My own theory of consciousness

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
MozartLink
Posts: 314
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

My own theory of consciousness

Post by MozartLink » Sat Jan 28, 2017 3:47 pm

Edit: Let me post a brief version of my theory that gets my point across clearly. Imagine looking at the brain from the outside. You would be the outside observer. From this perspective, you would see all the physical processes in the brain in terms of neurons, synapses, etc. But if I were to bring this outside observer closer and closer into the brain until the observer becomes the physical processes themselves, then what we have here is an inside observer.

From this perspective, we are no longer looking at the physical processes of the brain in terms of physical attributes (neurons, etc.), but from a whole new perspective. One of subjective experience. This inside observer would be the self. So if we look at the brain and we find inside observer information in the brain, then we will know that the self is there and we would, therefore, also have subjective experience.

The hard problem of consciousness would then disappear. The reason why there is the hard problem in the first place is because we are asking ourselves how the brain produces subjective experience, but from the outside observer perspective which is the wrong perspective.

Therefore, all that physical stuff and subjective experience are actually the same thing, but the outside observer would see it as physical stuff while the inside observer would see it as experience. Take note that this theory of mine supports the scientific materialistic model of the brain.
Last edited by MozartLink on Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: My own theory of consciousness

Post by Harbal » Sat Jan 28, 2017 10:37 pm

MozartLink wrote:The answer to the hard problem could of been right there staring you in the face this whole entire time and all it took was a bit of reasoning to figure it out.
Congratulations on solving "the hard problem", Mozart, it's wonderful that your life turned out to have meaning, after all.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2484
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: My own theory of consciousness

Post by Ginkgo » Sun Jan 29, 2017 12:22 am

MozartLink wrote:I am going to post my own theory of consciousness. Others can post theirs and they can argue against my theory if they want to. The hard problem of consciousness states that it is a mystery how the physical processes in the brain give rise to consciousness. So my theory would be that there are two ways of looking at the brain. One is from the perspective of the brain being an object while the other perspective is from the self.

If you were to look at the brain and say:

"The brain experiences joy, it experiences sadness, and it experiences taste," then that would be a nonsensical statement since that would be no different than saying: "The wall experiences joy, it experiences sadness, and it experiences taste."

But if you were to say the statement:

"I experience joy, I experience sadness, and I experience taste," then that statement makes perfect sense now. So by knowing how the brain produces the self (the 'I'), then the hard problem fades away. Without the self, then you would be looking at all the processes in the brain as nothing more than physical processes. The person would be nothing more than a biological machine without any consciousness.
What you appear to be describing is the easy problem of consciousness.
MozartLink wrote: But when the self is introduced, you are now looking at those physical processes from a different perspective. You are now looking at those processes from the perspective of conscious experience. So the person would no longer just be a biological machine. He/she would be a conscious being. I will also apply the same concept to knowing and understanding. If you were to say:

"The brain understands and the brain knows," then that statement implies nothing more than a brain with information and physical processes. But when you say the statement: "I understand and I know," then that statement implies a conscious experience. It implies the experience of knowing and understanding. So maybe the hard problem can never be figured out through science. Maybe it can only be figured out through just reasoning alone like I have just done since reasoning alone will give you an answer to the hard problem.
This is largely the hard problem of consciousness.
MozartLink wrote:

Science just looks at physical processes, but reasoning will give you the answer to something that seems to remain elusive to science (in this case, the hard problem). The answer to the hard problem could of been right there staring you in the face this whole entire time and all it took was a bit of reasoning to figure it out.
Yes, science at this stage is unable to adequately address the hard problem. The science of consciousness tells us there is no hard problem. I tend to think otherwise.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4390
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: My own theory of consciousness

Post by Greta » Sun Jan 29, 2017 12:30 am

On a basic level, the self is the total body system that includes the brain.

It's often noted that life and consciousness are processes, and thus are dynamic systems that are, its organisation being informational more than physical. This still can be interrogated by science. Some suggest that consciousness is separate "stuff" in the universe along with matter/energy, dark matter and dark energy. Others suggest that matter and consciousness are complementary and indivisible.
"The brain experiences joy, it experiences sadness, and it experiences taste," then that would be a nonsensical statement since that would be no different than saying: "The wall experiences joy, it experiences sadness, and it experiences taste."

