(Editor's Note: Our flagship {comsat}
www.rickcmtsite.blogspot.com
Politics, Economics, American History with a splash of Greek
Mythology)
"God" is one floor down.
SUPPLEMENT: GOD, BRAINS and STUFF
by Richard DePersio
Janus Citizen Journalist, ably assisted
in our investigation by Mr. Logic Himself, Sherlock
Re: Upside down U.S. Flag has nothing to do with offering. It
just serves to let our Dear Readers know that the U.S. Flag
still flies in this manner at all five of our comsats ---
symbolizing a nation in distress due to B.O. (Sherlock says
it shouldn't be part of Supplement; Sherlock overruled.).
(Editor's Note: Our most confusing articles have been those
concerning the most confusing things in the cosmos: You
and I.)
1:1 In the Beginning, God created Heaven and Earth...
(We have discussed Anthropic Principle and Multiverses; the
latter representing a feeble attempt and an artificial construct
by scientists to deal with the former. Those of our readers
who are religiously-inclined may have been offended by
aspects of the article proper. Rest assured that we remain equal
opportunity offenders when it comes to science and
religion.).
1:2 ...and the Moon. Most astronomers harbor the view that earth-
like planets are common as is carbon/water-based life, including,
intelligent life is teeming in the cosmos. As we heretofore,
stated: the uniqueness of our moon and the precise manner
of its creation, we contend would make intelligent like
elsewhere extremely unlikely.
Plato: "I interrupt the Supplement in order to register a complaint:
this Supplement and the article 'God' should be part of my
'Man-in-the-Cave' Series. What have you been doing behind
my back while I was in my Cave!?!
RD: "We - CJ and I - stand corrected. This constitutes 'Another
Enjoyable visit to Plato's Cave'."
1:3 The Mind/Brain Problem...Definitions on mind or consciousness
vary but have basic elements and concepts in common.Let's
define the mind as follows: consciousness (self-awareness); the
ability not only to register pain but to know that it is uncomfortable
and causes
distress to body; memories; one's moral code; you behavioral
characteristics; personality; thoughts; feelings; ability to remember
the past and plan for the future; language (beyond mere signalling)
leading to culture and language enabling abstract thought. Do
these things exist solely in mind or some in mind while others in
brain or do they all exist in both locales. Is it all
material; is brain and mind the self-same thing? Or, are they
intimately related but existing in two different formats --- with
mind a new form of matter/energy. Most neuroscientists and
physicists say emphatically: "No!" Yet, they can readily accept
multiverses, more then three spatial dimensions, dark matter and
dark energy! There is a notable exception to the rule: mathematician/
physicist Roger Penrose concedes that consciousness may
be in the microtubules which give size and shape to cells much like
skeletons do for the body. He suggests it exists in microtubules of
neurons. Would our other elements in our definition of mind reside
there as well? (As is our wont: it's time to repeat our criticism of
physicist Machio Kaku --- he excepts proven mathematical
speculation as fact, thereby, short circuiting the accepted process
of speculation {with or without math.} to model to theory to widely
accepted theory to fact. A long row to hoe -decades from speculation
to fact - that can be stopped at any juncture. In contrast, we have
Roger and though he can mathematically prove that a part of us may
survive death, he considers it pure speculation, until and if, someday
experiments can be developed to prove or disprove.
1:4 Consciousness, many have argued, is what separates humans from
other animals. Consciousness refers to our awareness of our own
mental processes, such as our thoughts, feelings and, sensations. It
is possible that we are the only beings on this planet that have this
type of self-awareness or level of consciousness and the ability to
introspect, or look inward and examine these processes. For
example, if you are angry, you can try to understand you anger, why
you are angry, what that anger feels like, etc. But can a cat?
-Psychology Glossary
1:5 Employing our definition of mind above, only humans have all the characteristics and to the deepest degree; in the strictest and fullest
sense only humans have mind. Other primates and dolphins not all the
elements in the definition and not to our degree. Much less other
mammals. We contend not at all other living things.
1:6 What if we only consider language? We shouldn't confuse the
primitive signalling process of some animals with the sophistication
of human language. Nor should we confuse working out a problem in the head with trial-and-error with primitive-automatic- genetically pre-programmed responses."...'linguistic turn' that came
to dominate much philosophy of the mind in the 20th century.
According to this, our mental life is essentially underpinned or
mediated by language, and our thoughts are necessarily represented
inwardly in linguistic terms. Such a view rigidly applied to
non-linguistic animals, would oblige us to deny that they can
entertain any thoughts at all. Attitudes have since softened, and
most philosophers would allow that (some) non-human animals
have thoughts albeit of a simpler kind.
-Ben Dupre', 50 philosophy ideas you really need
to know, Quercus, 2007
1:7 What if we are highly restrictive and only consider pain?
