• spirit-salamander
    268
    Physicists say that the stuff of the world consists of particles of matter and fields. If one wants to hold on to a naturalistic world view, one must assign consciousness either to matter or to a field. Only the latter seems plausible.

    That means, from the features of a physical field conclusions can be drawn to features of the human consciousness.

    And also the other way around. From the directly experienced consciousness one can make inferences to physical fields.

    Physical fields can causally influence matter. So our mind can move our body.

    Fields seem to emerge from solid matter, just as the magnetic field emerges from the magnet.
    In the same way, our consciousness arises from our body, or more precisely, from our highly complex organized brain.

    Consciousness involves a complete sequential dynamism. It is essentially dynamic, not something static.

    Consciousness comes only in the absolute sense that it comes into being, and it also goes only in the absolute sense that it passes away. It always does both at once, so that it in no sense actually persists,

    Consciousness is thus precisely an absolute change, in which there is nothing that does not change, and in which panta rhei.

    What has been said for consciousness must then also apply to physical fields.
  • tim wood
    9.3k
    If one wants to hold on to a naturalistic world view, one must assign consciousness either to matter or to a field.spirit-salamander
    Why? I invite you to undertake a careful and critical look at your own post. Your ideas seem tangled in the briar patch of language. The first step is to get clear of that, and then to untangle lingering tangles.
  • bert1
    2k
    Phenomenologically, consciousness does seem very field-like. I think this is prima facie evidence that it is a field, or a property of physical field(s). This fits well with a panpsychic conception of consciousness.
  • spirit-salamander
    268
    Okay, consciousness, could still be attributed to quantum stuff as a third possibility or to something else entirely as a fourth possibility, as in the work of David Chalmers. A premise I also presuppose is that physics tells us what is currently natural and thus naturalistic. This said, I consider my conclusions to be valid, since I consider the third and fourth possibilities to be unlikely.
  • javi2541997
    5.8k
    Consciousness is thus precisely an absolute change, in which there is nothing that does not change, and in which panta rhei.

    What has been said for consciousness must then also apply to physical fields.
    spirit-salamander

    I think is quite contradictory, at least in physical fields, say that there is change and no change. I say this because physics (general aspect/study) wants to develop the changes in our environment or reality. Probably consciousness can peak this criteria because their complexity. Nevertheless physics could sound empty if we say is a fiel with absolute change but at the end doesn’t change. Keep in mind that this science wants study the practical world, so there will be always change.
  • ghostlycutter
    67
    A field with a brain core, I agree.

    Evident in sight, a sense, mind-body phenomenon, which shows us mental abstractions of universe information. That coloured, textourous matter and energy isn't the same for an animal with a lesser eye than a human.

    Mind makes an abstraction for the body using eyes, so naturally, the mind alone is a field with a brain core.

    P.S. I thought I'd mention the core brain before you float away or pop!
  • tim wood
    9.3k
    Sure and yes, consistent with your presuppositions.

    I started to count instances of "can" and "must" in your OP, but stopped because there were many more implied. These are sometimes signs of being caught in language. If something "can" be, how can it be? If it "must" be, why? It's a lot of work to resolve the hows and whys, but the answers can be instructive and revealing - and sometimes surprising!
  • spirit-salamander
    268
    But fields are not static, are they? I think they are completely dynamic.
  • spirit-salamander
    268
    Yes, without a solid core, you pop away in an instant.
  • javi2541997
    5.8k


    So your point here is that those fields are dynamic because it could change and not change at the same time?
  • ghostlycutter
    67


    Exactly.

    Good point though, I learned from it.
  • Banno
    25k
    Physicists say that the stuff of the world consists of particles of matter and fields.spirit-salamander

    Well, no, they don't. So there's that for you to contend with.
  • spirit-salamander
    268
    No, I must have expressed myself in a misleading way. The fields are dynamic insofar as with them an absolute coming into being and passing away prevails. A moment of the field is immediately followed by the next one, in that it desists and simply does not persist.
    It is not that they change and at the same time do not change, they are absolute change without there being anything that changes. They are substrate-less in this sense. That is, they are not like the waves in the water, which is the substrate for the waves. The fields are only waves.
  • javi2541997
    5.8k


    Perfect! Now, I understand your point. Very good argument :100: :up:
  • spirit-salamander
    268
    What do you think physicists today consider to be the stuff of the world? I always thought they made a matter/field distinction, that is, assume the existence of particles and waves. On the other hand, they believe that that distinction dissolves in quantumstuff. But this was not relevant to my thesis, in my opinion.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    What is the force-carrier for this "consciousness field"? How do we measure it? How much weaker or stronger is it than, for instance, the EM field or Gravitational field (i.e. spacetime) or QM field? How does it interact with other physical fields? If it doesn't, however, why doesn't it? Any evidence you can cite in the physical sciences literature? ...
  • spirit-salamander
    268
    Yes I agree, a panpsychic conception makes it even more believable.
  • spirit-salamander
    268
    Good questions, I have not reached that stage to be able to answer all this satisfactorily. I was primarily interested in a basic modeling of consciousness.

