Consciousness expansion

[MrM]

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."

Well Deep brain stimulation is one good example. Stick a small electrode somewhere deep in someones brain, trickle a tiny current through it, see what happens. Obviously what happens depends on where you stick the electrode (amongst other things) but usually something interesting happens.

I remember reading recently in the new scientists how they had found one particular part of the brain that when stimulated seemed to produce instant and highly accurate memory recall of long passed events.

This is a new and poorly understood science. Give it 10 years or so and people will be walking around with microchips on their brains altering their minds.

So

mind
brain
cells
molecules

becomes something like

logic
emotions
instinct
brain
cells
molecules

I don't see how you go from 'mind' to 'logic, emotions, instinct'

You are separating mind out into 3 different things and ordering them. Why? For one thing it is pretty obvious that logic is not always above emotions or instinct in a hierarchy of the mind, as people panic or cry at inappropriate times or see red and kill people on occasions.

I don't understand why 'mind' is even in the same hierarchy as 'brain, cells and molecules'. The mind is fundamentally a different thing to a brain (and so in a different hierarchy) despite the fact that the mind exists within (or runs on) the brain. From the definition of 'Hierarchy', A hierarchy is a system of ranking and organizing things or people, where each element of the system (except for the top element) is a subordinate to a single other element. Since the mind can produce a measurable effect on the brain (for example - monks meditating whilst under a brain scanner) and the brain can produce a measurable effect on the mind (for example - deep brain stimulation) a simple hierarchy would not seem sufficient to explain the relationship between the two.

It would make as much sense as a hierarchy of computer games like this;

Quake 3 (equivalent to mind)
Computer (equivalent to brain)
Microchips (equivalent to cells)
Molecules (same)

There is no real relationship between quake 3 and microchips or molecules and it doesn't really help us understand how quake 3 works to put it in a hierarchy like this. We can say with absolute certainty that quake 3 runs on computers, although you might hesitate to say that quake 3 is inside a computer, but you wouldn't say that quake 3 is subordinate to microchips and molecules any more than you would think of the mind as being dependant on cells and molecules; it can be looked at like this, but it is not particularly relevant.

 

[Rod-Everrard]

ugh.

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

Exactly, so all I`m saying is you dont need to make that the rule of your actions like you and others imply you should.

And what are you going on about religion for?

Maybe you need to try and take a holistic approach to the whole thing and figure out what the underlying messages of each one are...

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

It wouldnt matter, the word would still imply the same thing that your trying to portray.

Just from my experience, all I`m saying is its never wise to assume, assumptions are the mother of all fuck ups.

 

[zorn]

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.

Hi MrM,

The expansion of spacetime does just mean that the distance between objects are increasing. (What else would it mean?) This distance is the real, physical distance: it is the same distance that shows up in force equations and the distance that light covers in a time ct. The expansion of spacetime means that it really does take light longer to reach us from distant objects than it did in the past; it also means that eg the electromagnetic force we feel from a distant charged object really does weaken over time as the object recedes. There is no "scaling" of them with space. After all, we really do see distant galaxies receding, not appearing to sit still like a ruler does.

So if all spacetime were homogenous and evenly-expanding, we would be able to notice the expansion in the ways I explained. We could use e.g. a laser rangefinder to occasionally bounce a pulse of light off of a "fixed" object. If all distances were really increasing, then since the speed of light is constant, the time it takes for a pulse to return would keep increasing.

But as I said, this is not what's occuring in our universe. Everything on a galactic scale (actually galaxy cluster scale) is gravitationally bound; that is, the local gravitational attraction has already overcome and reversed the local expansion of space. Distances within the galaxy are not getting larger, and have not been since the galaxy first formed. One way to think of it is that only the space between galaxies is still expanding; the space inside galaxies stopped expanding, contracted, and reached a nearly-steady state long ago.

If you look through your wikipedia article you should find they do mention this, near the bottom I believe. Other good places to go IIRC are Ned Wright's and John Baez's sites -- here:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX (and the next 2 questions)
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/expanding_universe.html

Those sites are actually wonderful sources to correct a great many misconceptions and confusions that most people have about physics, astronomy, and cosmology. Don't feel bad for having made such mistakes -- these are very difficult subjects, and the discussion of them that filters through the media and pop-science outlets can often be quite misleading. You'd be surprised at how often even physics grad students make similar mistakes.

 

[zorn]

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

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.

Also, let me add that this is not a good way to think about things. The idea of the world containing extended stuff (matter) which "takes up space" is a very natural one, given our everyday experiences. It's also totally and completely wrong. We've known for about a century that this conception simply does not accurately describe the universe.

To the best of our knowledge, the universe consists of point-like particles, interacting through fields that exist throughout space. (Even this is a gross simplification of the messy quantum reality, but it's good enough for now.) Nothing takes up any space; solidity is an illusion. Everyday objects seem extended and solid to us because interactions among their constituent point particles keep those particles more-or-less fixed in place; and because the point-particles of each object very strongly repel any point-particles from other objects that get too close.

