Just about any place I go, there are armed security guards and this is not the reality I grew up with. We are relying on authority for social order, not culture. — Athena

What is the psychology or reasoning that leads people to think a culture based around the security/subversion conflict is even appealing? Obviously if we lack robust security measures, civilization will become almost apocalyptic, and if we are unwilling to maintain freedoms that make subversion of even conscientious types possible, social and probably technological progress will almost come to a standstill, but why does this dynamic even exist in the first place? As an individual I have no need for security measures nor subversion, so why does this clash dominate social planning? Is it perpetuated by the fact that no one senses the license to discuss it in honest ways? It seems like something about human history or herd instinct perhaps is weighing down the enlightened, empowered present with paranoia and neuroses that have no basis in any realistic picture of cause and consequence.

Does any scientific evidence exist yet for a hyperspace field that might be involved in processes of quantum entanglement, integrating with brain tissue and the environment generally to produce a nonlocal causation of percepts?

Could wormholes, rather than a warping of spacetime, be a direct route connecting regions of hyperspace, an in fact common occurrence induced by moderately to highly concentrated energy sources such as brains etc.?

Some evidence that CEMI fields are orchestrated by the limbic system:

The limbic system is the oldest portion of the brain distinctive to more highly developed vertebrates, suggesting that this might be the hub of stream of consciousness (qualitatively robust images, sounds etc.).

Structures of the limbic system are densely packed together in the core of the brain, making massive amounts of synesthesia possible due to both close proximities and also numerous white matter connections to various distant grey matter regions with their more saturating (less impeded by myelin) CEMI-type radiative/biochemical/EM fields, so that rats smelling in stereo, dogs generating mental images in association with smells, humans visualizing sounds etc. are not difficult to account for.

If the limbic system is the locus of stream of consciousness, it is core to qualitative perception in addition to its role in processing and routing sensory or motor signals, and its location at the center of the brain would maximally protect this essential role in subjectivity from damage.

The inquiry might then be into what regions, primarily within grey matter, participate in producing stream of intentional consciousness via CEMI fields, also how these most substantially CEMI regions are connected and thus coordinated. For instance, the dorsal and ventral visual pathways could be integrated by action potentials of equivalent duration running both ways between them such that CEMI field properties of vision in these separate portions of the brain may, in conjunction with grey matter fields of the limbic system and additional coherence field phenomena, generate a synchronous, perhaps largely permeating field array. Research along these lines could enable science to solve the binding problem.

Neurons evince dendritic potentials in addition to axon potentials, and each soma (cell body) is attached to numerous dendrites. Could amplification of a radiative/biochemical/EM field to CEMI levels be the result of large exponential increase in the quantity of activated dendrite potentials as wired-together neurons synapse synchronously? Do processes within axons and cell bodies also somehow participate in more or less conscious EM fields?

Does a feeling of consciously "straining" result from CEMI fields maxing out their capacity to activate dendritic potentials and perhaps further neuronal biochemistry, a sort of smoothly wavelike swelling that strives to bring more of the unconscious into the sphere of full conscious awareness, rather than a crisply particularate phenomenon?

What on earth are you on about? — Bartricks

It's a long story lol

I mean, here's a thought experiment for you. Let's say I owe you $1m. I then go and have half my brain removed and destroyed. Do I now owe you half a million?

No, right? I owe you $1m still. And that's because I haven't been split. — Bartricks

Slight digression, but a similar thought experiment. Suppose someone gave you a bunch of shit, then said you liked it so you owe them, then destroyed half your brain as repayment, then tortured you until you die from it, would you owe them half a million dollars? Certainly not $1m! (Bonus question: what if this was all caused before you were born?)

PandnotPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHQandnoTQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH...