    What is the force carrier for this "consciousness field"? How do we measure it? — 180 Proof

    I would say there is no force carrier in a direct sense. The consciousness field originates from the body. So the body in some sense provides the energy. To your second question one could perhaps say that yes brain waves are already measured.
  • Wayfarer
    22.5k
    What if there are psychic or mental 'fields'? The point is, physical fields are detectable by physical instruments, as they cause measurable, physical effects in metal and so on. But until this was noticed by scientists, nobody had any idea that there were such fields. If there are biological fields of some kind - 'morphic fields' have been suggested - then there might be no way to even notice that they are real, as nobody's looking for such a phenomenon and there's no obvious way to detect or measure them, even though they might have a formative role in the development of living organisms.
  • spirit-salamander
    268
    Yes, I agree with you, if there is no way to detect a mental field by experiment, it is all no longer an empirical thing, but just purely philosophical or simply speculative.

    I thought of the field as a genus, of which there are many species, like the electromagnetic field and perhaps also our mental. Therefore, I thought a distinction of the two would be insignificant.

    One of my presuppositions beside naturalism was also that our mind moves our body. There would be a direct proof for the causal-physical effectiveness of the mental of our mind, because we experience it so.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    This seems to violate energy conservation, but maybe as you explore other questions further this inconsistency will be eliminated. If you don't mind, though, I won't hold my breath.
  • spirit-salamander
    268
    Maybe you are right.

    However, if the law of conservation of energy is violated in the process, is it so bad that this law is violated? Is the law really inviolable?
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    I don't know – Noether's conservation laws seem to be holding up. All it takes is one repeatable example to show it is inviolable. So far no "perpetual motion engines ...
  • spirit-salamander
    268
    So let's wait and see what future research reveals.
  • Wayfarer
    22.5k
    See Ethan Seigel’s post for why ‘energy is not conserved in an expanding Universe.’
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.2k
    This just indicates that the concept of energy is deficient. It is not applicable where it is being applied, to the vast expanse of the universe, because the reality of spatial expansion is not accounted for. However, this brings up another question, how applicable is the concept of energy? If spatial expansion is a real part of a very large extension of space, then it is probably also a real part of a small extension of space. So the point mentioned in Lee Smolin's Time Reborn is that the concept "energy", really has a narrow range of applicability, the midsize we might call it. It is not applicable to very large things, nor is it applicable to very small things. It's an indication of how little we really understand the universe.
  • Possibility
    2.8k
    Physicists say that the stuff of the world consists of particles of matter and fields. If one wants to hold on to a naturalistic world view, one must assign consciousness either to matter or to a field. Only the latter seems plausible.spirit-salamander

    Some physicists (eg. Rovelli) say that the stuff of the world consists of interrelated events, whether we perceive them as consolidating (matter) or interacting (fields). If we consider consciousness to consist of interacting events as a field, what might those events be?

    Lisa Feldman Barrett describes an ongoing event constructed by our interoceptive network (brain and central nervous system) from internal and external sensory data - which she refers to as interoception of affect. This is a four-dimensional construct of current valence and arousal in the organism. She also describes an ongoing prediction of affect, constructed as this interoceptive event feeds back into our conceptual system. The interaction of these two events generates a field of difference (information) in affect, as a four-dimensional distribution map or wavefunction of energy/information consisting of attention/valence and effort/arousal across the organism, effecting movement in the body and adjustment to the conceptual system as required for allostasis.
  • Present awareness
    128
    Physical fields can causally influence matter. So our mind can move our body.spirit-salamander

    Body and mind are not two, they are one. Mind IS body and body IS mind. In the abstract nature of thought, which divides that which is indivisible, the ability to associate sounds, with things which are not sounds, is the powerful asset of language, which give humans a huge advantage over other animals on earth. Ownership, is an illusion, we do not have a body, we ARE a body. We do not have consciousness, we ARE consciousness.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.