Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Why Great Minds Can't Grasp Consciousness

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Belyea
    Thanks, Bob. Under consideration here seems to be only the superficial layer of sensory and cognitive consciousness. After the meat that thinks and
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 18, 2008
      Thanks, Bob. Under consideration
      here seems to be only the superficial
      layer of sensory and cognitive consciousness.

      After the "meat that thinks" and recognizes
      green as green, water as wet, glass as
      transparent, that is "explained" by
      neural activity, comes the real mind
      blower; "meat that has a spiritual
      experience" often while meditating.

      We will sooner dig another
      Panama Canal with a spoon than
      science will grasp and explain

      Just a thought (a few neural


      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, medit8ionsociety <no_reply@...>
      > From Livescience.com
      > 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 Christof 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?"
      > This site contains copyrighted material the
      > use of which has not always been specifically
      > authorized by the copyright owner. We are
      > making such material available in our efforts
      > to advance understanding of environmental,
      > political, human rights, economic, democracy,
      > scientific, spiritual, and social justice issues,
      > etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use'
      > of any such copyrighted material as provided
      > for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
      > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
      > the material on this site is distributed
      > without profit to those who have expressed a
      > prior interest in receiving the included information
      > for research and educational purposes. For more
      > information go to:
      > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
      > If you wish to use copyrighted material from this
      > site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use',
      > you must obtain permission from the copyright owner
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.