But if you were to say the statement:

"I experience joy, I experience sadness, and I experience taste," then that statement makes perfect sense now. So by knowing how the brain produces the self (the 'I'), then the hard problem fades away. Without the self, then you would be looking at all the processes in the brain as nothing more than physical processes. The person would be nothing more than a biological machine without any consciousness.
Your examples all refer to emotions and, in the case of taste, micro-emotions. Without emotion our minds would be computer-like, just processing and signalling - and we wouldn't survive because we wouldn't be motivated to survive unless "programmed" (by evolution or human-made).

MozartLink
Posts: 314
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: My own theory of consciousness

Post by MozartLink » Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:39 pm

Let me post a brief version of my theory that gets my point across clearly. Imagine looking at the brain from the outside. You would be the outside observer. From this perspective, you would see all the physical processes in the brain in terms of neurons, synapses, etc. But if I were to bring this outside observer closer and closer into the brain until the observer becomes the physical processes themselves, then what we have here is an inside observer.

From this perspective, we are no longer looking at the physical processes of the brain in terms of physical attributes (neurons, etc.), but from a whole new perspective. One of subjective experience. This inside observer would be the self. So if we look at the brain and we find inside observer information in the brain, then we will know that the self is there and we would, therefore, also have subjective experience.

The hard problem of consciousness would then disappear. The reason why there is the hard problem in the first place is because we are asking ourselves how the brain produces subjective experience, but from the outside observer perspective which is the wrong perspective.

Therefore, all that physical stuff and subjective experience are actually the same thing, but the outside observer would see it as physical stuff while the inside observer would see it as experience. Take note that this theory of mine supports the scientific materialistic model of the brain.

osgart
Posts: 511
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

Re: My own theory of consciousness

Post by osgart » Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:19 am

the brain is merely mechanics and sensory. The mind is a vastly different experience. It cant possibly be produced by neurology. The mind is quicker than the brain which suggests that mind is non local. Actions and reactions are instant in response to the will. You cant say electrons travel instantly to move the body. If we wait for neurons to fire to move our bodies we would be slow moving all humans. So something non local is happening.
:mrgreen:

Beauty
Posts: 283
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:08 pm

Re: My own theory of consciousness

Post by Beauty » Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:53 am

MozartLink wrote:Edit: Let me post a brief version of my theory that gets my point across clearly. Imagine looking at the brain from the outside. You would be the outside observer. From this perspective, you would see all the physical processes in the brain in terms of neurons, synapses, etc. But if I were to bring this outside observer closer and closer into the brain until the observer becomes the physical processes themselves, then what we have here is an inside observer.

From this perspective, we are no longer looking at the physical processes of the brain in terms of physical attributes (neurons, etc.), but from a whole new perspective. One of subjective experience. This inside observer would be the self. So if we look at the brain and we find inside observer information in the brain, then we will know that the self is there and we would, therefore, also have subjective experience.

The hard problem of consciousness would then disappear. The reason why there is the hard problem in the first place is because we are asking ourselves how the brain produces subjective experience, but from the outside observer perspective which is the wrong perspective.

Therefore, all that physical stuff and subjective experience are actually the same thing, but the outside observer would see it as physical stuff while the inside observer would see it as experience. Take note that this theory of mine supports the scientific materialistic model of the brain.
No, the inside observer would not be the self for having become one with the brain, so he/she will be neither inside nor outside observer, he/she won't be any observer at all because brain is not an independent entity. You forget there is a mind and a spiritual heart, just brain is not it. When we die, brain and physical heart go with the body, brain being physical brain, but we live on, so we are more than all that the body is, so we are spirit as well, and the spirit has the mind and the spiritual heart. Mind is spiritual brain. The brain we talk about in the body is the physical brain. Brain does not produce subjective experience, brain just processes information from mind to body and body to mind. Our brain is a conveyor of information. We think with our mind and we feel with our spiritual heart. Can we see either, nope, we can only sense or feel. This is besides the point that even our physical heart is just a conveyor of feelings to and fro. Also, mind and the spiritual heart have wireless connection with us.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest