• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How can we explain human consciousness with science?

This discussion is slowing down. I do think that new theories in physic may someday be able explain consciousness as a dualist rather than a mechanistic phenomena. That will shake things up.:)
 
This discussion is slowing down. I do think that new theories in physic may someday be able explain consciousness as a dualist rather than a mechanistic phenomena. That will shake things up.:)
Or not. Let us wait.
 
Dualists commonly argue for the distinction of mind and matter by employing Leibniz’s Law of Identity, according to which two things are identical if, and only if, they simultaneously share exactly the same qualities. The dualist then attempts to identify attributes of mind that are lacked by matter (such as privacy or intentionality) or vice versa (such as having a certain temperature or electrical charge). Opponents typically argue that dualism is (a) inconsistent with known laws or truths of science (such as the aforementioned law of thermodynamics), (b) conceptually incoherent (because immaterial minds could not be individuated or because mind-body interaction is not humanly conceivable), or (c) reducible to absurdity (because it leads to solipsism, the epistemological belief that one’s self is the only existence that can be verified and known).

 
Thanks. Interesting article. Is shows most current current research is driven by ideas from philosophical mechanism. I think advances in physics will allow more research to be driven by ideas of philosophical dualism. Did you see this article:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...lly-brains-energy-field-claims-scientist.html

Craig:

No, I had not seen the article about Dr. McFadden's hypothesis. But thanks to your link, I have read it now. My suspicion is that human consciousness stems from many biological, bio-electrical and biochemical roots rather than just an electromagnetic field surrounding cells, tissues and organs where high bio-electric potentials exist. So Dr. McFadden may have his teeth in part of the answer but not all of the answer, I strongly suspect. In layman's terms I think consciousness is the result of the electromagnetic, bio-electric and bio-chemical conversations that billions of our cells are having with each other all the time. Consciousness is the din of organic existence and the more din, the more consciousness.

The objective world outside our organism and its peripheral bio-electromagnetic fields is producing stimuli which our sensory organs detect and relay to our spinal cord and brain. Some stimuli may bypass the senses and interact directly with our cells. These two organs (spinal cord and brain) vet the sensory inputs arriving to them and pass on the "important" inputs to our consciousness and sub-consciousness while suppressing the "unimportant". Then those two organs using the human gift of pattern recognition create an ersatz reality out of those inputs by ignoring even more inputs and focusing in on others. In a sense we create our own reality around us by filtering out some neural inputs while amplifying other neural inputs. This process of creating our own ersatz reality requires many of our cells to keep in constant communication with each other. This inter-cellular communication is mediated by wet-wiring (neurons) carrying electric (ionic) nerve impulses along nerve axons and dendrites. It uses chemical neurotransmitters at nerve synapses to jump from neuron to neuron. It uses chemical hormones to alter body chemistry and to control how cells complete their functions and it may involve the interaction of bio-electromagnetic fields in flux inside or on the periphery of the human body. But without all of these drivers operating optimally and simultaneously, human consciousness would likely be severely degraded or extinguished. Dr. McFadden may be searching for just one instrument in an orchestra playing the dissonant and arhythmic symphony of human consciousness.

Now since this is the beliefs and skepticism thread, there may be a temptation to define this network of bio-electromagnetic fields as a spirit or a soul. That would be a mistake because the essence of human consciousness likely is the result of many drivers acting chaotically but producing a coherent false reality of consciousness nonetheless. Think mental and intangible nautilus shell swirling patterns of neural and endocrinal activity emerging out of chaotic chemistry, ionic transport and bio-electrical field fluxes.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Dualists commonly argue for the distinction of mind and matter by employing Leibniz’s Law of Identity, according to which two things are identical if, and only if, they simultaneously share exactly the same qualities. The dualist then attempts to identify attributes of mind that are lacked by matter (such as privacy or intentionality) or vice versa (such as having a certain temperature or electrical charge). Opponents typically argue that dualism is (a) inconsistent with known laws or truths of science (such as the aforementioned law of thermodynamics), (b) conceptually incoherent (because immaterial minds could not be individuated or because mind-body interaction is not humanly conceivable), or (c) reducible to absurdity (because it leads to solipsism, the epistemological belief that one’s self is the only existence that can be verified and known).

