A Case for a Non-physical Consciousness

[ryan]

Obviously a person can pass the mirror test to prove that she has a consciousness. It's interesting to me that she can realize this. She can observe herself observing herself, and it seems that she can do both simultaneously. If she is observing herself, then what is observing her observing herself?

This is essentially an example of an out-of-body experience that we take for granted everyday.

If one takes the view that there's only material things, then what is observed when you look into a mirror in front of you is not yourself but part of the surface of your material body. (I would be at a loss to further explain the subjective experience you may report having during this process but it's a different issue and fortunately I can ignore this issue just now.)

If one takes a subjective-experience view on this, it is unclear whether you have an actual physical body in the first place. In any case, you are not having a subjective experience of the subjective experience of your image in the mirror. You are just having the subjective experience of the impression that you are looking at yourself in the mirror. No difficulty here it seems to me.

One aspect is the iterative nature of the process as suggested by your post. Is consciousness iterative, or reflective at all, of recursive to use the word that Chomsky used in reference to the minimum requirement for language?

Well, Juma, I think, suggested an answer. From a materialist perspective, there will have to be a loss of information with each recursion (iteration, reflection etc). Think of two parallel mirrors facing each other, with you in the middle. The point is that you won't be able see an infinity of mirrors because the reflected images of the two mirrors go off on a tangent either left, or right, or are concealed by the first reflection of your own head. Ijntrospection delivers basically the same result. You can have a subjective experience of X and you can have the subjective experience of having this subjective experience but the more you pile up the more each bit is loosing definition, as if the whole experience was constrained by the physical limitation of the part of the brain that does all the work in the background.
EB

I did not explain what I wanted to explain in the OP. My issue is really just with observing, not necessarily observing the observation. Also, I would even say that I don't agree with my own OP as it reads.

 

[ryan]

I only know that observing is not the same as what is being observed

Strictly speaking, no, you don't know.

Strictly speaking, you believe you are observing something material which is not the same thing as the observation.
EB

Wait; let's not even bring up materialism and the like for now. But I do agree with you.

One may know everything there is to know about the object but not observe what the object is observing. This would be information that is only available to the object, much like how the argument for qualia goes; only this time it's scientific.

 

[ryan]

Any talk using a whole or any talk about a whole totally goes beyond the Standard Model.

A talk about the whole is just refering a symbol representing the idea of the whole. It doesnt contain the whole as a proper part.

Juma, you seem to believe that a property can be something that only the whole can have. In a way you are assigning a single part to the whole in addition to the parts, and this all supposedly exists outside of the brain. Please explain.

 

[ryan]

I am not buying it Perspicuo and DBT. It's a simple problem. There are supposedly only particles; what is all of this other stuff? How can pieces/brain know about a whole/itself? There must be something else besides particles. Any talk using a whole or any talk about a whole totally goes beyond the Standard Model. The Standard Model should then include about a million other things that exist.

I am not selling. If you want to believe in the spirit, that's fine with me.

On the other hand, behavioral and neuroscience researchers do fine without it. If it's a "very simple problem", they should have stumbled upon the unavoidable ghost in the machine ages ago. The fact that they haven't together with the fact many of them have a religion and most of them aren't precisely enemies of the spiritual realm, should give you food for thought.

But then again, no harm in believing it either, just don't go around saying this is "obvious" or "simple" because it isn't in the areas of scientific research where such entities would count.

In my honest opinion, if there is a spirit (or immaterial mind or whatever one may talk about it) it must be parallel and in no way in the way of mental processing, which is overwhelmingly shown to be physical. It is the only possibility IMV that doesn't do violence to the evidence.

I meant to type "a clear problem" not necessarily an easy problem to solve. Science only deals with what is scientific. It is not interested in the kinds of questions that philosophy is. In other words, if science can't explain something, then it just becomes a "mystery" or is "unsolved". It doesn't have the freedom that philosophy does nor should it. There are many problems that are obvious philosophically but for whatever reason remain inconclusive to science; conversely, science provides understandings about the universe that remained inconclusive to philosophy and probably always will. In short, science does not have all of the answers.

 

[DBT]

I am not buying it Perspicuo and DBT. It's a simple problem. There are supposedly only particles; what is all of this other stuff? How can pieces/brain know about a whole/itself? There must be something else besides particles. Any talk using a whole or any talk about a whole totally goes beyond the Standard Model. The Standard Model should then include about a million other things that exist.

What do you believe is outside of the physical world looking in?

I only know that it's not particles.

How do you know that?

I only know that observing is not the same as what is being observed; it is a true duality.

Who or what is this ''observer?''

What exactly is being observed?

What enables observation?

It is something that is not the same as what I observe. Observing and the observed are two different things. Observing is the "soul" (or whatever you want to call it); the observed are the particles.

What do you mean when you say ''I observe'' - How do you observe?
How do you generate conscious observation? When you say ''I'' - what is the nature and makeup of this ''I'' entity?