They don't have parts and talk of parts has to be treated very carefully (Plato, who also recognized that the mind is indivisible, nevertheless talked of parts of the mind, but he did not mean by this that the mind has parts in the way that an apple does or a building does, but rather that the mind has different faculties - faculties of reason, appetite and spirit. These are not 'parts' of the mind, but aspects of the mind). — Bartricks

But you could say that subjective color is an aspect of the mind, and all the colors grouped together but nonetheless separate constitute parts of the mind. The distinctions between the feeling of touching an object, the hearing of a sound, the seeing of a mental image etc. also amount to a division into parts. When we're talking about percepts insofar as they are located within the mind and not in the associated objects, it is evident that the mind can be divided into various structural parts, not merely functionally meaningful aspects delineated only for conceptual conveniences such as approximately defining the discrepancy between classes of species and such.

For just take divisibility for starters. Sensible things can be divided. Or at least, they can if they are physical things - that is, if they take up space. For anything that takes up some space can be divided in two. One can have half a mug, half a piece of cheese, half a molecule, and so on. But not half a mind. Well, if all things that are extended in space can, by their very nature, be divided and one's mind cannot be divided, then one's mind is not extended in space and is thus not a sensible object. — Bartricks

Maybe the mind is not obviously divisible, but it is clearly distinguished into parts, which makes it in a sense divided. Perhaps one day it might be possible to reverse engineer this structure of mind and simulate it in a computer or some technological medium, even treat it medically via nonexclusively brain-centric models of its substance. The mind could become physical as the physical is redefined by advancing science, in fact this seems a probable outcome to me. Whether we can explain what that model will entail at this stage of knowledge is the conceptual difficulty, and what my posts in this thread have tried to get at.

et al

So basically, whether we define the mind as physical or nonphysical is arbitrary from a structural standpoint. Whatever the mind's substance is somehow affects a world at least partially comprised of sensible features. So what we seem to be lacking is an objective "ownness" that would mechanistically clarify the mind's substance, which is why the debate never seems to enter the domain of sciencelike thinking.

Are any of the posters at this forum capable of rendering intuitions about the nonphysical mind in scientific or more pointedly objective terms, or is this hopelessly elusive and futuristic at our stage of knowledge? Does phenomenology have anything to say about the subject that borders on objectivity?

"The process of considering or reasoning about something" takes place in the brain. I'd put it that way: Actions that rely on words (like computation, problem analysis, etc.) are formulated as thoughts within our head. — Hermeticus

Though it could be the case that brains are immersed in a field within which thoughts are transmitted beyond the skull, and maybe brains generate aspects of this field. All kinds of new agey concepts such as auras and astral projection suggest so. Is there anything to it, pure hokum, or somewhere in between?

The prevailing model is of course that thought is caused by brain tissue, and the natural conclusion is that these thoughts are within this tissue somehow or to some extent. Intuition makes this claim nebulous however, so do any models (as opposed to spiritual ideas) exist that account for how thought might happen beyond the brain, or is this uncharted territory?

I don't think it matters to punish or to treat offenders. The only important thing is that offenders never harm society again, if possible. — SolarWind

I think the evidence justifies some level of rehabilitation and social reform in all but rare cases (of course there are thousands of rare cases). Most crimes are committed because of circumstances that could have in principle been altered by healthier relationships and more competent social planning. The law doesn't tend to hold root causes responsible, but instead considers retribution along with the interests of enforcers as paramount, a perspective that typically does long-term harm. Reform and satisfactory relationships are not easy though, requiring much effort and planning, with complications that society has not come close to resolving. Basically, in terms of justification, culture inclines to be a disaster that rubs off on everyone. Punishment and isolation from the rest of the population can be necessary, but should in general be held to a minimum because of the degrading effects on human motivation.

I'll just provide my usual commentary on your theories about consciousness and then leave you alone. CEMI is an unsupported, far-fetched theory of the origins of consciousness. As far as I can tell "coherence field theory" is just another name for your attempts to use the so-called "weirdness" of quantum mechanics to explain consciousness with no scientific basis. This is not science, it's pseudo-science. — T Clark

From my reading, it seems that CEMI theory is supported by lots of evidence, and a model based on axon/dendrite connections alone is obviously incapable of solving the binding problem, whereas CEMI theory easily does. "Far-fetched" isn't even pseudoscientific.

