> Consciousness is essentially a closed loop. 80% of all conscious > activity arises from within the brain, only 20% is from external > sensory input.
Well, that is interesting. Wasn't sure that any "arised" form the sensory input *outside* of the brain?! Great trick that term- "arised"! - kind of like a magician pulling a rabbit out of the hat, or like Jesus pulling Lazerus out of the grave. We'll have to watch that left hand when the right is trying to distract us! Physically, sight originates with a kind of ballistic interaction with the eye. Energy is transferred from the environment and into the brain, the impulse or signal presumably being somewhat lost in thermal noise eventually but not before affecting persistent structure (storage at least till I am senile ;) ), where it can be stored as potential energy in chemical bonds and where its information content can be preserved as a message. But you are saying that a percentage of conscious activity arises directly from from within the brain. So I guess I have two questions: 1) Are you implying that there is a physical model of the brain that is sufficiently detailed to track the energy that presumably arrives in the brain ultimately from food and distinguish its amount from that which arrives through the sensory apparatus? And is the ratio you described 80/20 is based on that? Meaning is it a ratio of the energies from these two sources? I would have thought that it was much lower for the signal. I am not talking about the nuclear energy in the food which is obviously much higher but just the chemical energy of the valence relationships. I think the signals coming in provide very little of the energy. Much less than 20% I have not done the math (but based on your post I will) of the ratio of energy of the chemical bonds that are destroyed by the respiration oxidation reduction reactions in my brain compared to the energy of the light incident on my eyes and the sound energy deposited on my ears and the energy associated with tactical impulses etc. but I will bet dollars to donuts that food provides much much more than 80% and most of the "conscious activity" if you mean the electro chemical activity of my brain and not consciousness directly, is received from food and not from the senses. Now I will grant that that small part that comes in from the senses is critical. You can see it in a typical transponder design. Once the signal to noise ratio is established at the low noise amplifier at the antenna the signal can be manipulated and processed all over the place using amplifiers the energy of which has nothing to do with the signal. Or are you saying 2) that 80% of the information content comes from somewhere other than the senses? Well, then we get into a detailed discussion of Claude Shannon's work and again I don't see where you get the ratio. You would need to define all possible messages and then track the equations he came up with to show how the various signals result in the discrimination between the possibilities and here I think that you might find that the signals coming in are providing most of the information - much more than 20%- and that the food is providing only the amplifying energy. I note that there are others sources also. One can stick an electrode into a brain and transfer energy directly. Also one can - well - really shake a head! Make it "see stars"! lol. :) > I see no reason at all to assume that anything gives rise to > consciousness beyond electricity and chemistry. Now you have used a term "gives rise" and you have used the term "arise" so you have done it twice! ;) and you have said that you see "no reason at all to assume that anything" other that "chemistry and electricity" does this. Lets look in detail at what that means. First of all, lets look at what "chemistry and electricity" means. I will take this ultimately to be reducible to meaning "all of current physical theory" so I assume that you mean that if I take all of the current physical theory and set up the interaction of particles, the structure, etc of a brain that that will "cause" consciousness. Now I have no problem with the belief that in fact that will happen - that consciousness will occur if you arrange the matter that way - and will cease if you de-arrange it- but here is the problem I have when you say "no reason at all to assume that anything....beyond...electricity and chemistry...." etc The problem is that the sum total of all electrical and chemical law - even if extended to all physical law - does not in fact predict consciousness. In fact there is no physical property of the assembled and functional brain that in physics or chemistry would cause one to say "and then it becomes conscious" or "and then it sees". Physically, it remains a natural objective structure and there is no existential implication. There is no "seeing" that results from the physical theory, there is just dynamic interaction of the particles, correctly as you have pointed out I think due to electrical forces between atoms and in particular their valence electrons, which is what non-nuclear chemistry is. So what the physical theory predicts is just a slightly different arrangement of the particles - not consciousness - on principle. Physics does not predict consciousness. Therefore I conclude that there is some other principle "beyond the electricity and chemistry" that is surely required. Else we can, if you want, redefine what "electricity and chemistry" are (take it beyond Guass' laws or beyond QED). But we must do something as there is nothing in those theories that predicts consciousness at all! I have studied the laws of Electricity and Magnetism and the associated laws of dynamics in classical and modern theory as closely as I can and really must object that they would allow one to predict that any structure would become conscious. That is simply not a result of the theory. The theory does not predict that and it is a scientific misrepresentation to say it does. Can you show some idea or hypothesis on how these laws actually predict what you are claiming that they predict? Not a specific structural hypothesis but how any law that ultimately just deals with the change in "location" or in the modern sense in "the probability of appearing of a particle" because there the "appearing" can be inside of an instrument and does not refer to consciousness but rather to energy exchange, can ON PRINCIPLE ever hope to realize such a fantastic claim as to predict that consciousness will occur? Physical laws just show how things move! They are only intelligible existentially when experiences for which they predict the object content are in fact experienced. So, for example, if I take an electromagnetic wave at Ku band frequency and shine it in your eye the physics and chemistry will predict that as I slowly raise its frequency that it will eventually pass through the various frequency bands till it comes to the optical range and begins to hit the resonant frequency of the forced harmonic oscillation of the atoms in your eye (speaking classically) and that oscillation will be physically translated into electric current and electro-chemical signals that will travel out into the brain is some pattern and then describe the resulting chemical and electrical "endgram" in the brain. That's it. Nothing more. No matter what happens they predict only that these particles will have a certain motion and result in a certain structure and result in a certain motion of that structure. Only when I append the additional phrase: "And then you will see red light" does the prediction contain a reference to consciousness and that statement "And then you will see red light" is not a physics statement. It is not chemical and it is not electrical statement and it is no-where to be found in any of the physical laws (Guass's, Newton's, QED) that I know of. If fact the problem is even deeper. Science itself cannot be conducted based on physical theory alone. Let me explain what I mean. Science in the post Aristetilian sense is dependent on observation and comparison of that observation with prediction. The physical theory can describe for example that an electric current will occur in a wire and that the arm on a current meter will move and that, if illuminated by an source of electromagnetic radiation of the right frequency will reflect that light and that the light will move into your eye if you point it at it and etc into the neurology etc but it will never form the phrase that goes "and then you will see the needle move". So the very predictions of science on which experiment can be made are inherently non- physical. Science is a study only of nature and nature itself is only part of experience. To put it simply as I can all of physical principle can only predict the "location" (using the term loosely in a quantum theoretical sense) of matter. But there is not a shred of evidence in electricity and magnetism, not a hint, in all of physics, that conscious would ever result from any physical structure. Consciousness is not a consequence of the current physical theories, irregardless of what initial conditions are set up or what version one uses (classical, modern etc) . In fact, with respect to neurology, it just results in a prediction about the structures that will occur if for example light is shined into the eye. It can tell you in detail what will happen to the arrangement of molecules but makes no prediction that then, in fact, consciousness will occur. If fact physical theory alone is not capable of even predicting the results of its experiments! if I think very carefully about it. Some other principle like "What you see is the light" or something not in physical law must be used! I challenge you to show me wrong on that and show me where or how it does. I just do not see it. Now you may say I am making a mockery of science and the scientists do daily predict the results of their experience. In a sense you would be right but it doesn't help. Let's look at that. Even if you include predictions about the fact that "the various meters and LEDs that scientists see will in fact be seen" in the term "physics" or "science" by connecting it to nature - which is reasonable because it is in fact the experimental aspect of physics, and it is correct to claim that it is a "natural science" then there is still a problem. Basically, the theory would then consist of two parts - one is the part that contains the laws of motion of the particles, the electricity, the chemistry, the neurology etc That is that part that we call "chemistry or electricity" etc and it would then need another part that associates this with some experience. That latter part would not be chemical nor electrical. So while you could get away with calling it science by expanding the term beyond the so- call laws of physics to something that is a reference to consciousness (like "and then you will see red") you could not reduce that part of the science to electricity or chemistry. So the claim you are making would still be false. Science would now allow you to predict that if I attach a Van deGraft accelerator to a particle detector, that *you will see* this LED start counting upward but you will then not be able to reduce science to electricity and chemistry! Or if you prefer, a scientist could predict that if he stimulated the right part of your brain that "you would then see red" but that last phrase is devoid of any physcial read - electro-chemical - content. It goes beyond it and is in fact a phenomenological description. So you would have restored physics from my making a mockery of it only be extending it to phenomenology and the reduction you attempted would again fail. Either consciousness is not physical or another physical theory is needed, one that is not physical or in the end even natural. But the very terms physical and natural have been deliberately set up as distinguish from the terms metaphysical and supernatural in western thought at least, and therefore one can go further and claim that no physical or natural explanation for consciousness will ever be - nor can ever be -proposed, and the reason is because consciousness itself is not natural or physical. It is metaphysical. It is supernatural. This does not mean anything other than consciousness is not what it experiences or better consciousness is not its thetic content. This has nothing to do with the latest advances in neurology. This has been known for centuries. The problem is only that the neurologists are ignorant of the meaning of their own philosophical, artistic, and religious traditions and consequently ignorant of the meaning of their own work. It is not surprising. It is not their field. They are, after all, scientists and not philosophers, or artists, or priests and have not studied the right texts. > n > This is not as big a mystery as the posts here seem to think. I would > strongly recommend some, even cursory, study of current research in > neuro-science and behavioural/cognitive experiments being done by > Persinger and others. The brain is being mapped and it won't be very > many more decades before all the 'mystery' removed. The term mystery has a very long history. There is no chance that neurology can remove the mystery. All of material existence is contingent! The following statement is just ridiculous: "This is not as big a mystery as the posts here seem to think." It is perhaps exactly the opposite and the fact is that the reason this group even exists is because people are trying to grasp and articulate the extent to which it is a mystery. You see in a strange way to realize its mystery is what it takes to understand it - or is a direct result of understanding it. It is in fact what mystery itself is. It is the source of all mystery. So, unlike in science, when mystery is seemingly removed through understanding, when it comes to real, non- scientific, or non-natural experience, mystery is not removed but heightened - or rather ones appreciation or realization of it is improved and one realizes the extent to which all experience is - inherently- - in essence- mysterious. A failure of this reasoning caused the so called "shipwreck" of philosophy around the time of Kierkegard and Nieztche and is the cause of the existential boredom and crisis underlying the works of Samuel Becket like the play "End Game" or "Waiting for Godot" or other absurdist drama. It is the source of the crisis in No Exit by Sartre. It was mapped out before WW2 and in fact as early as the writing of Genesis. The issue has been, I think, decided. (Or maybe not as so few seem to have realized the meaning of the work done) It (purely scientific reasoning) was rejected by the Beatific Poets who "re-discovered" Hinduism and Bhudism - (I know - whenever a European "discovers" anything we eventually find out that an Indian - of some kind ! ;) - had been living there for a long time before - Ha! ;) ) Haven't you seen 2001 a Space Odessy by Kubrick? That was done in the 60s long before the current surge in neurology got its start. The non-mysterious thinking has also been rejected in all of the mystical traditions of the religions (see Sufi-ism, Kabala, Zen, or the mystical aspects vice the fundamental aspects of St Teresa, or St John of the Cross) - Unfortunately and tragically not in their fundamentalist counterparts. Or you can just ask Molly about synchonicity. She got it from Jung and that term was defined long before neurology got much of a start. I am sure she will tell you that it holds a little mystery and wait till they understand that! Where we will go from here we do not know. But one thing for sure anyone who tries to interpret neurology as having any central bearing on the Mystery of Life and I capitalize deliberately, is just plain wrong. They will only show a more detailed knowledge of the physical structures associated with the experiences. But we already knew it was in the brain! The only issue that neurology will decide is exactly where in the brain and what the chemical and physical correlates are. That is all. That is all on principle. Only when combined with phenomenology as Husserl wanted to do for psychology, over a hundred years ago now - its not a modern discovery - it has nothing to do with "recent advances" I think, can it be of use. We need to understand what has already be understood before we can advance! > We already know the general area of the right side of the brain where > our feelings of 'self' reside. In fact, if we stimulate that same area > we create a feeling in the subject of 'another' self. Fine. So now we know which side its on. Before we knew it was "in the brain" now we know its on the "right side". Let's assume we know it all - that means we can predict the exact position (speaking classically in a physical sense) of every particle! Then what! We are still no closer to eliminating the mystery. It will not mean that it is. A duality that > is usually ultimately described by the subject as god-like. Ah but there is the difference you see. God-like is not God. Just as you can stimulate the brain so that the person sees red even though there is no optical stimulation of the eye so you can create all kind of experience by manipulating the brain. But don't you see that this does not do much more than saying that if you create a baby that it will see or that if make a man blind or kill him he will not? And we have known that for centuries! How will modern neurology teach us more than that? (Don't get me wrong - I love science and eagerly await reading about these things when I have time but I just don't see what is happening now can change much of what we already know. Flesh out the details maybe.) Neurology will actually help in the future (near future I hope because my goose is cooked soon but I am afraid it will be before I get to see it) but has not much yet. It will help with clarify the morphology of the experiences. Something like what systematic philosophy tried to do can be aided by neurology. By understanding the structure in detail we can help characterize and discriminate subtly between different aspects of the phenomenology. An example is long term and short term memory. That kind of distinction can be had by the combination of psychological experiment with neurology. When that progresses to an examination of religious experience then it can be very useful I think. The "varieties of religious experience" can be mapped neurologically I presume or hypothesize. I obviously do not claim to know now but I think it reasonable. In the end it might even help by allowing us to manipulate the brain so that it is better able to experience the Mystery. Unfortunately, that same capability will probably allow us to eliminate that ability and reduce us to a kind of high functioning insect cleansed of any aesthetic or ethical sense - devoid of any awareness of the Mystery. That will be a sad day. To do this it need only retain the interpretation of existence in the will to power. This will retain the survival instinct which must be retain in order to continue the species itself, (one wrong move and you get suicide - but based on the phenomenology I think just a small technical obstacle). But it will never do away, intellectually, with the meaning of the Mystery. Even if you blind everyone the light is still there and the fact is that everyone will still *be* blind. What will happen is that they will see that the religious foundation has no correlate outside of the body. They will then conclude that it is "not real" or "not about reality" but "purely a mental phenomena" and therefore de-legitamize what others claim to be its meaning. This has already been tried of course but that will not prevent them from trying again based on this "new evidence" that shows that the information is not tied to sensory information. But hell, that level of destructive capability is not new either. We can do even better with self annihilation. We can destroy not just one idea but all of them. We can blow the world up or release some kind of super virus that destroys the race. So the new neurological kind of intellectual castration is only a more limited and subtle form of murder. The old ones have been around a long time and we have been struggling as a species not to use them so hopefully cooler heads will prevail and consciousness will not be so low as to reduce us to intellectually "pure electrical and chemical" entities and then, based on that false understanding, attempt to eliminate through neurological manipulation all awareness of the alternative. So I'll go further then and extrapolate on the data a little. There will be a struggle. Those who believe that we are "merely chemical and electrical signals" will at one point realize that while the endochrine system has been useful in preserving the species by instilling a desire for life in certain situations it is not itself indespensable and by carefully engineering the will to power and identity the species as a whole can be made to function without Mystery or any of the understanding of metaphysics that is, in a real sense since I am extrapolating ;), based on our sexuality. They will realize that the insects had it right and especially the ants and the bees and the urge to procreate need not be instilled in all individuals and can be made autonomous even and not dependent on any conscious correlate. (Hell, truth be known they may even conclude that consciousness itself is not needed and they just need a kind of perpetural motion machine!) They will in fact want to eliminate the consciousness of mystery for the same reason you want to be convinced and convince us that we are electrical and chemical and for the same reason that you cannot see that that is false right now without recourse to neurology. Not for the reason that you are convinced. I didn't say that. But for the reason that you want to be convinced. For the reason that you want that position of the "detached observer" that can manipulate perfectly because of its predictive theories. See, you did not even know that your "objective theorizing" was based on a desire. Perhaps there is something to Dennet after all! ;) His brain is fooling him! That struggle will be formed when those people come up against those whom we will try to ready. They will be trained to recognize the Mystery as the source of what we call good and see that the castration of the human race by elimination of the cognitive aspects of its endochrinology would be - well - a crime? - a disaster? - chose a word. They will be trained to embrace humility and recognize, like Arjuna in the Bahagavada Gita that the outcome of the battle is not relevant but that they must still fight out of duty. They will watch you carefully, form associations that preserve the future of what we now call "rights" and be willing to sacrifice their own lives for that meme which is what we now refer to as "the Good". An important part of that struggle is ongoing now and it is the necessity of clearly rebutting the "mechanical" interpretations of our Being-there, not because we want them to be wrong, but because they are wrong and the consequences of the culture loosing sight of that and simultaneously gaining manipulative control over neurology will be parallel to the development of large scale nuclear weaponry and must be fought through the limitation of power of those at the apex of primate hierarchy. We only just missed blowing a large part of our civilization away during the Cold War. Maybe we can do it again. Just read God Emperor of Dune by Herbert. Its not my idea. Its been around for a while. Read Frankenstein for crying out loud. But whatever you do make sure its not recent work and make sure its not scientific! On Sep 5, 11:10 am, sjewins <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not addressing Dennett. I am talking about experiments that can > change consciousness. If a chemical can change consciousness then > obviously chemicals are a great part of consciousness. Likewise for > the application of electro-magnetic forces. > > Consciousness is essentially a closed loop. 80% of all conscious > activity arises from within the brain, only 20% is from external > sensory input. > > Neuro-transmitters are essentially, also simply chemical transfers > launch by electrical energy. > > For example, LSD exclusively affects the temporal lobe. If you remove > the temporal lobe the subject can consume buckets of LSD and it will > have no effect on him/her at all.. > > Absolutely all psychotropic drugs alter consciousness via physical > chemical influences, from god experiences to colour perception. > Serotonin, as an example, is manipulated by large numbers of > hallucinogenics as well as ant-depressants. > > I see no reason at all to assume that anything gives rise to > consciousness beyond electricity and chemistry. > > This is not as big a mystery as the posts here seem to think. I would > strongly recommend some, even cursory, study of current research in > neuro-science and behavioural/cognitive experiments being done by > Persinger and others. The brain is being mapped and it won't be very > many more decades before all the 'mystery' removed. > > >No doubt we will eventually understand the specific correlations and > >what produces our own experience of Being and being conscious meaning > >what the specific arrangements are and how they are tied to detailed > >phenomenological descriptions of experience. > > We already know the general area of the right side of the brain where > our feelings of 'self' reside. In fact, if we stimulate that same area > we create a feeling in the subject of 'another' self. A duality that > is usually ultimately described by the subject as god-like. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