 

[ryan]

I am not buying it Perspicuo and DBT. It's a simple problem. There are supposedly only particles; what is all of this other stuff? How can pieces/brain know about a whole/itself? There must be something else besides particles. Any talk using a whole or any talk about a whole totally goes beyond the Standard Model. The Standard Model should then include about a million other things that exist.

What do you believe is outside of the physical world looking in?

I only know that it's not particles.

How do you know that?

Sorry, I should have typed, "I only know that it's not only particles". When I observe, I am observing. Someone else would say that "he is particles". So, I know that I am observing, but I also know that I am particles. We must be able to observe for anything to make sense, but we also know that we are particles.

I only know that observing is not the same as what is being observed; it is a true duality.

Who or what is this ''observer?''

I guess that it is something that reacts to the physical environment, and may or may not affect the environment. And the reason why I don't think that it's physical is because there has not been a physical account for it yet. This is not to say that we will never find it; it's just that I have read that scientists in this field say that something exotic like this would have had to be found already.

What exactly is being observed?

elementary particles, fields, forces, etc.

What enables observation?

I am not sure, but it may or may not be physically dependent.

What do you mean when you say ''I observe'' - How do you observe?

I think that it's by sensing the elementary particles, fields, forces, etc.

How do you generate conscious observation?

I don't know that I can generate conscious observations.

When you say ''I'' - what is the nature and makeup of this ''I'' entity?

I is the observer/consciousness/experience.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I am not buying it Perspicuo and DBT. It's a simple problem. There are supposedly only particles; what is all of this other stuff? How can pieces/brain know about a whole/itself? There must be something else besides particles. Any talk using a whole or any talk about a whole totally goes beyond the Standard Model. The Standard Model should then include about a million other things that exist.

May I point out that the whole (as you perceive it) isn't some perfect whole, but yet another small piece of the puzzle. There is an incredible amount going on in your head right now of which you are completely unaware. What is your next thought going to be? Where is it coming from? You really don't know, yet you are certain about many things, like

I only know that it's not particles.

How do you now that when you can't even know what you're going to think next? More importantly, with little preparation, you could be primed in any direction one wanted you to go, with very little effort. Again, this sounds like a theist, that can't answer many questions, but knows "God is love".

 

[another1]

Ryan, a woman looking in a mirror is consciousness forming matter, as I see it. Wondering about the paradox with the reflection is consciousness studying consciousness. Consciousness studying consciousness and the tertiary on are real I think. Consciousness creating consciousness is a neat thing to think about. I wonder all the time if I create my own, and submitting to it (the little voice inside that tells me the right thing to do) would be recognizing my creator as God. As for the consciousness that is contemplating, I don't think it stays in the brain. The brain may be a temporary place for it until it needs to interact within a "morphic field of psychic resonance"-Sheldrake, with imagined or real things that seem to have thoughts. "I thought I was out of my mind until I realized I was merely non physically conscious".

 

[DBT]

I is the observer/consciousness/experience.

Then, because conscious experience/perception includes self awareness (given a brain of adequate complexity), there is no division between the the observer and the observed. Why?....because perception encompasses both one's self identity and one's position in the environment. One function of the brain is body mapping, various kinds of body maps, physical, spatial, hand position, etc, and mental, how you feel about this or that, your beliefs, etc, are formed in the brain in order enable adaption, regulation, adaption and response. Check out neurological experiments such as 'phantom hands' to see how the brain can be fooled into ownership of hands that are not actually a part of the body.

link;
''Taken together, our results show that the sight of a physical hand is remarkably unimportant to the brain for creating the experience of one's physical self," study lead author, Arvid Guterstam of the Karolinska Institute, said in an institute news release.''

 

[ryan]

May I point out that the whole (as you perceive it) isn't some perfect whole, but yet another small piece of the puzzle. There is an incredible amount going on in your head right now of which you are completely unaware. What is your next thought going to be? Where is it coming from? You really don't know, yet you are certain about many things, like

I only know that it's not particles.

How do you now that when you can't even know what you're going to think next? More importantly, with little preparation, you could be primed in any direction one wanted you to go, with very little effort. Again, this sounds like a theist, that can't answer many questions, but knows "God is love".

When I say that I know something, just imagine the words "Let's assume ..." then I can know it.

- - - Updated - - -

Ryan, a woman looking in a mirror is consciousness forming matter, as I see it. Wondering about the paradox with the reflection is consciousness studying consciousness. Consciousness studying consciousness and the tertiary on are real I think. Consciousness creating consciousness is a neat thing to think about. I wonder all the time if I create my own, and submitting to it (the little voice inside that tells me the right thing to do) would be recognizing my creator as God. As for the consciousness that is contemplating, I don't think it stays in the brain. The brain may be a temporary place for it until it needs to interact within a "morphic field of psychic resonance"-Sheldrake, with imagined or real things that seem to have thoughts. "I thought I was out of my mind until I realized I was merely non physically conscious".

Thanks, that's interesting. I'll have to look into that one of these days.

