain. If the entire brain is still developing, so is the consciousness.
Here is where you & I disagree. I do not believe it is a property of the brain. Our brains are the closest we come in this particular material world to perceiving our consciousness, but our brains are not the source.
But still Knowing is everything. Jnana is so very, very difficult. (Bhakti much easier.)
Thank you for the conversation.
Actually, the pivotal point is our desire.
One Upanishad verse states that God is the self-sufficient philosopher [knower of all knowledge, source of all knowledge, and object of all knowledge] Who has been awarding everyone their desires since time immemorial.
So if we really, really want to have union with Him, our desires will indeed be realized. But, if we kind of want to know Him a little, yet stay in the well, well, that's what we'll get. He never forces knowledge of Him or relationship with Him on us. Far from it.
Fortunately for us, there are methods by which we can sharpen and increase that desire.
If knowing God is possible that desire to know must be the longing of one life.
bttt
Rene Descartes is sitting in a bar, doing what he does best--philosophising. he's had a few pints of ale over the course of the evening, and it's now last call. The bartender asks him if he wants another drink. Descartes says, "I think not," and promptly vanishes.
(Note to Gengis - thought you might like the above discussion.)
Exactly. The desire to know God must be core, and a person has to be willing to sacrifice all other goals. Be willing to.
One point is that jnana cannot take one to the ultimate realization of self and God - it can only take one to the unlimited ocean of effulgence. And then, only with great austerity and rigid practice. Precious few actually accomplish the goal, and of those who do, there is often a fall, because the deepest part of the soul/consciousness is the desire to love, and when consciousness of one's own individuality and that of others or of God is erased, there can be no love.
In the dualist school, the obliteration of individual consciousness is often called "spiritual suicide" - that is why it easier to toy with the concept than dedicate one's life to it. In fact, there have been many great realized jnanis who have given up their path of knowledge of the ocean of light to become lovers of the Supreme Person, since they found the goal more fulfilling and exalted - like (in remote antiquity) the four Kumaras, Sukadeva Goswami, Durvasa Muni, and more recently, the great master Prakasananda Saraswati in Benares and all his followers in the 15th century.
And the interesting thing is, that in the dvaita realization of Godhead, the experience of the divine ocean of light is also there. It includes the others, of which I was going to write more. It's like in the number 3, the numbers 2 and 1 are included.
About the elusive quality - because, in the highest understanding, Godhead is indeed a Person - unlimited in qualities - knowing God means a relationship. Any relationship based on love is elusive, in the sense that it is different than a relationship with, say, a non-conscious object that doesn't move.
If we want to have a relationship with a person in the world, there's give and take, back and forth, we need to attract the person to us, not grab them by force. It is said that the goal is not to see God, but become pleasing to Him so He wants to see me.
little jeremiah...........great discussion going on here!
Put me on your ping list!
I have already heard of the frog story before.
ARridgerunner..............
"But Let's change Professor Frog's attitude just a tad so that he is very much aware he lives in a dark well. All he can do is fret about it and wonder how he got there and Just how does he get out?
You take it from there:-)"
Lets see if I can take the story from on:
Now that the frog know his lives in a well and there is a vast unseen world outside, he would be desperate to get out and see that world. (Lets assume the from has a human-like curiosity and thirst for knowledge).
There can be two possibilities...........
#1 The frog lacks the knowlegde of the outside world......
The frog puts up a heroic effort to scramble out of the well. That would be the human equivalent of climbing the Everest.....pure physical effort and mental determination.
#2 The frog has the knowlegde (gyana) of the outside world.......
The frog will wait patiently till the well fills up to the brim during the rainy season......and all he will do is hop out of the well.
It includes the others, of which I was going to write more.
So, the others are there. Do they come with you? Ramana Maharshi said when the true self is realized there are no others. (Atman is one.)
This is a difficult subject.
Unfortunately I will have to get back to this highly interesting discussion later tonight or tomorrow.
Business related and volunteer responsibilites are breathing down my neck as we speak.
#2. So many rain drops falling into the well at one time. He could be waiting on the flood a long time.
"He could be waiting on the flood a long time."
Not if he is in India. In the monsoons in India he might be able to get out in just a day.......and within minutes if he's in Mumbai.
LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.