On the scale of atoms and above, it can sometimes be useful to treat things as if they were extended solid objects, but remember that this is just an approximation -- not the way things really behave.

 

[MrM]

Hi MrM,
If you look through your wikipedia article you should find they do mention this, near the bottom I believe. Other good places to go IIRC are Ned Wright's and John Baez's sites -- here:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX (and the next 2 questions)
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/expanding_universe.html

Thanks for that.

So in conclusion, the initial question is invalid because of the assumption that the expansion of the universe has any meaning on the scale of the human mind / brain being incorrect?

O well, i guess i learned something new.

However, if the expansion of space did have any meaning on the scale of the human brain i maintain that it would have no meaning for the human mind for the reasons i gave.

I blaim it on an old physics text book i read which actaully had a picture of an expanding ruler in it...

 

[The_Idler]

Exactly, so all I`m saying is you dont need to make that the rule of your actions like you and others imply you should.

soooooooo....
you didnt understand the rest of my post,
which explains exactly why it is most logical to act as if the most probable scenario is the case?

or you just didnt like it?

 

[MrM]

Just from my experience, all I`m saying is its never wise to assume, assumptions are the mother of all fuck ups.

Whenever you do something (anything) do you sit and work everything out before hand or do you count to a certain extent on past experience?

If the latter then you are making an assumption. You are assuming that things in a similar situation are more likely to happen in a similar way than a different way to how they happened before. This is pretty much one definition of the process of learning.

If the former then you are Lieing (or mistaken). I doubt very much you work everything out consciously from step zero each time you do something (even if you've done it before). Just leaving the house in the morning would take you hours!

Anytime you catch a ball you are assuming it behaves similarly to previous balls you caught in the past; it is more probably that it will.

If you speak to someone for the first time what language do you use? Granted this might be a bad example, but if you were multilingual (maybe you are?) the likelihood is if you were in America (say) you would talk to someone in english the first time you saw them. Unless they were obviously a tourist it would just make more sense to assume they spoke the language that the majority of the people in that area spoke. If you were in an area populated by lots of new mexican immigrants you might try spanish; another assumption but not necessarily a bad one.

When you wake up in the morning do you worry about the sun not rising? Does the fact it rose every morning previously offer any kind of reassurance to you? If so, you are making an assumption.

The point is that assumption ARE useful. If assumptions were never useful people wouldn't say 'to assume makes an ass out of u and me' because noone would do it. Assumptions very often are useful, or else we wouldn't have to be careful about making them in the wrong situations.

 

[Medatripper Tates]

assumptions are useful when dealing with things within our grasp. but as far as I can tell the universe works in ways that is far beyond anything we can even comprehend. why assume anything about something we could never begin to know? assumptions are delusion when it comes to the workings of the universe and what lies behind the curtain of its appearance.

 

[MrM]

assumptions are useful when dealing with things within our grasp. but as far as I can tell the universe works in ways that is far beyond anything we can even comprehend. why assume anything about something we could never begin to know? assumptions are delusion when it comes to the workings of the universe and what lies behind the curtain of its appearance.

The universe doesn't work in ways that are far beyond anything we can comprehend. If it did then thinking about it would be a complete waste of time.

It is undeniably true that the extent of what we know and understand about the universe is vastly dwarfed by all that we don't know or understand, but this doesn't mean the understanding we have is worthless.

If we can send satellites to visit and take pictures of far away planets in our solar system based on assumptions made about the way the universe works (specifically things like gravity, orbital mechanics, rocket mechanics etc.) and learn new things then i think it is fair to say that the tiny understanding that we do posses of our own universe should not be completely written off. If the understanding we have (however tiny) allows us to learn more then eventually we'll have a much better understanding of things than we do now (just as now we understand things much better than we did in the past). That is unless scientists give up and decide the universe if fundamentally incomprehensible.

 

[The_Idler]

MrM

some people don't "believe" in Occam's Razor.


amazing, isn't it?



I just made a post in the "remove evil" thread,
i just realised how emotional "feelings" can override people's ability to even begin to attempt to logically determine most probable scenarios.

 

[namelesss]

Or stepping outside the realm of duality

Existence = duality = existence
Existence = Context.
Context = 'duality'.

you could say that neither exists within another, that the universe IS consciousness.

I can see the perspective, but from this one, I cannot reconcile the 'created' as one and the same as 'creator'. Creation, existence, comes and goes. Perception comes and goes. Perspective (us) comes and goes.
"Reality/Truth must rigidly adhere to that which is in an unchanging state of 'universal' permanence."
As I see it, one cannot be the other.
But, without Conscious observation, there can be no apparent universes. So, again, I can see your perspective too...

