- Rafael Perez
- Barcelona
- Spain
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
is consciousness a brain chemical reaction?
as in the genome is found that all nature comes from the same organism (LUCA) is it possible that what is inside us may be acquired from other elements of nature, and it is disturbing that the neurones connectors have an important similitude in chemical composition of psilocybin, is it possible that generations of psilocibin use have generated these connections as we know them? is it consciousness a brain chemical reaction??
Topics:
consciousness though origin
Adriaan Braam 20+
Would this title help? It is called The Human Mind..
http://sites.google.com/site/liveitupspiritually/home/source/TheHumanMind.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
shawn disney 10+
tishe Hires 10+
Gabo Moreno 100+
Yet, I would like to add that we define consciousness in many ways, and in our arrogance forget that many "primitive" reactions are also consciousness, whether we like it or not, just as many "mechanical" responses are also "logic."
A bacterium swimming towards or against a chemical gradient is using both fuzzy logic, and being "conscious" of the chemical gradient. Only we do those thing(s) in a much more complicated way. Because the "mechanics" are hidden from us under loads of complexity, we tend to think that our logics and consciousnesses are different. I tend to disagree.
I know, I know, I am oversimplifying ... but am I? Self-awareness might look as "another" thing, but come to think of it, it might not. After all, if the bacterium is swimming towards food, it is itself swimming, not something else. There seems to be no real boundary other than by our biased perception of each of these "human features."
Note that I am thinking these thoughts quite freshly. Not finished ideas at all.
I think I rather leave you alone and come later after chewing on these ideas a bit more. :)
Rafael Perez
shawn disney 10+
Gabo Moreno 100+
During my early years of exploration I kinda flirted with some kinda Buddhism, and it felt great. I still do a bit of meditation, but without the mumbo-jumbo. I took the benefits of learning to still the mind to give myself a rest.
Anyway, I am not talking magic in here. I am talking actual physical-chemical stuff going on that can easily be catalogued as consciousness and logic once we pass the anthropocentric barrier. I am making the point that we imagine our perceptions to be very different, but that I doubt they are. There is much more complexity for sure, but building upon simpler principles we have been able to explain a bit of a lot. Which is my way of saying that it is only our imagination that makes us think that we are the only conscious thing. The message is not thus about magic consciousness in Bacteria, but about the lack of magic in consciousness. Or perhaps the magic is that we are bound to be able to understand how these things work at our level and notice the continuum from what we perceive as "purely mechanic" (Chemotaxis in Bacteria), to what we perceive as some kind of mysterious and spiritual (human mind stuff).
Best!
Rafael Perez
una bacteria contiene su informacion genetica pero tambien contiene informacion del medio en que se desarrolla, en ese sentido el universo de esa bacteria es lo que conoce y lo que no, asi como para nosotros el universo lo forma lo que conocemos o lo que no.. lo que yo veo interesante es que la evolucion del humano lo ha llevado a encontrar que como top de concienciaa de la vida eucariota, necesita a las procariotas para vivir, pero ambas vienen de un antepasado comun con solo 900 a 4000 millones de años, lo que quiero decir es que la bacteria no puede salir de la tierra sin el humano, por eso el humano es el medio de la bacteria capaz de esparcirla para que ella que si resiste millones de años en el espacio poderse replicar en el universo como seguramente ya lo ha hecho antes ella es el hongo, que esta creando la zeta capaz de esparcirla y la zeta es la raza humana... peace and wonder...
shawn disney 10+
Gabo Moreno 100+
Your last analogy is far off the mark. A tree struck by thunder is not producing but a burned tree. But sure in the first the wires, et cetera are "causing" electricity if that's how you want to phrase it.
