Consciousness expansion

[The_Idler]

it was kind of more an apathetic, hopeless tone,
but good one for trying to uncover SOME kind of meaning,
implicit from beyond the plaintext.

 

[Dedbeet]

The point is that whilst this does mean your physical brain is getting bigger all the time, 'consciousness' is a pattern of information played out inside your brain, so it doesn't really make sense to think of consciousness itself expanding just because the physical structure it is lodged in is.

My personal experience is that I'm here and the brain is something external I'm perceiving (or it's just hearsay).

I don't experience myself inside a brain, so IMO that isn't what's happening. Screw what science says, they don't have all the answers & can't tell me my own experience is false.

 

[MrM]

My personal experience is that I'm here and the brain is something external I'm perceiving (or it's just hearsay).

I don't experience myself inside a brain, so IMO that isn't what's happening. Screw what science says, they don't have all the answers & can't tell me my own experience is false.

So do you experience yourself 2m to the left of your brain then?

Now don't get me wrong; i'm not claiming that i feel my actual physical brain respond when i think something (anything) anymore than i feel my actual physical red blood cells swell with O2 when i breath in. That doesn't mean your brain isn't doing the thinking or (by comparison) your red blood cells aren't doing the carrying of oxygen round your body.

If you still doubt, it is pretty easy to prove that the brain is the seat of consciousness. It is, in fact, the only organ in the body that can't be removed or damaged without a corresponding responce in the way that your mind works. Artificial hearts, lungs, kidneys, the rest can all be swapped out, but if something serious happens to damage your brain, best case scenario you'll end up mentaly retarded.

 

[Rod-Everrard]

they don't like people like us in this forum.

apparently the most probable scenarios just arent interesting enough.

Just look at history and you`ll see the most probable scenarios arnt always the correct ones either, I dont understand why this is a steadfast rule to live your life by...

 

[MrM]

There is another way to look at the original question;

Consciousness is not a physical thing. It may (or may not, depending on your beliefs) be rooted in the physical brain, but consiousness itelf does not exist physically any more than sadness does.

Expansion is a physical thing. It means that the volume that an object is taking up has increased.

Expansion of consciousness is, therefore, either nonesense or else a metaphor for some kind of increase in mental or spiritual ability.

Therefore, to ask the question; is the real physical expansion of the brain / head / whatever affecting in anyway the metaphorical increase in a persons mind / spirituality / whatever, is actually pretty obviously pointless.

If one effected the other then on average people with physically bigger heads would be more spiritual or conscious than people with physically smaller heads.

 

[MrM]

Just look at history and you`ll see the most probable scenarios arnt always the correct ones either, I dont understand why this is a steadfast rule to live your life by...

Occam's Razor

The most probably scenarios aren't always the correct ones, but they are MOST PROBABLY the correct ones. So it makes sense to assume they are correct, rather than go with a less likely theory, at least until more evidence comes along.

Not really that relevent to the thread so i'll not continue, but you did ask.

 

[Rod-Everrard]

To assume makes an ass of u and me..

 

[MrM]

To assume makes an ass of u and me..

I think you are using the word in a different way to myself. To use the phrase 'To assume makes an ass of u and me.' is to criticize someone for taking as certain something which isn't certain and coming badly unstuck as a results.

Whereas Occams razor is all about the idea of uncertainty. If you are certain you don't need it. Occam's razor is about picking the most likely to be useful option when you are uncertain but have information about probabilities.

Maybe they should have used a different word to assume to keep people like you happy.

 

[Dedbeet]

So do you experience yourself 2m to the left of your brain then?

I experience myself as thought and consciousness. Don't even know if there's a brain up there to be honest, except for what I've been told.

If you still doubt, it is pretty easy to prove that the brain is the seat of consciousness. It is, in fact, the only organ in the body that can't be removed or damaged without a corresponding responce in the way that your mind works.

From here, assuming something (like the brain is the seat of consciousness) and then seeking to prove it just validates that assumption. Not to mention, intentional brain damage doesn't sound like much fun .