Or that the universe and conciousness exist within conception,

I can go along with the universes being 'concepts', which is to say, 'perspective'.
But as far as Consciousness goes, all that exists, exists within Consciousness.

as our microcosmic minds couldn't begin to understand such a macrocosmic process. QUOTE]
Many need not 'understand', just 'observe', 'be'.
Those who need to feel as if they 'understand' will find 'something' to 'understand', even if only fantasy.
What is understanding? A feeling that one sees certain patterns at the moment. That one 'knows' the 'Truth' about something? Ego? Are those patterns not subject to change in another moment?
And, yes, there are places where the mind cannot function on a logical and rational and linear level. Intuition, for one, is a good tool..

 

[namelesss]

Originally Posted by namelesss
No.
The 'universe' (at any moment) exists within Consciousness (by perspective), not the other way around as it seems.

I agree. What if everything were really within? What if everyone was really *right here*?

What if?
Hahahaha!
*__-

 

[yougene]

Well Deep brain stimulation is one good example. Stick a small electrode somewhere deep in someones brain, trickle a tiny current through it, see what happens. Obviously what happens depends on where you stick the electrode (amongst other things) but usually something interesting happens.

Yes this shows a causal relationship between the electrode and the neurons. It does nothing to show the relationship between neurons and consciousness. By the same reasoning I can say a meditator changes his brainwaves by meditating, therefore there is a causal relationship between the two. This explanation would be just as lacking.

I don't see how you go from 'mind' to 'logic, emotions, instinct'

You are separating mind out into 3 different things and ordering them. Why? For one thing it is pretty obvious that logic is not always above emotions or instinct in a hierarchy of the mind, as people panic or cry at inappropriate times or see red and kill people on occasions.

Structurally speaking logic is above emotions. Our evolutionary history is represented in our physical and interior structure. The mammilion brain( center of higher emotions ) is built on top of the brain stem( center of instincts ). This evolutionary structure also plays itself out within ourselves through microgenesis and other facets.

I don't understand why 'mind' is even in the same hierarchy as 'brain, cells and molecules'. The mind is fundamentally a different thing to a brain (and so in a different hierarchy) despite the fact that the mind exists within (or runs on) the brain. From the definition of 'Hierarchy', A hierarchy is a system of ranking and organizing things or people, where each element of the system (except for the top element) is a subordinate to a single other element. Since the mind can produce a measurable effect on the brain (for example - monks meditating whilst under a brain scanner) and the brain can produce a measurable effect on the mind (for example - deep brain stimulation) a simple hierarchy would not seem sufficient to explain the relationship between the two.

That's precisely the problem. Saying something has a causal relationship to something else necessarily insinuates this kind of structure.

 

[The_Idler]

learn you some neuroscience.

 

[yougene]

I know neuroscience well enough.

The problem here is logic.

 

[Rod-Everrard]

soooooooo....
you didnt understand the rest of my post,
which explains exactly why it is most logical to act as if the most probable scenario is the case?

or you just didnt like it?

Didn`t like it, as its not always correct.



Mr M, I can see what your on about but I still think its wise to make as little assumptions as possible, which is what Ockham`s razor is.

 

[The_Idler]

an assumption is acting as if something is true.

assumptions are necessary to do anything, as nothing can be known.

so it is most logical assume the truth of the most probable scenario,

BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO ASSUME SOMETHING

 

[Rod-Everrard]

an assumption is acting as if something is true.

assumptions are necessary to do anything, as nothing can be known.

so it is most logical assume the truth of the most probable scenario,

BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO ASSUME SOMETHING

You dont need to assume something to do anything.

I dont assume that when I drop a ball it falls, I know the ball will fall.

 

[The_Idler]

well, no. you do not. =/

It is possible that gravity would cease to operate at that moment.
or perhaps a pink elephant will come from nowhere and support it.

very unlikely situations, so you would logically assume the most probable situation.
the ball would fall.
there is no reason to act like anything ELSE would happen, because it probably wouldnt.
but you don't KNOW it's not going to happen,
in fact, hopefully you WILL know you know NOTHING,
i.e. you know ANYTHING could happen.

 

[MrM]

You dont need to assume something to do anything.

I dont assume that when I drop a ball it falls, I know the ball will fall.

Do you fully understand what causes gravity and how it behaves? No you don't (because noone does fully). This means that whilst you may have something of an understanding of what gravity usually does and a little understanding of why, the truth is that noone really understands it that well and what understanding we have is a partial thing based on certain asumptions about the universe that may not be entirely correct.

Have you heard of the problem with voyager and it's gravitational anomaly? Apparently the satalite is not travelling along precisely the path that our best theories predict - it's off by a tiny bit. This is likely due to some assumption we have made about how gravity works that is incorrect. Obviously our understanding is pretty good as the anomaly is tiny, but in absolute terms our understanding of gravity is flawed and based on assumptions (despite which is mostly works) and this holds true for balls as well as satelites.

So you may be familiar with the fact that when you let go of the ball it drops (you know it will happen again because you assume it will keep doing what it did before) but you don't know the full reasons why it does what it does (in the sense that you could give a thorough explanation) as noone can. This is what we mean when we talk about assumptions, occams razor, and assuming the most probably outcome is most likely to occur when understanding is less than 100%