Mammals seem to react to pain in much the same way as we do...
there reactions...in physiological terms...genetic make-up...
evolutionary origin...it is plausible to suppose that there should be
resemblances at the level of subjective experience too. In this
way we may be on relatively safe ground in making inferences
about our close relatives, apes and monkeys, rather less so when
to more distantly related mammals, such as rats and moles. The
analogy becomes weaker..."
-Ben Dupre' (see above)
1:8 "Definition: In psychology, consciousness refers to our awareness
of sensations, thoughts, and other internal processes. As you might
expect, our experience of conscious is always changing as our
thoughts and environment shift. For example, at one moment you
might be focused on reading a blog post. Moments later you might
shift your thought to a memory of a lecture you attended earlier in the
day. Next, you might notice how uncomfortable your seat is and start
rubbing your neck. This ever-shifting stream of thoughts can change dramatically from one moment to the next, but your experience it
seems smooth and effortless."
-About.com/Psychology 1/18/2013
1:9 Is consciousness just the globalization of electrical and
chemical activity within the brain? "We experience ourselves and
the world as a constant flow of thoughts a sensations, but how the
brain generates this stream is a mystery. According to one influential
theory, consciousness is like a theater - a 'spotlight of attention'
shines a bright beam onto certain neural processes, and those that are
lit up enter the 'stage' of conscious awareness...We are conscious of
the actors only when they enter the stage. When they are not on stage,
their actions are being performed unconsciously." Stage corresponds
to working memory which enables us to deal with small amounts
of info for short periods. "It can be thought of as a kind of screen,
onto which your experiences are projected to your 'mind's eye.' ...
Actors move on and off stage...
-Moheb Constandi, 50 Ideas you really
need to know - the human brain, Quercus, 2013
1:10 Descartes, though considered the 'Father of Modern Philosophy' his
ideas poo-pooed by most philosophers and neuro/cognitive
scientists today. Descartes: the brain generates consciousness
by selecting certain info and displaying it on an internal screen
where it it is viewed by a little man (an homunculus) representing
mind or immaterial soul. Daniel Dennet refers to it disparagingly as
'Cartesian theater. (We shall visit the 'little man' again later).
1:11 It appears to us - does it appear to you - that the 'global workplace'
model of 1:9 and the Descartes model only differ as regards a
immaterial substance called mind or consciousness. Why can't
there be an immaterial mind, after all, scientists accept the existence
of dark matter and dark energy. Further, some physicists even talk
in terms of negative and positive matter not to be confused with
matter and anti-matter. Pure speculation: a different kind of matter. One ponders: why do brain scientists and physicists struggle or refuse
out of hand --- mind beyond brain!?!
(As the Bible and religion appear more and more silly as does
science; the latter once grounded in classical physics and the
strangeness of relativity has become so divorced from commonsense
and reality with the ever harder to accept and stranger than even
relativity - quantum physics, string theory, dark matter, dark energy ---
and, of course, multiverses!).
Plato: "Don't forget me and my perfect forms of circles, squares, chairs,
tables, etc. and my perfect concepts of love, justice, etc. existing
in heaven along with souls. Souls inhabit corrupt and imperfect
bodies. Some of us are better than others at overcoming the
prison of the body and grasping the perfect forms and concepts
which we will all appreciate perfectly again upon our return to
heaven."
Sherlock: "Plato, please desist from interrupting as you interrupt my
logical train of thought."
1:12 Descartes thought envisioned two realms: 1) immaterial minds -
with mental properties such as thinking and feeling; 2) material
bodies with properties like mass and shape. Matter would take up
space while mind wouldn't necessarily be confined to the brain. "A
desire to drink causes my arm to lift the glass; a drawing pin in my
foot causes me pain. Mind and body (so common sense suggests)
interact: mental events bring about physical ones and vice versa.
But the need for such interaction immediately casts doubt on the
Cartesian picture. It is a basic principle that a physical effect
requires a physical cause, but by making mind and matter
essentially different, Descartes appears to have made interaction
impossible....From this duelist metaphysics arises (Gilbert)
Ryle's disparaging picture of the 'Ghost in the Machine': the
immaterial mind or soul (the Ghost) somehow living within and
pulling the levers of the material body (the Machine)...Spinoza
who claims the notion of dualism relates not to substances but to
properties: two distinct types of property, mental and physical,
can be ascribed to a single thing (a person or subject), but these
attributes are irreducibly different and cannot be analyzed in terms
of one another. So the different properties describe different
aspects of the same entity." Like matter and energy? "The theory
can explain how mind-body interaction occurs as, the causes of
our actions have both physical and mental aspects. Like matter and
energy interact?
-Ben Dupre', " 50 philosophy ideas...," Quercus, 2007
1:13 We know that neutrinos exist although they rarely interact with
matter. We suspect that there is dark matter even though it might
only interact with matter gravitationally. Matter/Dark Matter and
Matter/Energy --- and Mind/Brain?
