Consciousness requires something more than functionality isomorphic to Turing Machine?

[consciousnessdualism]

If human brain's understanding (conscious understanding) is the result from brain processes of functionality isomorphic to Turing Machine, and Turing Machine can only be consistent or completed, but NOT both (Godel Incompleteness Theorem), then every conscious understanding must NOT be truth itself, but the result from heuristic (neural statistical samplings) "appears to be truth". But it seems to me that the statement "my conscious existence is true" is both consistent and complete, so how do account that from Turing Machine? Or consciousness itself needs something more than functionality isomorphic to Turing Machine? Someone may argue that the statement "my conscious existence is true" is consistent, but also is unprovable, so is NOT completed. But my conscious experience already proves to me that my conscious existence indeed is true, so how to account for this from Turing machine perspective? it seems impossible? Consciousness needs something more?

[Darkneos]

Sign, yet ANOTHER misunderstanding and application of the Incompleteness Theorem. Gödel must be rolling in his grave.

Also human brain isn’t a Turing machine, that debate is still going.

The rest is just an incoherent mess. Consciousness doesn’t need more, it seems to be an emergent process of the brain that dies with it.

But like I said, since that upsets people they think it has to be more than it is. Why does stuff on consciousness attract the crazies?

[socrat44]

Brain - Mind
-----
Our brain works on a dualistic basis:
usually consciousness and rarely subconsciousness.
------
1 – Consciousness of the brain works on various
electromagnetic energy fields (alpha, beta, . . . etc.)
An electroencephalogram (EEG) can record this ''normal logical'' electrical
activity of the brain (brain works as computer - "Turing Machine")
2 – Subconsciousness is process on micro-quantum-level
(brain suddenly takes a new decision / action - "eureka")
The reason of unconscious process is quantum particle .
Suggestion:
According to the Pauli Exclusion Principle, only one (1) electron
can manage an atom, molecule, cell, brain.
-----
a) Quantum process appears when all atoms of brain are
in Bose-Einstein state (superfluidity).
b) Then the electron gains strength to ''superconductivity'' and
can change the old brain's program to a new decision - "eureka".
New decision is result of - a "Self-quantum particle".
c) After a short moment- "eureka" the brain again works like a computer.
(but according to a new program)
=====.
''The laws of quantum mechanics itself cannot be formulated ...
without recourse to the concept of consciousness.''
— Eugene Wigner
#
Book: ‘'The Holographic Universe’'
''Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may not be the brain
that produce consciousness, but rather consciousness that creates
the appearance of the brain''
/ page 160, by Michael Talbot /
#
“… Indeed an understanding of psi phenomena and of
consciousness must provide the basis of an improved
understanding of quantum mechanics. ”
/ Evan Walker /
======.

[Darkneos]

Brain - Mind
-----
Our brain works on a dualistic basis:
usually consciousness and rarely subconsciousness.
------
1 – Consciousness of the brain works on various
electromagnetic energy fields (alpha, beta, . . . etc.)
An electroencephalogram (EEG) can record this ''normal logical'' electrical
activity of the brain (brain works as computer - "Turing Machine")
2 – Subconsciousness is process on micro-quantum-level
(brain suddenly takes a new decision / action - "eureka")
The reason of unconscious process is quantum particle .
Suggestion:
According to the Pauli Exclusion Principle, only one (1) electron
can manage an atom, molecule, cell, brain.
-----
a) Quantum process appears when all atoms of brain are
in Bose-Einstein state (superfluidity).
b) Then the electron gains strength to ''superconductivity'' and
can change the old brain's program to a new decision - "eureka".
New decision is result of - a "Self-quantum particle".
c) After a short moment- "eureka" the brain again works like a computer.
(but according to a new program)
=====.
''The laws of quantum mechanics itself cannot be formulated ...
without recourse to the concept of consciousness.''
— Eugene Wigner
#
Book: ‘'The Holographic Universe’'
''Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may not be the brain
that produce consciousness, but rather consciousness that creates
the appearance of the brain''
/ page 160, by Michael Talbot /
#
“… Indeed an understanding of psi phenomena and of
consciousness must provide the basis of an improved
understanding of quantum mechanics. ”
/ Evan Walker /
======.

Too late to say all of this is wrong.

Also Campbell isn’t a neuroscientist. Psi isn’t a real thing, no one has been able to demonstrate such a phenomenon.