The classic problem is how the mind can interact with the body if they are two different things. There seem to be mechanisms (an interface) that could be described by new theories in physics that could solve that problem. The multiple dimensions of string theory, action at distance, the reversal of cause and effect, new interpretation of thermal dynamics at the quantum level, for example. I am no expert any of those things but it is fun to talk about.
 
The classic problem is how the mind can interact with the body if they are two different things. There seem to be mechanisms (an interface) that could be described by new theories in physics that could solve that problem. The multiple dimensions of string theory, action at distance, the reversal of cause and effect, new interpretation of thermal dynamics at the quantum level, for example. I am no expert any of those things but it is fun to talk about.

Craig:

No need for dualism.

The mind and consciousness is the body or at least the body at work in a neurological and biochemical sense.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Now since this is the beliefs and skepticism thread, there may be a temptation to define this network of bio-electromagnetic fields as a spirit or a soul. That would be a mistake because the essence of human consciousness likely is the result of many drivers acting chaotically but producing a coherent false reality of consciousness nonetheless. Think mental and intangible nautilus shell swirling patterns of neural and endocrinal activity emerging out of chaotic chemistry, ionic transport and bio-electrical field fluxes.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
Thanks for the discussion. I am not religious. I think religion have co-opted the idea of mind and incorporated into the idea of soul. I am a retired software engineer and had often argued with my managers that software is not hardware. Perhaps that is why the mind body problem interests me.
 
Craig:

No need for dualism.

The mind and consciousness is the body or at least the body at work in a neurological and biochemical sense.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
Yes, that is probably the simplest explanation. But it doesn't satisfy me. It may just be ego but I don't see how it explains thought and perception or free will. When I was young and first took chemistry I thought I had discovered a secret, that everything was like a lab experiment. You use the same ingredients and the same method then the experiment would always have the same result. And that same rule applies to everything in the universe. It depressed me tremendously. I was much older before I learned many people thought that.
 
How would you apply Schrodinger's wave equation to consciousness?
My point is, if consciousness is an emergent property of biochemical and electrochemical properties of the brain, then those processes could ultimately be understood through quantum mechanics.
 
Yes, that is probably the simplest explanation. But it doesn't satisfy me. It may just be ego but I don't see how it explains thought and perception or free will. When I was young and first took chemistry I thought I had discovered a secret, that everything was like a lab experiment. You use the same ingredients and the same method then the experiment would always have the same result. And that same rule applies to everything in the universe. It depressed me tremendously. I was much older before I learned many people thought that.
It might not be satisfying to you .. but the key would be finding out a way to show it's MORE than that.
 
My point is, if consciousness is an emergent property of biochemical and electrochemical properties of the brain, then those processes could ultimately be understood through quantum mechanics.

Unless of course, there isn't any quantum mechanics involved in the mechanism.

People invoke QM anytime there is something that is not under stood. That does not mean QM has anything to do with it. You need to have a model about WHY QM would be needed and required, and that part is missing.
 
Unless of course, there isn't any quantum mechanics involved in the mechanism.

People invoke QM anytime there is something that is not under stood. That does not mean QM has anything to do with it. You need to have a model about WHY QM would be needed and required, and that part is missing.
Then that would mean that chemistry and electrons are not governed by QM or that consciousness isn't an emergent property of these, and that's fine, but AFAIK that's not the current consensus.
 
The tiny sliver of this reality that we see, is just enough to keep us going further. Most likely, there's Universes that would be unimaginable to our feeble minds. (Actually, some theorists think they might be all around us) THAT'S why I "light up" at night. :)
 
Then that would mean that chemistry and electrons are not governed by QM or that consciousness isn't an emergent property of these, and that's fine, but AFAIK that's not the current consensus.

no, not at all. You can have emergent qualities without qm. And much of chemistry is at the macro level, not qm level
 
no, not at all. You can have emergent qualities without qm. And much of chemistry is at the macro level, not qm level
The underlying mechanisms which causes it to work are still understood through QM though. Actually electron-electron interaction is at QM level.
 