Our mind is the results of physical-chemical processes. No way around. What else do you think I might be missing? This includes the positions, the shapes, the electricity, the gating, the proteins finding each other, the ion channels, the biochemical reactions, et cetera. So, what if not the result of all this would our consciousness be? I don't see any hopelessness in the science. I was once struck by the realization that a lot about how the mind works was been discovered by working on slugs. Not very hard experiments to perform by the way. I was disillusioned that there seemed not to be any need for a mayor technological break through. Just the finding of the proper experimental models, and there you go. Undeniably making molecular sense of what seems, at first glance, so complex and out of reach. But, if we think much more carefully about it, we might perceive our consciousness as "separate" from whatever we understand as "mechanics" in such living forms as Bacteria. But how can we be sure of that? There is a point of interpretation in the working of our minds that gives us the illusion of something else, but mechanics are there, and our perception might very well be the emergence of, perhaps very complex yet understandable, mechanics. I can't see why not.
Best.
Viet Dung Pham 20+
1.You are hungry, your brain will say: I'm hungry? No. It will give us a lots of signal and we recognize through our....stomach with a series of ..ou..ou..sounds. Yes or No?
2. The FIB hires a lot of people who have ability to solve criminals (hidden corpse, defining future ..) (real or unreal, I don't know) Yes or No?
Mark Hurych
Check out TEDster Eve Ensler on this page
http://www.ted.com/talks/eve_ensler.html
She refers to a book by Philip Sheperd called New Self, New World. It is quite appropriate to use that book in order to see our almost universal bias towards intelligence/consciousness as only a head thing. Intelligence/consciousness is not just a head thing, it is a body thing too. I'm convinced, though there's no way to confirm this yet, that we are connections on an integrated system and that the consciousness we experience is a characteristic aspect of the relationships and connections on that integrated complex adaptive system. In other words we are not individual things unto ourselves located somewhere in the skull. It is my guess that there will never be an awake brain in a jar nor will there ever be an awake AI system without a system of relationships as rich as what we experience with each breath, heartbeat, sight, sound, and smell. (Add memory and forecasting prefrontal lobes for good measure.) The point is we exist in a context of experience and much of that experience is processed in our gut, and in an immediate context of emotion that, like the sounds we hear, can be dimmed and ignored, but not turned off.
I'm sorry. To answer your question: Yes, consciousness is a brain chemical reaction, but it's also a whole lot more. Do you feel me Rafa? [:-) Thank you so much for the question.
Mark
Rafael Perez
i fell you totally here with me... that is the why of this question
what do you think about this mark?
excuses for my bad english, here with my words...
exactamente a eso me refiero, es mas que nosotros, es una carrera eterna por el espacio y la luz es eterna... y dejamos la estela de luz que no es vista por nosotros pero que ya ha sido alumbrada como la vida la razon de esa pasion por seguir adelante es el sentido de todo y es lo que nos mueve en cualquier direccion y tenemos el compromiso de replicarnos en vida que talvez no sea ni parecida al orden actual pero que tendra esa misma pasion por seguir adelante, para mi, somos el hongo y nos falta construir la zeta, de la cual saldra la semilla para esparcir la vida, como ya antes ha pasado con nosotros the theory of passion
http://www.ted.com/conversations/8013/the_theory_of_passion.html
tishe Hires 10+
shawn disney 10+
Rafael Perez
the theory of passion http://www.ted.com/conversations/8013/the_theory_of_passion.html
Winans Ash
Wherever we go there we are: our 'consciousness' follows along without any effort on our part.
If there is any evidence that consciousness has immaterial (or incorporeal) properties, all or part, I am unaware
of that evidence.
My experience suggests that consciousness arises from biochemical processes and biophysical processes in our brains.
I will recount that experience, via email, to interested parties. (I will need your email address to respond. I don't want my
description limited by text area size restrictions.)
Pax,
sartorthegrey
My email for correspondence is: sresartus@yahoo.com
Anna Ruiz
Whether there is awareness that precedes or continues after the brain-death of the entity/person, I don't know. How could I? I can, however, point to the fact that we all are conscious of the same things, dependent on our abilities to perceive, cognize. So I can deduce from this that the map of consciousness is the same for everyone though the content and description is highly individual, based on many factors. .