To assume makes an ass of u and me..

yip yip...

 

[MrM]

From here, assuming something (like the brain is the seat of consciousness) and then seeking to prove it just validates that assumption.

Could you rephrase that please? I am not sure what you mean.

i can't tell if you are critisising my position or agreeing with me.

 

[yougene]

Space is expanding in the sense that physical dimensions are getting bigger.

Not that you'd notice - anything like a ruler you might measure the expansion with would also be expanding at the same rate so you can't tell.

The point is that whilst this does mean your physical brain is getting bigger all the time, 'consciousness' is a pattern of information played out inside your brain, so it doesn't really make sense to think of consciousness itself expanding just because the physical structure it is lodged in is.

I think it's undeniable that there is a relationship between brain and mind. The problem is how we model this relationship. Saying that consciousness is inside the brain presents subtle problems of structure. What does that mean exactly? Does it mean that brain causes consciousness? If so the structural hierarchy starts looking like this.

mind
brain
cells
molecules

Saying so implies properties to mind that it does not have and forms logical contradictions. Mind probably does not exist atop the brain structurally.


Is consciousness a property of brain? If that's the case what meaning does "consciousness inside the brain" have? Would consciousness be anymore inside the brain than gravity( a property ) be inside matter? Gravity probably not a very good example, but you get the point.


Could it be some other form of relationship? Who knows. The point is there's a big difference between establishing correlation and forming a good model.

 

[The_Idler]

Just look at history and you`ll see the most probable scenarios arnt always the correct ones either, I dont understand why this is a steadfast rule to live your life by...

ugh.

of COURSE the most probable scenario is not always the case.


but every decision and action is based upon an interpretation of information you have experienced.

IF the information can be explained by one idea, the simplest and most probable case,
THEN it is the most logical and probably successful thing to do,
to act as if it is the case.

OBVIOUSLY YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IT
that would be as blind as believing anything else.

for example i do not actually "believe" that consciousness is purely manifest in physically real matter and energy (as i do not believe anything),
but, as it is the simplest and most probable explanation,
let us ask, WHY would I act as if it is NOT the case?--

Like betting on a horse which is NOT the most probable to win,
the only explanation is that the supposed reward is greater.
only thing is, your reward probably doesn't exist.

OF COURSE i would like it to be the case that I die and my consciousness carries on in eternal bliss if i simply go to church and do what Father Wasssisface demands of me,
but, as it is probably not true, I cannot lie to myself.

Complying with religion "just in case" it is true defeats the object.

like YEAH, it's worth the wager,
but it's impossible to do it,
if one understands the concept of the wager!


So, go through life, not believing anything,
basing all decisions on acting as if the most probable scenario is the case,
and logically one has a higher chance of success in EVERY WAY.
granted, the success may not be AS GOOD as eternal bliss,
or whatever improbable promises Father Wasssisface presents,
but, once one understands this concept,
lying to oneself is no longer an option.

 

[zorn]

My personal experience is that I'm here and the brain is something external I'm perceiving (or it's just hearsay).

I don't experience myself inside a brain, so IMO that isn't what's happening. Screw what science says, they don't have all the answers & can't tell me my own experience is false.

The thing is, changing the brain demonstrably changes consciousness. Drugs that affect the brain are mind-altering; they change people's mental states, too. Surgery or damage to the brain can cause huge alterations in people's consciousness... sometimes really astonishing ones. And different areas of the brain affect different parts of the mind. Damage to certan areas of the brain can make it impossible for people to remember things. Damaging nearby parts of the brain can make it so that people are unable to form new memories. Damaging other parts of it will cause people to undergo radical personality shifts, or to gain or lose religiosity -- or change their ability to recognize faces, feel pleasure, feel fear, pay attention, control their impulses. Stimulating particular spots in the brain causes people to vividly recall a particular memory or smell, to feel a particular emotion or sensation.