I don't mean how did it evolve. But what is it. I'll start.
An interface between the mind and body at the quantum level. Just a guess.

I've read about this question on and off over the years, it is absolutely a deep mystery and hard to define an approach.

I read Penrose's Emperor's New Mind and since then he's active in this field, and with some others has setup the Penrose Institute with this pursuit in mind.

I was struck by his analysis that strongly suggests that the human mind is not algorithmic, that we can solve problems that have no algorithmic solution, this in turn seems to imply that consciousness cannot be performed by an algorithmic system, a computer can never "think" as we understand it.
 
This would be interesting to understand if there were a practical purpose. ...e.g. to find people who have no consciousness so that could be given to them. Some things we just accept like gravity and the presence of the sun.....

People like Donald Trump perhaps?
 
OK I will help you. Scientists have detected that a field of energy surrounds the brain. Perhaps generated by the neurons firing as you describe. The interesting thing is that is if they induce changes into that electro-magnetic field other neurons will fire. So what is really causing neurons to fire.


it's magic... God Bless you
 
Yes, that is probably the simplest explanation. But it doesn't satisfy me. It may just be ego but I don't see how it explains thought and perception or free will. When I was young and first took chemistry I thought I had discovered a secret, that everything was like a lab experiment. You use the same ingredients and the same method then the experiment would always have the same result. And that same rule applies to everything in the universe. It depressed me tremendously. I was much older before I learned many people thought that.

Craig:

If chemistry depressed you, you should have taken physics where the quantum world makes things more interesting and only predictable but never certain.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Craig:

If chemistry depressed you, you should have taken physics where the quantum world makes things more interesting and only predictable but never certain.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
I know. Thanks for cheering me up.
 
Craig:

If chemistry depressed you, you should have taken physics where the quantum world makes things more interesting and only predictable but never certain.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
Thanks I grew up with science fiction. The problem is that Quantum Mechanics is not understandable by the laymen.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that is probably the simplest explanation. But it doesn't satisfy me. It may just be ego but I don't see how it explains thought and perception or free will. When I was young and first took chemistry I thought I had discovered a secret, that everything was like a lab experiment. You use the same ingredients and the same method then the experiment would always have the same result. And that same rule applies to everything in the universe. It depressed me tremendously. I was much older before I learned many people thought that.

Craig:

Thought, perception and free will? Those are tough concepts to explain from a biological standpoint without a whole lot of specialised vocabulary and knowledge.

By thought do you mean thinking or all mental processes which the central nervous system does which produce conscious and unconscious ideas?

Perception is only a bio-centric version of objective reality do to the Central Nervous System's "interference" in perception. Perception is not real, it's what we think we perceive after a huge committee of neurons and biochemicals vet and reformulate it.

Free Will may be an illusion too if we admit that we are enslaved mentally to our neurons, neural pathways and neural nets. They decide and the human organism does what it is told to do.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Craig:

Thought, perception and free will? Those are tough concepts to explain from a biological standpoint without a whole lot of specialised vocabulary and knowledge.

By thought do you mean thinking or all mental processes which the central nervous system does which produce conscious and unconscious ideas?

Perception is only a bio-centric version of objective reality do to the Central Nervous System's "interference" in perception. Perception is not real, it's what we think we perceive after a huge committee of neurons and biochemicals vet and reformulate it.

Free Will may be an illusion too if we admit that we are enslaved mentally to our neurons, neural pathways and neural nets. They decide and the human organism does what it is told to do.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
I want you to listen to the voice in your head while you read this and explain it. Sorry I had to edit. You also have to explain who is listening to the voice in your head.
 
Last edited:
Thanks I grew up with science fiction. The problem is that Quantum Mechanics is not understandable by the laymen.

Aren't you a layman? I take it you do not understand it.
 
Back
Top Bottom