Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I keep hearing that because we have not solved the hard problem of consciousness, therefore consciousness as a property of existence is plausible. I hear this from philosophers and physicists who appear unaware of the decades findings of neuroscience.
One of my problems with this idea is that it also does not explain the hard problem of consciousness.
So my question is, has anyone read any credible, scientific arguments for the idea of a cosmic consciousness?
The 'problem of consciousness' is usually just personal incredulity dressed up to sound like some sort of profound quandary, most often as a set-up for the following "solution":
GodDidIt
Simply put,
1) I can't explain X (or refuse to accept explanations for X), therefore
2) GodDidIt, therefore
3) The unexplained existence of X proves the existence of the declared causal agent God
To call this weak sauce is a considerable understatement.
The 'problem of consciousness' is usually just personal incredulity dressed up to sound like some sort of profound quandary, most often as a set-up for the following "solution":
GodDidIt
Simply put,
1) I can't explain X (or refuse to accept explanations for X), therefore
2) GodDidIt, therefore
3) The unexplained existence of X proves the existence of the declared causal agent God
To call this weak sauce is a considerable understatement.
I am talking about the hard problem of consciousness, such as why (or in my opinion, how) we experience light of a certain frequency as the color red. This is still a problem regardless of which position one takes.
But yes, I agree with you. The cosmic consciousness idea appears to be a philosophical one that ignores what we know from neuroscience, and I was wondering if I am actually missing some credible scientific evidence for this idea.
One possible response involves the idea that, at the core, human consciousness resolves to tubules in the brain that are subject to quantum effects (according to current science). In a multidimensional universe, the alternate or deeper construct is that other dimensions are the actual interface instead of any random quantum effect, and those dimensions are where the link to the primal consciousness is. There are some remarkable similarities to early Hindu explanations of this reality. Spooky action at a distance supports this response.
Another response supposes that all life at whatever level communicates via unknown mechanisms.
The issue is your asking for "scientific" evidence. Science is a process, not an absolute. Examinable evidence might be a better phrase to use.
One possible response involves the idea that, at the core, human consciousness resolves to tubules in the brain that are subject to quantum effects (according to current science).
Hameroff. But why tubules in the brain? What is the difference between tubules there than those in every other cell of your body? And how does this theory solve the hard problem of consciousness? How does any reaction in the brain lead to the idea of cosmic consciousness?
I keep seeing people posting this argument, but never any scientific evidence that answers my questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea
In a multidimensional universe, the alternate or deeper construct is that other dimensions are the actual interface instead of any random quantum effect, and those dimensions are where the link to the primal consciousness is. There are some remarkable similarities to early Hindu explanations of this reality. Spooky action at a distance supports this response.
Another response supposes that all life at whatever level communicates via unknown mechanisms.
Do we have any evidence for this, and is it better evidence than that of current neuroscience?
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea
The issue is your asking for "scientific" evidence. Science is a process, not an absolute. Examinable evidence might be a better phrase to use.
I do not see that as an issue as I believe examinable evidence is implicit in the term.
The tubules concept may have come about from the apparent ease of explaining away processes elsewhere as strictly cause and effect. You are getting down at that point of the question to the ancient philosophical argument of predetermination vs. free will.
Logically, in a predetermined universe, you are preprogrammed to do what you do, and you cannot change it. You are is essence a spectator of your own existence; a spectator that strictly speaking doesn't exist. Bothering to worry about it is also a predetermined dead end.
In a free will universe SOMETHING (a rather large mysterious concept) has to allow variation from strict cause and effect. What the SOMETHING is becomes the root of endless philosophical, scientific, and religious debates.
The strange behaviors of the quantum world hold much of the attention of scientists, as a possible answer to some questions relating to free will.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the tubules may not be the sole link to free will and consciousness as commonly defined. Organ transplant recipients have picked up attitudes that were present in their organ donors. The knowledge of some "old soul" children is inexplicable. The mechanisms of eidetic memory are baffling to researchers.
At a certain point, if people are honest with themselves, they come to recognize that not everything has a valid theory that explains it. We have come a long way in a hundred years, but still have a long way to go.
If spooky action at a distance on an instantaneous basis is real (which it seems to be) then our concept of our time and distance from the beginning of the universe is not accurate, because it is not absolute. A linked pair - one at the "beginning," and one here and now, interact.
This whole line of thought and exploration is so far beyond the way people think that it is incomprehensible to most, infuriating to others, and disruptive to any social order based upon absolute individuation.
IF it turns out that some of the dimensions are not crushing in upon themselves, but doing different things like creating links to the "beginning" of the universe, a whole range of possibilities emerge.
Other than laying out the basics, as I have just done, I don't care to debate or discuss further.
I once thought. WHAT IF, my "version of red", is actually "your green".
As some people suffer from synaesthesia, where sensory experiences are mixed; or color blindness caused by brain damage, I would not be surprised if you were correct.
It is not hard consciousness, it is the hard problem of consciousness, which is our ignorance of :
1) how we create some of our experiences. So light of a certain wave length we experience as red, or molecules in a certain arrangement we experience as the taste of chocolate.
2) how we are aware of internal and external existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
How can science discuss something which cannot be measured, and cannot be defined?
But we can measure parts of it. Every time we drink alcohol, or have our brains probed, or the unfortunate people who have accidents tell us about parts of our consciousness. This is a clue that consciousness is a product of out brains, and not some cosmic property.
We can also train neural networks to do the same things we do, such as facial recognition. Which is another a clue that consciousness is a product of our brains.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