1:14 Returning to Penrose an atheist..."Post existence, continue to
exist in some form, maybe in another dimension, but continuing to
exist...But I do believe in separation of consciousness. But in no way
am I implying that just because I believe in the possibility of
post-existence do I mean that I am in any way religious or believe
anything religion has to claim...Keeping in mind I believe in the
possibility of post-existence, I'm not saying it's fact, I'm saying it
could be possible." He further suggests that quantum gravity
(scientists are attempting to merge relativistic and quantum physics)
effects may be taking place in the microtubules.
1:15 Mind as a new substance in nature like dark energy and dark matter
(remember: E=MCsquared; matter and energy are the same). Or,
mind and brain being two different forms of the same thing (like matter
and energy). Or, a quantum gravity effect in a wave/particle (once
again a dualism in nature sometimes light acts like a particle and
sometimes a wave; sometimes a proton acts like a particle and
sometimes a wave). Why can't mind and brain contain the same
info in different formats with brain not have spatial locality like
light or proton when in wave or field form or format. Think of a
field or waves as having no definite location in space, and perhaps,
in space-time.
1:16 "Without consciousness the mind-body problem would be much
less interesting. With consciousness it seems hopeless."
-Thomas Nagel, US philosopher, 1974
1:17 "We are all immediately conscious of our consciousness - that
we have thoughts and feelings that are subjective and on which we
have a unique and personal perspective; science, by contrast, is
rigorously objective and open to scrutiny. We may wonder how
something as strange as consciousness can exist in the physical
world explained by science; just as certainly we will struggle
to find a place for the soul, the presumed seat of consciousness.
-Ben Dupre', 50 big ideas...
1:18 There is no room for mind or soul if the universe is physical
and that is the domain of science; there must be a scientific
explanation --- or not. Just because some scientist's electronic
device measures something does not mean they are measuring
imagination. They are measuring some brain reaction that occurs
when you initiate an act of imagination. There is a relationship
between the mind and the brain, but this relationship is almost
completely unknown and not understood. How does brain
generate subjectivity? Science can't deal with subjective for
it can't measure it: determine it's length, width, depth, weight,
location, etc.
1:19 How do neural firings and chemical exchanges in the brain
generate thoughts and feelings.
Sherlock: "Observation: it isn't logical - the Supplement is going
to be longer than the article proper!"
1:20 "...researchers may be able to deduce by looking at blood flow
patterns in the brain what someone is thinking about. Further,
by electrical or drug stimulation of particular areas, as well as
surgery, they can bring about smells, sights, sounds quite
indistinguishable from reality...What they do find more difficult
is to relate brain activity to personal inner experience."
-Adrian Fumham, 50 psychology ideas...Quercus,
2008
"Consciousness is not just an issue for biologists; it's a problem
for physics. There is nothing in modern physics that explains how
a group of molecules in a brain creates consciousness. The beauty
of a sunset, the taste of a delicious meal, these are all mysteries to
science -- which can sometimes pin down where in the brain the
sensations arise, but not how and why there is any subjective
personal experience to begin with. And, what's worse, nothing in
science can explain how consciousness arose from matter. Our
understanding of this most basic phenomenon is virtually nil.
Interestingly, most models of physics do not even recognize this
as a problem."
-Robert Lanzawth and Bob Berman, Biocentrism
1:21 "If you try to access that luminous, energy-filled, visual part of
the brain, it's easy. You're already effortlessly perceiving it with
every glance you take. Custom says that what we see is 'out there,'
outside ourselves, and such a viewpoint is fine and necessary in
terms of language and utility, as in 'please pass the butter that is
over there.' But make no mistake: the butter itself exists only in
the mind. It is the only place visual (and tactile and olfactory)
images are perceived and hence located. Explained in the
language of biology, the brain turns impulses from our senses
into order and a sequence. As photons of light bounce off the
butter, various combinations of wavelengths enter our eye and
deliver their force to trillions of atoms arranged into an exquisite
design of cells that rapidly fire into permutations to vast for any
computer to calculate. Then, in the brain, this information, which
as we previously saw has no color by itself, appears as a yellow
block of butter. Even its smell and texture are experienced in the
mind alone. The 'butter' is not 'out there' except by convention of
language.The same is true for all perceived objects, including the
brain, cells, and even the electromagnetic events we detect with
our instruments...As noble physicist John Wheeler said, 'No
phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed
phenomenon.'"