There is no dualistic process of the brain. The subconscious doesn’t do any thinking it just maintains the automatic processes of the body. And no the brain doesn’t work like a computer, this is your first error. It’s the main thing people get wrong because a computer is all we really have to compare it with. Subconscious doesn’t operate on quantum mechanics, the brain waves associated with it are theta and delta waves.

Wigner was incorrect, turns out consciousness doesn’t play any role in quantum physics.

Also that’s not what the Pauli exclusion principle says, all it says is that no two electrons in the same atom can have identical values for all four quantum numbers. In other words no more than two can occupy the same orbital and if they do they have to have opposite spins.

b) is just incorrect as that’s not what superconductivity is, it has nothing to do with electrons. Same goes for a and c.

A) is laughably wrong as that’s not what the Bose- Einstein state is and also superfluidity is a property of liquids that has nothing to do with it. They’re two completely different states of matter. Not to mention Bose-Einstein wouldn’t be possible in a brain without killing you.

Like…dang man way to show you know nothing about science at all.

Consciousness is a function of the brain, all the evidence shows that to be the case. Computer modeling, drugs, the fact we can turn it on or off by stimulating an area of the brain, etc.

This is just…well nonsense.

[commonsense]

If human brain's understanding (conscious understanding) is the result from brain processes of functionality isomorphic to Turing Machine, and Turing Machine can only be consistent or completed, but NOT both (Godel Incompleteness Theorem), then every conscious understanding must NOT be truth itself, but the result from heuristic (neural statistical samplings) "appears to be truth". But it seems to me that the statement "my conscious existence is true" is both consistent and complete, so how do account that from Turing Machine? Or consciousness itself needs something more than functionality isomorphic to Turing Machine? Someone may argue that the statement "my conscious existence is true" is consistent, but also is unprovable, so is NOT completed. But my conscious experience already proves to me that my conscious existence indeed is true, so how to account for this from Turing machine perspective? it seems impossible? Consciousness needs something more?

The TM is not a test for consciousness. It determines whether machine behavior can mimic human behavior, verbal behavior that is.

[Darkneos]

If human brain's understanding (conscious understanding) is the result from brain processes of functionality isomorphic to Turing Machine, and Turing Machine can only be consistent or completed, but NOT both (Godel Incompleteness Theorem), then every conscious understanding must NOT be truth itself, but the result from heuristic (neural statistical samplings) "appears to be truth". But it seems to me that the statement "my conscious existence is true" is both consistent and complete, so how do account that from Turing Machine? Or consciousness itself needs something more than functionality isomorphic to Turing Machine? Someone may argue that the statement "my conscious existence is true" is consistent, but also is unprovable, so is NOT completed. But my conscious experience already proves to me that my conscious existence indeed is true, so how to account for this from Turing machine perspective? it seems impossible? Consciousness needs something more?

The TM is not a test for consciousness. It determines whether machine behavior can mimic human behavior, verbal behavior that is.

I think that’s the Turing test not machine. The machine is just a computation tool.

OP is still wrong, debate goes on as to whether human brains are Turing machines or not. Consciousness doesn’t need something more, there is plenty of evidence to suggest it’s just brain activity and none for the opposite.

And no quantum mechanics doesn’t prove consciousness creates reality. A few quotes from old physicists and non scientists doesn’t change that. People have to understand quoting old scientists proves nothing as we know what they did and further. You’re literally just quoting an outdated understanding of the topic.

[commonsense]

The TM is not a test for consciousness. It determines whether machine behavior can mimic human behavior, verbal behavior that is.

I think that’s the Turing test not machine. The machine is just a computation tool.

OP is still wrong, debate goes on as to whether human brains are Turing machines or not. Consciousness doesn’t need something more, there is plenty of evidence to suggest it’s just brain activity and none for the opposite.

And no quantum mechanics doesn’t prove consciousness creates reality. A few quotes from old physicists and non scientists doesn’t change that. People have to understand quoting old scientists proves nothing as we know what they did and further. You’re literally just quoting an outdated understanding of the topic.

Yes, I meant the Turing Test. I can’t explain why I substituted machine for test. Brain fart, I guess.