 

[ryan]

I is the observer/consciousness/experience.

Then, because conscious experience/perception includes self awareness (given a brain of adequate complexity), there is no division between the the observer and the observed. Why?....because perception encompasses both one's self identity and one's position in the environment. One function of the brain is body mapping, various kinds of body maps, physical, spatial, hand position, etc, and mental, how you feel about this or that, your beliefs, etc, are formed in the brain in order enable adaption, regulation, adaption and response. Check out neurological experiments such as 'phantom hands' to see how the brain can be fooled into ownership of hands that are not actually a part of the body.

link;
''Taken together, our results show that the sight of a physical hand is remarkably unimportant to the brain for creating the experience of one's physical self," study lead author, Arvid Guterstam of the Karolinska Institute, said in an institute news release.''

DBT, trust me when I tell you that I know that there is a physical particular for everything that we are discussing, so your post does not tell me anything that is not obvious. In fact, years ago I used to be a physicalist and reductionist, and I would talk about all of the phantom limb experiments and the correlations between brain activity and qualia etc.

But the more and more that I study science and philosophy, the more and more I am noticing how much more there is to reality than just physicalism. Having said that, my arguments have not been great, but I do feel like am closing in on explaining this intuition that I have.

 

[Juma]

But the more and more that I study science and philosophy, the more and more I am noticing how much more there is to reality than just physicalism.

Give examples.

 

[ryan]

But the more and more that I study science and philosophy, the more and more I am noticing how much more there is to reality than just physicalism.

Give examples.

First of all, physicalism is a positive claim; we can never be positive. Not even science can make a positive claim. Of course none of this shows physicalism to be false, but it shows that it is not true (I have been trying to falsify physicalism).

Second, we don't know what else can be out there. I was blown away by Lawrence Krauss's speech about the very distant future of the universe. He says scientists on a galaxy may never know about the universe once it has expanded large enough and at speeds faster than light (start at 49:05 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er_pl8JtNaU . This tells me that we can't be positive about what else there is with what we detect.

Finally, we must make a few assumptions to even discuss whether physicalism is even possible. We have to assume certain axioms about reality first, and then we can only start to discuss what the universe is.

 

[DBT]

The World is a physical World of sub atomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc.
We have evidence for the existence of physical phenomena, objects and events.
Science studies the properties of the physical world: Physics.
We have no examples of non physical phenomena.
We have no evidence for the existence of non physical phenomena.
We cannot study the properties of non physical phenomena.
We do not know if non physical phenomena exists.
The existence of the physical world and physical phenomena is not just a positive claim, it is a provable reality.

 

[steve_bnk]

How can a tree develop from a seed ort a human from sperm and egg without something 'non physical' associated with seeds or sperm and egg?

 

[DBT]

What does this proposed non physical agency do? How does this 'non physical' agency, not being physical, interact with physical processes?

 

[Juma]

How can a tree develop from a seed ort a human from sperm and egg without something 'non physical' associated with seeds or sperm and egg?

How can a tree develop from a seed or a human from sperm and egg WITH something 'non physical' associated with seeds or sperm and egg?

What change does that "non physical" explain that not anything hitherto unknown physical could?

 

[steve_bnk]

How can a tree develop from a seed ort a human from sperm and egg without something 'non physical' associated with seeds or sperm and egg?

How can a tree develop from a seed or a human from sperm and egg WITH something 'non physical' associated with seeds or sperm and egg?

What change does that "non physical" explain that not anything hitherto unknown physical could?

Dude...I was being sarcastic with Ryan who has been posting the same question for many years.

If as Ryan says the collection of particles we call a brain can not be the source of our self perceived minds without something non-physical, then the same question should apply to a tree growing from a seed needing some non-material guidance or function.

What he is invoking is a modern take on ancient animism. According to Ryan there is something that animates the human mind beyond that which is part of the physical body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism

What Ryan seems to be is looking for is what Christians call god.

 

[ryan]

How can a tree develop from a seed ort a human from sperm and egg without something 'non physical' associated with seeds or sperm and egg?

How can a tree develop from a seed or a human from sperm and egg WITH something 'non physical' associated with seeds or sperm and egg?

What change does that "non physical" explain that not anything hitherto unknown physical could?

Dude...I was being sarcastic with Ryan who has been posting the same question for many years.

If as Ryan says the collection of particles we call a brain can not be the source of our self perceived minds without something non-physical, then the same question should apply to a tree growing from a seed needing some non-material guidance or function.

What he is invoking is a modern take on ancient animism. According to Ryan there is something that animates the human mind beyond that which is part of the physical body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism

What Ryan seems to be is looking for is what Christians call god.

Wow, animism, god?! That is such a random leap - thank god you wrote "seems". All of my threads and posts have been an attempt in finding evidence for something non-physical. Non-physical does not imply god or animism.

 

[Juma]

Dude...I was being sarcastic with Ryan who has been posting the same question for many years.

Ooops. See what it makes to you talking too much to Ryan.... My irony detector has crashed completely...