-L and B., Biocentrism
1:22 Erwin Schrodinger created the 'cat-in-the-box paradox' in which
the cat is alive or dead at the same time. The observer will know
when he lifts the lid and collapses the wave function. You can think
of the cat as waves or a field whose atoms are in many locations
simultaneously. Upon observing, the atoms take definite positions
constructing a living or dead cat. It would later be proven in the
double-slit experiment. It shows that observation/consciousness
determines the outcome: if you watch photon or electron travel to
screen, it behaves like a particle; if you just look at screen, it
behaves like a wave.
1:23 The observer needs an observer to collapse his wave function
and that observer needs an observer ad nauseum. The problem:
physicists hate infinity appearing anywhere in an equation;
not so a mathematician. Eugene Wigner pointed this out and
is known as Wigner's friend, Wigner's friend's friend, etc.
Does this necessitate an ultimate observer ---God! Descartes's
'little man'; we told you that we would get back to him. The
'little man' " Remember: Descartes considered the mind to
in effect be a stage "on which ideas (perceptions) are
viewed by an inner observer - the immaterial soul. The inner
observer or homunculus (little man), appeared to require a
'little man' pf its own and so on to infinity or God.
1:24 Scientists who don't like dealing with consciousness for it
smacks to some as non-physical, insist that a camera could
replace the observer. But, we ask, wouldn't the creation of
a camera require an intelligence aware of and harboring the
need to create such a 'conscious' recording device!?!
1:25 You can picture it as waves or field or waves of probability as
the two-slit experiment tells us not a single one of these 'particles'
(photon or electron) actually occupies a definite place; rather, as
a range of possibilities are in many places at once. It exists in
several states or places called a superposition or as John 'W'
(not to be confused with the 'W' who had been president prior to
BO) called it, a 'smoky dragon.' We reiterate: once the 'particle' is
observed, you collapse its wave function and it instantaneously
collapses into a single position. 'W' coined the term 'Participatory
Anthropic Principle' (PAP) - anthropic is Greek for human. He
stated, "We are participants in bringing into being not only the
near and here, but the far away and long ago."
1:26 PAP is also known as 'Participatory Universe' and 'Biocentrism.'
During the early stages when this weird thinking was beginning to
be developed the developer of weird concepts himself Albert
criticized it (some strange being acceptable, we suppose) by saying
to guests: look at the moon, does it suddenly spring into existence
when a mouse looks at it. One might ask: Is the TV there when you
are in the kitchen? Before you enter the living room, a particle is
in numerous locations or nowhere precisely. Upon entering, TV
appears as TV. If a tree falls and no one is around to see it, does it
fall? No; it exists both fallen and 'un-fallen' unless observed; it also
can be said not to look like a tree but in a 'smoky dragon' state.
1:27 Are there things that require human consciousness to assume
a particular state? Do dinosaur fossils exist before the
paleontologist looks at them? Upon observing do they spring into
existence as if the had existed for millions of years? To the
physicist, this would be consistent with the notion that the fossil is
actually millions of years old.The further
into the universe we peer with eye or camera, the further into the
past that we 'see. When we observe a galaxy 7 billion light years
away, we are seeing it the way it was 7 billion years ago --- or
are we collapsing its wave function causing it to spring into
existence as if it had existed for 7 billion years; as far as the
physicist is concerned it's equivalent to it actually having
existed for 7 billion years.
1:28 'W' extends his thinking: matter sprang into existence when the
'smoky dragon' containing information was observed. Pythagoras
contended the that everything was made up of or was the
embodiment of info in the form of numbers. 'W': "observerses'
consciousness is required to bring the universe into existence.
This means that pre-life earth would have existed in an
undetermined state, and pre-life universe could only exist
retroactively."
-John Wheeler's Participatory Universe, 4/13/2014
1:29 The Anthropic Principle or The Fine-Tuning of the Universe or
The Goldilocks Universe. Thousands of things have to be just
so for us to exist: not too much or too little. If the BIG Bang
were slightly more or slightly less energetic, if the proton were
slightly less or slightly more massive, if the gravitational constant
were slightly higher or lower, etc. ---- we would not exist!
Is it just a remarkable coincidence that everything is just right
for us to exist - nearly a statistical miracle? The fact that we
exist, that we are alive, means that the right conditions must
exist - any other universe and we wouldn't exist -- we discover
what we must discover by our very existence. Reasons One and
Two are closely related. Reason Three: God did it. Reason Four:
Biocentrism - no universe could exist which didn't allow for life
to bring it into existence. Life or Consciousness or High Level
Consciousness capable of causing fossils and distant galaxies
to spring into existence. The dog entering the living room
might have sufficient consciousness to bring the TV into
existence but not to peer through a telescope and bring a
universe into existence!!!!
We'll drink to that. Speaking of our old friend Dionysus to the
Greeks and Bacchus to Romans, the god of wine, huge crowds
would gather to partake of the grape. The revellers felt that
they were drinking 'D' or drinking his divinity. Sound familiar?
And, was everyone collapsing each other's wave functions?