[bahman]

If human brain's understanding (conscious understanding) is the result from brain processes of functionality isomorphic to Turing Machine, and Turing Machine can only be consistent or completed, but NOT both (Godel Incompleteness Theorem), then every conscious understanding must NOT be truth itself, but the result from heuristic (neural statistical samplings) "appears to be truth". But it seems to me that the statement "my conscious existence is true" is both consistent and complete, so how do account that from Turing Machine? Or consciousness itself needs something more than functionality isomorphic to Turing Machine? Someone may argue that the statement "my conscious existence is true" is consistent, but also is unprovable, so is NOT completed. But my conscious experience already proves to me that my conscious existence indeed is true, so how to account for this from Turing machine perspective? it seems impossible? Consciousness needs something more?

Yes, you need a mind for consciousness.

[Darkneos]

If human brain's understanding (conscious understanding) is the result from brain processes of functionality isomorphic to Turing Machine, and Turing Machine can only be consistent or completed, but NOT both (Godel Incompleteness Theorem), then every conscious understanding must NOT be truth itself, but the result from heuristic (neural statistical samplings) "appears to be truth". But it seems to me that the statement "my conscious existence is true" is both consistent and complete, so how do account that from Turing Machine? Or consciousness itself needs something more than functionality isomorphic to Turing Machine? Someone may argue that the statement "my conscious existence is true" is consistent, but also is unprovable, so is NOT completed. But my conscious experience already proves to me that my conscious existence indeed is true, so how to account for this from Turing machine perspective? it seems impossible? Consciousness needs something more?

Yes, you need a mind for consciousness.

Assuming there is such a thing as a mind

[bahman]

If human brain's understanding (conscious understanding) is the result from brain processes of functionality isomorphic to Turing Machine, and Turing Machine can only be consistent or completed, but NOT both (Godel Incompleteness Theorem), then every conscious understanding must NOT be truth itself, but the result from heuristic (neural statistical samplings) "appears to be truth". But it seems to me that the statement "my conscious existence is true" is both consistent and complete, so how do account that from Turing Machine? Or consciousness itself needs something more than functionality isomorphic to Turing Machine? Someone may argue that the statement "my conscious existence is true" is consistent, but also is unprovable, so is NOT completed. But my conscious experience already proves to me that my conscious existence indeed is true, so how to account for this from Turing machine perspective? it seems impossible? Consciousness needs something more?

Yes, you need a mind for consciousness.

Assuming there is such a thing as a mind

I think that is obvious. Experience does not have causal power. Experience cannot happen in vacuum.

[Darkneos]

Yes, you need a mind for consciousness.

Assuming there is such a thing as a mind

I think that is obvious. Experience does not have causal power. Experience cannot happen in vacuum.

Mind is something that has always been assumed but never proven to be a thing. As far as we know everything is brain stuff, so much like a self if there was a mind there wouldn’t be anything for it to do.

You do need a brain for consciousness thought maybe not a mind.

Not sure what you mean by experience not having a casual power.

[bahman]

Assuming there is such a thing as a mind

I think that is obvious. Experience does not have causal power. Experience cannot happen in vacuum.

Mind is something that has always been assumed but never proven to be a thing. As far as we know everything is brain stuff, so much like a self if there was a mind there wouldn’t be anything for it to do.

No, the mind is needed for the experience. Any experience needs an experiencer. As I said, the experience cannot happen in a vacuum.

You do need a brain for consciousness thought maybe not a mind.

You definitely need a brain for thoughts but without a mind, there could not be any experience so no thought.

Not sure what you mean by experience not having a casual power.

Experience is not a thing with the ability to cause. That is the mind that experiences and causes.

[Darkneos]

I think that is obvious. Experience does not have causal power. Experience cannot happen in vacuum.

Mind is something that has always been assumed but never proven to be a thing. As far as we know everything is brain stuff, so much like a self if there was a mind there wouldn’t be anything for it to do.

No, the mind is needed for the experience. Any experience needs an experiencer. As I said, the experience cannot happen in a vacuum.

You do need a brain for consciousness thought maybe not a mind.

You definitely need a brain for thoughts but without a mind, there could not be any experience so no thought.

Not sure what you mean by experience not having a casual power.

Experience is not a thing with the ability to cause. That is the mind that experiences and causes.

Again you’re really not proving a mind exists just asserting there is one. Like I said we don’t really have evidence for it.

[Impenitent]

and those humans who cannot use language must not be conscious...

-Imp

[commonsense]

and those humans who cannot use language must not be conscious...

-Imp

Humor, I assume.