Awareness seems to be what the universe is all about...from the smallest living thing, all creatures great and small are endowed with the rudiments of self-awareness: the will to survive. So we ARE our chemicals and much more.
Consciousness is highly individual.
Rafael Perez
thak you Anna thats what im talking about and thats the kind of answers taht im looking for, to build the theory of passion, thank you
shawn disney 10+
Rafael Perez
Bilal Saad
Rafael Perez
Ted Clomperston
Thank you.
Rafael Perez
Max Pucher
Max Pucher
Applying those thoughts to a scientific model of mind and brain we run into the same situation. We can not measure thoughts or picture mental images much as we can not see a Higgs particle. We can create a model (which we do not yet have) to describe mind and try to map it into the brain. But the brain is just a carrier and it is extremely complex due to its bio-chemical nature. The bio-electrical part in itself is utterly dysfunctional without the biochemistry.
It is impossible to build a human-like artificial intelligence because it will not possess a human-like experience of self and it will lack the hormonal drives. I wrote a novel on the subject in 2003 (Deity - http://www.amazon.com/Deity-Max-J-Pucher/dp/0974100633/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324896043&sr=8-1 )
Rafael Perez
Max Pucher
Joll Bolte reports on the amazing sensation of losing your rational self-image due to a stroke.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html
Rafael Perez
Rafael Perez
tishe Hires 10+
Rafael Perez
tishe Hires 10+
Ryan Bennett
Mihai Popeti
Sometimes I feel like chemists or quantum phisicists are trying to pose as mechanics. That's the beautiful thing about the definition of emergence, isn't it: you can look at the parts a thousand times and you will still have to remain a stranger to the whole. Thank immanent omnipresent underlying complexity! Or something.
shawn disney 10+
Amirpouya Ghaemiyan 50+
I believe that it's somehow impossible to answer this question.
But I think the science could "justify" brain's reactions with chemical materials etc.
And we can predict most of the human's reactions and design a system like brain with reverse engineering.
I believe that metaphysics is still a possible.
As possible as a car has a ghost.
Paul Fretenborough
Paul Fretenborough
Much like how catnip works on cats but not humans.
Consciousness is a chemical and electrical process. Drugs are like software for our minds. Our minds read the chemical data and try to interpret it but it's simply in the wrong format to be understood properly and is displayed in a distorted fashion upon our mental screen.
George Kong 30+
Similarly, it doesn't seem like a huge stretch to think that some of these chemicals might occur naturally externally in the world, without formation or development within our own brains.
Also, I tend to shy away from the notion that consciousness itself is a thing which has a purpose - the implication is that consciousness is a part of the brain that can be located within the brain much like the visual cortex.
It's more that - having the brain able to cross-communicate between different regions of information processing is a fundamental part to having a brain that is able to specialize parts of itself in information processing. And that things that we call consciousness can only naturally emerge as the outcome of all that processing and cross communication.
In that sense, consciousness exists more along the axons and dendrites of the brain then in any particular part of the brain itself - but it's not something that could exist simply through the function of any particular sets of axons or dendrites or neurons.
Rafael Perez
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Yes, we are conscious because we can examine the mind create a memory (and other cognitive functions), so yeah it is a chemical-energy reaction.
But what is "consciousness" is still open to debate.
I enjoy Socrates idea of intellectualism - Confucius would agree in the sense of becoming sagely.
http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5255G.pdf (Socratic Moral Psychology)
Intelligence, awareness, adaptability, critical-analytical skills, and/or overall cognitive functions - are apart of the consciousness debate.
How "conscious" is someone proves just as much of a concern as the question "Are we conscious," no?
So, yes to your question, but it is also more - it is "supernatural" in the sense sciences do not know at present time the entirety of the human "mind." To what extent is their a metaphysical connection between people - earth - universe? To what extent do our known body energies affect/effect one another without our brain consciously knowing, but just body?