Why would any of this be true if the brain were not the source of consciousness? Imagine if consciousness were some purely nonphysical entity that just used the body to interact with the world -- sort of the way a pilot uses the controls on a plane to move himself around. Then altering or damaging the plane could make it so the pilot couldn't perform certain maneuvers. But if we asked the pilot we wouldn't expect him to report himself feeling any differently, would we? Only his ability to do certain things with the place should be affected, not his memory, personality, etc. Similarly, unless the brain is causing the mind, why would altering the brain cause people to undergo drastic personality changes, feel vastly different, or lose certain basic facets of consciouesness like telling faces apart?

Space is expanding in the sense that physical dimensions are getting bigger.

Not that you'd notice - anything like a ruler you might measure the expansion with would also be expanding at the same rate so you can't tell.

Just a note -- if that were the case, you would notice that the time it takes light to travel between two fixed objects would be increasing. (That's how laser rangefinders work.) Not to mention that the forces that hold matter together have a relatively short range, so any significant increase in distances would cause all solid objects to disintegrate.

When folks say the universe is expanding, what's happening is that the space between galaxies is getting bigger. Things smaller than galaxies -- stars, our solar system, the Earth, New York, your ruler -- aren't. The idea is that galaxies were flung apart by the Big Bang and are still moving apart from one another. But inside a galaxy, gravity long ago stopped the bits of the galaxy from moving apart, and in fact it collapsed them into solid stars, planets, and so on. So those things aren't expanding, obviously. It's just the galaxies that are all moving apart.

(Basically, at very early times, there weren't galaxies or planets at all. The universe was just a nearly-perfectly-even soup or cloud of particles, evenly expanding and cooling. But since some parts of the universe were very slightly denser than the rest, they had extra gravitational pull, and were able to stop and even suck back the closest surrounding soup. Of course that made these dense parts of the universe even more dense, giving them more gravitational pull, letting them suck in even more.... and so eventually these areas "crystallized" into galaxies.)

 

[MrM]

The problem is how we model this relationship. Saying that consciousness is inside the brain presents subtle problems of structure. What does that mean exactly? Does it mean that brain causes consciousness?

Yes, it does. All the evidence I've seen supports this idea.

If so the structural hierarchy starts looking like this.

mind
brain
cells
molecules

Hierarchy? I am not sure what you mean.

The brain is obviously made up of cells which are made up of molecules etc.

The Mind (or consciousness or whatever you want to call it) is a seperate class of thing. Unlike Atoms, molecules and brains you can't poke a mind with your finger as it is not a real physical thing. It is an emergent phenomena.

Is consciousness a property of brain? If that's the case what meaning does "consciousness inside the brain" have?

Yes, consciousness is a property of the brain. All the evidence I've seen supports this fact. 'Consciousness inside the brain' is just a way of stating that consiousness is located inside the biological system that is running it; it means that consciousness is a property of the brain or arises from the brain or however you want to put it.

Would consciousness be anymore inside the brain than gravity( a property ) be inside matter?

A brain of sufficient complexity would be conscious (assuming you haven't been doing evil sensory deprivation experiments on it, keeping it locked away in the dark somewhere or whatever). However, not all brains are conscious or self aware in the way that human brains are (unless you think all animals are consciouss and self aware) so the relationship is not quite the same as matter and gravity. Consciousness is a pattern of information that can exist within a sufficiently sophisticated brain.

Saying so implies properties to mind that it does not have and forms logical contradictions. Mind probably does not exist atop the brain structurally.

What properties does it imply that the mind does not have? I don't see any logical contraditions or any reason why the mind probably does not exist as a system of information running within the brain. If you can think of any - please be specific.

 

[The_Idler]

I experience myself as thought and consciousness. Don't even know if there's a brain up there to be honest, except for what I've been told.

From here, assuming something (like the brain is the seat of consciousness) and then seeking to prove it just validates that assumption. Not to mention, intentional brain damage doesn't sound like much fun .


yip yip...

yeah, so "where is consciouness"
starting with your toes and working upward, we will damage different parts of your body, until we find one, which causes you to stop thinking.

OH LOOK, it's the brain.

 

[MrM]

Just a note -- if that were the case, you would notice that the time it takes light to travel between two fixed objects would be increasing. (That's how laser rangefinders work.) Not to mention that the forces that hold matter together have a relatively short range, so any significant increase in distances would cause all solid objects to disintegrate.

When folks say the universe is expanding, what's happening is that the space between galaxies is getting bigger. Things smaller than galaxies -- stars, our solar system, the Earth, New York, your ruler -- aren't.

You had me worried for a bit there (that i was talking bullshit) so i did a quick search.

Metric expansion of space wiki

If you read through the wiki section 'Expansion of space explained' it seems that it is the fabric of spacetime that is expanding, not simply that the distance between objects is increasing. Apparently this means that the speed of light limitations don't factor into it. I would also assume that if the space between objects is expanding, so is the space within objects, so my ruler example is valid.

This doesn't effect the forces that hold matter together because the scale they operate on is relative to the fabric of spacetime, so they expand outwards like the ruler in step to everything else.

 

[The_Idler]

I'm afraid you have to work out the implications on sub-atomic scale with a quantum model,
but this isn't theoretical physics.

but ANYWAY, let me point out.

matter displaces spacetime, (obv for gravity) so, therefore, it must have volume, outside of space.
SO, if you have a rule, two protons long, with a gap of 0.2 of a proton between,
you would measure X as 10 lengths. 10x2.2 = 22 protons, (no spacing)
if the spacetime distances increases 50%x,
then the X distance should be 15 lengths,
but the rule is now 2 proton, with a space of 0.3 protons, so 2.3 protons long.
so the size of spacedistance X has increased by 50%,
but the length of your proton rule has increase only by 4.5454545.....%

so, therefore, the spacedistance X will actually measure as 15x2.3 = 34.5 protons long.

In this way, space expands away from all matter.
larger distances expand more.

 

[The_Idler]

Now, i MAY have got that maths wrong,
but simply-

space expands, matter does not.
so a length of space expands MORE then a length of space with matter in.

like i said, relatively, matter could be shrinking away from eachother,
but geometrically, it is easier to say that space is expanding, between it.

 

[MrM]

Well, even if the protons or whatever kind of particles are not getting bigger along with the space they inhabit (although i am still convinced they are), the example of a ruler or a brain would still be the same as both these objects are mostly empty space, both these objects would appear to get bigger at the same rate as everything else in an expanding universe.

And 'consciousness' which runs on (inside / within / whatever) the brain would still not 'expand' either literally or metaphorically.

 

[yougene]

Yes, it does. All the evidence I've seen supports this idea.

What evidence?

I've never seen "brain does a and then b happens in consciousness." I have seen "when you see a happening b also happens."

Hierarchy? I am not sure what you mean.

The brain is obviously made up of cells which are made up of molecules etc.

Hierarchy is just another word for pyramid structure. Just imagine each word I listed as a level on a pyramid.

The Mind (or consciousness or whatever you want to call it) is a seperate class of thing. Unlike Atoms, molecules and brains you can't poke a mind with your finger as it is not a real physical thing. It is an emergent phenomena.

Which is precisely my point. Consciousness is a qualitatively different object from quantitative exterior surfaces. When someone says that consciousness is caused by the brain they are implying a certain hierarchic structure. But trying to fit consciousness onto a hierarchic model of quantitative surfaces is like trying to stick a square peg in a circle hole. Because hierarchic models of exterior surfaces and interior qualities are formed from different perspectives. By putting mind on top of the exterior structural hierarchy you are actually putting an abstraction for the interior structural hierarchy on top of an exterior hierarchy.

So

mind
brain
cells
molecules

becomes something like

logic
emotions
instinct
brain
cells
molecules


The problem is we are dealing with human constructions that are going to always be partial. It's too easy to try to reduce reality to one partial abstraction or another absolutely. The problem is you end up with logically inconsistent structures like above. What does seem to work is to take the structural models developed from every known perspective and correlate their structures to get a bigger picture.