I didn't say that "weirdness" proves quantum mechanics is involved with consciousness. I said that superpositions amongst entangled molecules, producing quantum fields in specially adapted, emergent biochemical pathways, blend with EM radiation to constitute the perceptual mind. That's not pseudoscience: trillions of atoms have been simultaneously entangled in experiments, and the de Broglie wavelengths of some molecules are compatible with the idea that various degrees of superposition between atoms undoubtedly occur, even to the limited extent suggested by conventional atomic theory.

To clarify my point about free will, humans are not free in the sense of "I'm floating in a vacuum, liberated from all causation except my own!", but in this theory volition is initiated by EM fields within the brain, in particular as the CEMI fields, such that events proceed in a different manner in the absence of our willing. I would claim that human freeness is our volition as a real cause, a determining factor, and is not pure independence.

1) If that theory was true, shouldn't the omnipresent nowadays devices generating EMs be able to visibly alter our feeling of consciousness?
2) Can we on the basis of that theory make any new statements regarding free will? — Aleksander

1) The frequencies of electronic devices are too high to affect low frequency brain waves. Transcranial magnetic stimulation has been proven to alter or disrupt thought patterns, memories etc.

2) Free will exists to the extent that CEMI fields as the cause of our intentional cognitions are active agents in brain function and behavior, integrating neural networks to produce a more widely and densely distributed synchronization that is our fully aware consciousness, with superposition between biochemical pathways and EM radiation forming the percepts of these fields.

In case that wasn't entirely clear:

a. the strong EM field of the brain is a global substrate largely responsible for integrating cognition
b. biochemical pathways blend or "superposition" into the EM radiation of this field to participate in forming percepts
c. CEMI fields are a primary source of full conscious awareness as especially synchronized, densely activated neural networks, and the ultraconcentrated radiative/biochemical blending within this type of field generates the perceptual substance of intentional attentiveness or "will", whether visual, verbal etc.

I think the mind/body problem as metaphysical consideration is soon going to be fully antiquated by quantum neuroscience. The essence of a percept simply emerges from material processes, namely quantum superposition e.g. the visible spectrum, basically a "color" or resonance amongst matter, the most accessible example of this being a mental image in the brain. These resonances are blended and projected by specially adapted molecules, cells, tissues, brain regions into extremely complex hybrids that we recognize as sights, sounds, thoughts etc., essentially the components of first person cognition, and are not constrained to the brain as we know it but can occur within many additional types of material substance, in association with quantumlike and nonlocal "coherence field" phenomena (comparable to quantum coherence) that have not yet been classified scientifically, though we have plenty of primal intuitions in this realm to guide introspective facets of the relevant research.

In my opinion, metaphysics is obsolete except for its historical significance and role in expansion of reasoning intuitions via novelty thought experiments. Many subsequent scientific models will be influenced by metaphysical conceiving, but metaphysics as fact is becoming obsolete.

What sort of "new ethical framework" do you think we could devise that would make much difference? — Bitter Crank

I'm glad you inquired, difficult to go into much detail with this message board format, but give my blog post The Ethics of Progress at my website philosophyofhumanism.com a look, its a quick read and I'd be interested to get your opinions about the ideas I discuss. May already be obsolete with the direction society has recently been going in, but I want to know what YOU think!

Posted an article I wrote about a kind of panprotopsychism based on quantum biology that is the OP of this thread: Matter and Qualitative Perception. It's a form of physicalism with panpsychist inclinations, so does not fit neatly into any of those categories. You might be interested in giving it some contemplation.

Please supply a link to support your claim that we already have a workable fusion reactor. — Janus

I meant the sun of course lol I could provide a link that proves the sun exists if you like!

My idea is to install a bunch of solar panels everywhere and use the extra power for electric cars and greenhouses. We can probably advance battery technology such that the materials become more accessible. Perhaps sea water can be desalinated and purified to a degree sufficient for gardens, or hardier strains developed that don't need much water.

We've already got a fusion reactor, what the hell is wrong with solar power anyway?

An awful lot of revisionist scholarship has been offered up in recent decades arguing against the idea that the medieval period was a time of stagnation or regression. They point out that every major innovation that we associate with the Renaissance and beyond can be traced to this alleged ‘dark’ time. — Joshs

By "Medieval" dark age I mean the 10th century: academically but perhaps not that politically backward. The entire period after was characterized by a rich academic, political and economic culture, though delayed incorporation of many new ideas proved a significant issue due to persistent attempts at a monopoly on institutional power, a long standing effort that crumbled during the 16th century Reformation.

I think we're starting to enter an ideological phase, hopefully temporary, that is similar to the Middle Ages, with philosophical innovation severely persecuted, pushed to the cultural and economic fringes, along with a profusion of excessively enforced beliefs and politically shortsighted approaches. We're basking in the afterglow of a relatively enlightened golden age of scholarship and progress that with our current pace of change in the material conditions of life is going to come crashing down from social unrest if we don't uphold tolerance for civic activism and adaptive reform.

If you are saying that human consciousness is constituted with the workings of the molecules and particles in physical and biological forms, then it should be possible to replicate, and even clone the consciousness into other beings. That would be clear proof that the theory is true. If it cannot replicate, then the theory does not have a physical or biological basis. — Corvus

I think it will be possible to introduce features of organic subjectivity into electronic devices for instance. This is an application that proves the theory is accurate. The full gamut of perceptual processes will take a while to figure out, but it should be possible to arrive at a model of percepts as detailed as our model of the brain's reward system (dopamine, nucleus accumbens etc.).

With modern brain scans researchers can read subject's mental states, determine what their memories and thought patterns are about in a respectably nuanced way. Neuroscience is actually getting quite advanced. If arrays of molecules yet to be discovered are percepts, not just correlated with them, the discovery would be huge progress and lead to a new era of treatments and technologies, the next step in our science of consciousness. It's not a replication of consciousness, but it would model some of the primary features.

It’s not that your model is necessary wrong , just that your account ends just where the real scene of consciousness begins. — Joshs

I can see how that is an apt observation. What I describe is a visualization of basic elements involved in what might be going on in the brain to produce qualitative consciousness, kind of a preliminary still frame. Personal psychology will have to advance in a complementary way, from the opposite subjective direction, so that this quantum biology is compatible with common sense. How dramatic a shift it could be in the language of consciousness theory is interesting to ponder. Still, I think it could be soon that we will say an introspective thought pattern such as a voice in our heads is a particular array of biochemical pathways in a specific region of the brain.

This doesn't mean anything. It's just some technical and spiritual terms juxtaposed to sound profound. How do you test this? — T Clark

You find the molecules, molecular complexes and biochemical pathways in the brain and body that are not correlated with but are various percepts. These will involve specially adapted sorts of superposition states that are extremely responsive to electric charge and capable of being manipulated by electromagnetic fields. Then you expand from this base to define what goes on in the environment generally. I think this will eventually identify "nonlocal" sorts of fields and forces with effects that can be observed but not explained well by current quantum physics alone.

No classical, quantum mechanical, electrodynamic, chemical, thermodynamic or emergent equation contains a term for the smell of a rose. — SolarWind

Neuroscience will though if my hypotheses are accurate. However, these theoretical descriptions may remain in a different experiential context than immediate sensations.

It seems obvious to me that we say, "My personality can be altered by frontal lobe damage" and similar statements. It doesn't mean a description of the frontal lobe exhausts the nature of personality, but it is nonetheless identical with it to a certain extent.

If the thalamus is damaged, we lose our sense of self.

You cannot explain ‘the observer’, because ‘the observer’ is implicit in any observation. — Wayfarer

The explanation can fail to be identical with the observer and still be relatively exhaustive within its specified context. Neuroscience tells us a lot about observers, and I think my theories are simply the next step in neuroscience. All kinds of illusions about our selves have been revealed by materialistic investigation.

Then what do you think an observer is? Its got to be a substance, which makes it at least analogous to matter.