I mind you, we do not just think with our brain; our stomachs and spines also have neural control over our systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_brain
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
"In his day, Alexander Shulgin explored consciousness through “the art of chemistry.” He synthesized a version of mescaline and invented other psychedelic drugs, experimenting on himself, before the era of government and university regulations. “Each material had to be learned, as a new meeting…. The beauty of the final results, finding out what the effects were, was that you couldn’t be wrong.” If he reported visual enhancements, and recall of memories, his data was “always a winner,” because it was mostly a matter of subjective experience. Shulgin rues the laws and propaganda against psychedelic drugs, because he believes these drugs would serve as a useful “probe to look at the function of mind.”
edward long 100+
For someone who believes natural law cannot explain life, being, consciousness, etc. the answer must be "No". They must say that chemical processes are an effect of a supernatural cause.
shawn disney 10+
edward long 100+
Either consciousness is chemistry, or it is not. If it is not then either: 1) it is uncaused (violating the law of causality), or 2) it is an effect of a cause which is not observable in the natural realm.
Is electricity caused you ask? Yes, The Law of Causality has not been repealed. Thanks Shawn.
Rafael Perez
shawn disney 10+
But "Consciousness Is either Chemistry " or not? I have never heard of any Law of
Causality" in the sense that you are using it, except in Theology , where it was used to attempt a proof of the existence of "God". As such, what it actually becomes is in the form of an Axiom : assumed as basic, but not having the ability, or the need, to be "proved" itself. Right out of Euclidean Geometry. Useful, but maybe not absolutely necessary.
I'm assuming, as I believe sciences still do, the basic terms of the discussion are going to be energy, waves, cycles, and correlations. with a big helping of constructed Theories to make sense of it all. "Chemistry" is not basic at all, since the components of the Periodic Table are no longer the "atoms" they once were considered to be , and Causality is more a Rule of Thumb than a "Law". I'm merely assuming , for the sake of theorizing, that Consciousness is going to turn out to be a more basic element than Westerners usually do; we are still hung up on this idea of a Newtonian particle Universe, which leads to a lot of confusion.
Benjamin Goldstein 20+
Max Pucher
Scientist talk about theory despite some plausibility, while supernaturalists who have not done anything to add to human knowledge are certain that they know it all. Absolutely amazing, or what else is the explanation?
edward long 100+
Your logic has a Fallacy of Composition. You claim that what is true of some ("are unwilling to reconsider') is true of all (who believe in the supernatural). I believe in the supernatural and I spend much of my time reconsidering what I believe. If I discover an error in my treasury of truth, I discard it.
I guess your questions about the supernatural are rhetorical, but if you do want answers you will need to look beyond the natural, observable world. Science cannot, and should not try to, explain the supernatural. Be cool, Max, allow for the possibility that you are wrong about the supernatural, be willing to reconsider. Thanks.
Max Pucher
I have made no such assertion that something would apply to everyone but yes, I did not explicitly allow for it. But I think there is little point in splitting hairs. My question was quite clear about the supernatural it is not fundamental because the supernatural only means that we have not yet a scientific explanation for it. I find a lot of plausibility in timeless actions at a distance in quantum physics, allowing many natural explanations for the supernatural. But the phenomenon as such are at a level that might stay out of reach of our certainty. It seems in fact that the essence of thus universe is about uncertainty. Many scientists take those thoughts as esoteric rubbish. That is their choice.
if science can not explain the supernatural I wonder what means you use to 'look beyond'. If it is a purely mental exercise that can't be replicated it is an illusion of our brain that produces a huge amount of practical illusions each day. You treasury of truth is such an illusion. We know nothing. Exactly my point.
So In everything I think and do I leave room for having a perception that is purely mine and possible not real and possibly not true at all. The supernatural would be inaccessible in this universe and thus not explainable but utterly irrelevant at the same time.
A belief in the supernatural that is 'beyond science' is just that and nothing else. If science shouldn't look it means you want it to be mystical and unexplained for some personal reason. It would be pity to find out it is not supernatural.
This is not meant as something personal. Just a discussion ... I would love to be convinced. So give it a try.
Rafael Perez
lo sobrenatural es una caracteristica implantada en la genetica para que con ese fin el humano se desarrolle en la busqueda de un porque y evolucione hacia esparcir la vida, es mas grande que nosotros, pero mas sencillo de lo que podemos entender en nuestra complejidad
Rafael Perez
tishe Hires 10+
Gabo Moreno 100+
Rafael Perez
what I mean is that genetic intelligence is greater than the human intelligence... genetics is in fact who makes us survive, change and evolve and I think the human impulse is genetic, marked by the probability of error, to survival in the diversity and that according to these rules I can think of so many people desire to add cubic kilometers snuff smoke over generations in the lungs could create a strain capable of surviving the high levels of carbon monoxide (or any other element that does not like it) that is becoming more dense in the terrestrial environment, I do not believe in a sinister ends, I believe in a future set to the ranges of species and I think we can replicate it for this life we live, both individually as at the group level, this makes sense for you Gabo?
Gabo Moreno 100+
¿Te refieres a que quizá los fumadores estén seleccionando (evolucionando) en sus pulmones bichos (bacterias por ejemplo) capaces de resistir los altos niveles de CO2 que estamos lanzando hacia la atmósfera?
(Miré tu perfil prediciendo que serías español o al menos vivirías en España, porque por acá los fumadores no son precisamente abundantes, o no se notan tanto como por allá. He estado en España, Barcelona precisamente, y me impresionó lo notable que es el tabaquismo.)
----
I think I got it. You mean smokers might be selecting for microbes (evolving them) of some sort within their lungs that might resist the high levels of CO2 that might accumulate with time in the atmosphere. Well, sure. Resistant or even feeding on whatever the many components of the smoke.
But I can't understand the relationship with consciousness. Maybe you just sent a random comment?
Rafael Perez
the relationship i see is that consciousness is the way to replicate life
Mohammad Marohombsar
Rafael Perez
The eternal life journey through the different moments of time and evolving with today's technology presents a prospective view, suggests an eternal progress that does not end as it believes in an apocalyptic catastrophe, but one that we have enough time to understand how life spread. Genetic engineering has advanced and will soon be generating the organisms that can incubate in a space voyage of thousands or millions of years and then evolve in different ways of life, when they have an environment and that is the current race of human technology and why has moved in that direction... and now the real test is to simplify the DNA so that one organism can survive interstellar travel insert the information so you can replicate in humans and all kind of organisms that will help between to evolve, which to the genetic load may lead to build civilizations as we consider only the present, but knowing the nature and the environment is as difficult as most likely to do a great dispersion, which will carry these new civilizations are not always near or reach similar levels of technology in times like that, that times we feel alone but there is a small detail, the most likely genetic in that work can be included flashes of memory that involves the need for such things to continue life, unconsciously, we all have those flashes equally, a galaxy or 100 trillion human cells as a push us to an uncontrollable force that makes us .. Genetic simple toys as the union of two connected cells that were never connected in a way that produces 100 trillion different cells that are not connected by anything apparently but can grow into an organism (in addition to much like the donor) that is capable of connecting with others and write music, paint and travel to a moon... I call it passion and it is what is made all
Frans Kellner 100+
The way humans became self aware is due to the development of spoken language.
In communicating the self is separated from the other.
Rafael Perez
Frans Kellner 100+
Rafael Perez
brian herring
Rafael Perez
Mihai Popeti
Are you currently thinking about preadaptive advancements? You got me all intrigued. :)
Rafael Perez
shawn disney 10+
Frans Kellner 100+
To explain: Every living creature shares the same consciousness which is a product of the dynamics of the non living universe. There is no personal consciousness only a sense of self for which all non self is the mirror to see it in. If scientists arrive at this notion things will start to progress in all sort of ways.
Organisms aren't machines, robots are.
George Kong 30+
It's a bit of a tautology of course; but it does point out pithily that; while machines may not concievably experience things the same way as people do, it doesn't mean that they'll never be able to experience... and more to the point, it'll be difficult for us to be able to empathize with machine experiences (it's already difficult enough for us to empathize with each other).
shawn disney 10+
brian herring
Also, when people use the science and language of physics, versus the faith and language of any religion it's opposite sides of the same coin, both of which are incomplete at best.Peace
Rafael Perez
Frans Kellner 100+
The "electric field" you say is one field, I look at being itself as being one. What is, is. There's nothing else.
Consciousness is the property that with intelligence creates all that exist.
We only mirror that consciousness to see (each a part of) it from a perspective within space/time.
So before all and everything there is the will to exist which can only be kept (alive) in a continuing exchange (energy) within the field of existence (matter) that becomes self-aware and reacts (intelligence) extracting information (creativity) to evolve in ever more complexity (creation).
Human intelligence which mirrors cosmic intelligence on a local scale extends further with aid of robots but then as extended body parts like we are now putting on Mars. We can’t give them the will to exist but they expand our locality and by that consciousness becomes aware of more of itself.
So in my view there’s only one consciousness we all share and which creates one reality. Another consciousness would create another reality which we aren’t aware of like in a dream we have an altered consciousness that creates an altered reality.
shawn disney 10+
Rafael Perez
Max Pucher
Frans Kellner 100+
In my view sub consciousness is consciousness as well. As an organism has the "knowing" to sustain life it is conscious of many things without knowing anything.
shawn disney 10+
B. Reynolds
But we don't know.
Mihai Popeti
Of course that is only what it is and not an answer to questions like what it means or how it works.
And I found this one (http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_wolpert_the_real_reason_for_brains.html) very interesting to answer the question how we got enough neurons for this emergent movement anyhow.
Which in turn might suggest that furthe advancements in human consciousness might be attained rather dancing than playing chess... don't you agree?
George Kong 30+
Consciousness is the perception that emerges from massively parallel iterative electro-chemical neural processing. That is - lots of different parts of the brain, processing lots of different information, doing it all very very quickly, all at once, and repeatedly feeding processed information back into other parts of the brain... all operating on the electro-chemical substrate of neural interaction. When your visual center is working in concert with your memory, audio, emotions, etc, etc... the real time, iterative concert of all these disparate pieces causes the sensation of consciousness.
But that's really as helpful as telling you that the functions of computer programs emerges from massively parallel iterative electro-mechanical transistor operations.
It's accurate, and captures some of the spirit of how complexity emerges... but at the same time, leaves out significant portions of the intricacies and details of how these complex emergent phenomena comes to be.
As far as psylocibin goes... that can chemically affect portions of the brain - specific neurotransmitters that perform certain tasks - which in turn would alter the way consciousness is percieved or works for the period in which the drug is active - but would have nothing to do with been the cause of consciousness.
Paul Lillebo
"... causes the sensation of consciousness." And what's "sensation," then? Consciousness?
It's not easy for the working mind to examine the working mind. We seem to run into conceptual and linguistic black holes.
George Kong 30+
And flippant linguistic observations aside - the points made still hold; this thing that we feel that we call consciousness, is the feeling/perception/sensation that arises from the 'massively parallel, iterative, processing' of many smaller elements of the brain.
Without the context of the rest of massively parallel iterative experience... electrical signals from the skin indicating pressure and temperature (among other things) mean little. In the context of visual, auditory feedback, of temporal delays, as well as the context of thousands of other memory cues - the small parts of the experience of consciousness ties into and makes sense with the overall experience.
Paul Lillebo
I have no quibble with your mechanistic explanation of nerve nets in the brain. As a biologist myself I think you said it as well as can be said in a paragraph or two.
shawn disney 10+
Gabo Moreno 100+
I don't know if that's what Mr K said, but I am pretty sure that sometime humans will develop conscious "robot brains." I don't see why not.
Xavier Smith
George Kong 30+
Rafael Perez