It's not reductionism, it's the physical substrate of perception which is only one facet of our knowledge about how consciousness functions. Psychology doesn't hold any less weight because of it.

The observer exists already, you can't explain what you're seeing without reference to the observer. So you can't explain the observer in terms of what is observed. — Wayfarer

The observer is an amalgam of sensations, feelings and introspections lodged in matter. Observer and observed are one and the same.

So, divest yourself of consciousness, and then tell us what really is fundamental. — Wayfarer

Quantum superpositions amongst entangled wavicles are fundamental, which give rise at a very basic level to percepts, which eventually reach enough emergent organization to constitute consciousness. It seems as obvious to me as evolution was in Darwin's seminal account, but the research that proves exactly how it all works is yet to be performed.

what you've written is not legitimate science in any way that I can recognize. — T Clark

An aspect of science is formulating hypotheses, and this is a hypothesis. Its where science starts. I purposely made it as easy as possible to understand, so your claim that it's some kind of word salad is consternating.



The basics of consciousness are almost fundamental, emergent from material properties, essentially the superpositions amongst entanglement that I described. So soul exists, but has a mechanistic sort of explanation.

My view differs from traditional physicalism because it does not try to explain away features of consciousness as an illusion or a causally insignificant phenomenon, but regards the kind of properties we identify with subjective percepts as integral to how matter works, similar to shape and size.

Doesn't belong on this forum? Have you seen the kind of posts that are made on a regular basis? Its not drivel, its well-thought out, and doesn't reduce to three sentences. I explained all the preliminaries you need to understand that section near the beginning. You got a stick up your butt? Its simple stuff and falsifiable dude.

The strong can wipe out the weak anytime they want to, and it will just make them stronger. This is the law of the universe, which supersedes all human laws.

A strong person does not need to respect a weak person. It's the weak person that should be respecting the strong person. But nowadays the weak are all hoarding together and trying to take out the strong. Which is stupid because it wont work, it will just make them weaker. — hope

How do you define strong vs. weak? Any institution can be dismantled by an angry hoard at any time, so strength isn't wealth or any tangible quality. Seems to me that strength on human terms is the ability to self-organize into collectives, so there is no such thing as a strong or weak individual. "Strong" is just a bigger mob.

"Racist" is a modern day catch-all word used against anyone that is against the snowflake socialism mentality. — hope

No one's giving gold medals to anyone for not trying, but we all gotta be respected enough to live at the very least, even when expectations have to change, unless you want dystopia, which is pretty much where we're at actually.

Mental health issues can keep you awake for days, interfere with your thought patterns, disorient you, etc. Its brave just to live with the stress let alone compete at a world class level when you have been pushed so far below your capacity for peak performance. And we all know mental health symptoms have nothing to do with weakness of character: all kinds of people can suddenly or gradually trip out because of that stuff.

Everything that exists, exists as a body of evolving information, integrating more and more information into itself, and it all has its source in the distinction of one pattern against another, and through a process of placing every pattern into its rightful place to create an integrated whole pattern, a big picture consciousness emerges. — Pop

It should be recognized that consciousness is not merely a product of complexity but also the kind of substance. A huge ball of yarn will never produce consciousness no matter how complex it is, and it is my opinion that action potentials/synapses alone won't either, and neither will inorganically organized atoms. It is only very specific molecular assemblages existing within a particularly concentrated electromagnetic field and welded together by electric charge that give rise to consciousness in matter as we presently know it.

This does not necessarily preclude universal consciousness, but it must be made of a different substance than those we have thus far classified. Hylomorphism: matter and form are codependent while constituting information. Form as the relationship between particulars is not exclusively responsible for function.

Since you deleted the posts, I won't comment much, but superposition amongst the phosphates of ATP is pretty cutting edge research, don't know a lot about it yet, just saw brief mention in a youtube video. That molecule is not involved in the biochemical pathways of qualitative subjectivity specifically so probably is not involved in producing percepts as per panprotopsychism, but may at least demonstrate that such a mechanism is possible.