• 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?

Thanks I grew up with science fiction. The problem is that Quantum Mechanics is not understandable by the laymen.
“I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics." -Richard Feynman.
 
“I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics." -Richard Feynman.

Or as I've sometimes heard "If you think that you understand quantum mechanics then you don't understand quantum mechanics".
 
Or as I've sometimes heard "If you think that you understand quantum mechanics then you don't understand quantum mechanics".
That was once said about Einstein's relativity theories but over time the concepts have become part of the common culture.
 
That was once said about Einstein's relativity theories but over time the concepts have become part of the common culture.

But I think Feynman's point is that ultimately nothing can be truly understood, to truly understand something means we have no questions about, nothing is unknown about it and yet we can never get to that stage and we certainly aren't there now.
 
But I think Feynman's point is that ultimately nothing can be truly understood, to truly understand something means we have no questions about, nothing is unknown about it and yet we can never get to that stage and we certainly aren't there now.
Isn't that true of all discoveries? There is always more to learn. Aren't we always approximating our way to gaining more knowledge of a phenomena to make useful predictions? Ultimate knowledge of something would be the thing itself, an ideal and not knowable.
 
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.

Light comes out of my computer screen of different intensities and colours. The rods and cones in my eye's retina receive an inverted and negative image of what's on the screen and translates the light image into a series of nerve impulses which flow from the eye, along the optic nerve and through inter-neurons in the brain to the vision processing part of the brain. There the neurons electro-chemically discuss with each other about which neural impulses coming from the eyes are important and which can be ignored (like dust on the screen or the reflection of the desk light on the I-pad screen). Then these neurons try to fit the cleaned up neural pattern representing the now cleaned up and simplified image into a coherent pattern which they recognise because it corresponds to an existing neural partway. If it does, then pattern recognition kicks in and I imagine, "c-r-a-i-g-2-3-4 .... y-o-u-r- - h-e-a-d-.", in my mind. These symbols and patterns are familiar to me and thus my neurons in conversation with each other assign meanings to these nerve impulses allowing my brain to assign my meaning to those symbols and patterns. This is recognition and meaning.

Now neurons in my brain and spinal cord discuss the significance of these patterns' and pathways' meanings and they formulate thousands of reactive responses to these inputs. As the inter-neural discussion continues possible reactive responses are discounted and discarded until just one (understanding) or a few (confusion) remain. Assuming understanding is the neural state, then the neurons further discuss a response to this coherent body of recognisable neural impulses and pathways called understanding. This is thinking.

Then the neurons electro-chemically formulate thousands of possible neural responses and begin discarding them until one (certainty) or a few response pathways (indecision and guessing) are settled upon. This is an idea. Once the idea is settled upon by neuron intercourse then the neurons discuss how to respond to this idea and my need to convey this idea outwards. More neuron discussion in the brain and spinal cord develops many thousands of possible response strategies and these are eliminated by inter neural discussion until just one remains. This is decision.

Then the neurons of the brain and spinal cord, the sensory neurons and the motor neurons have a big debate to develop a comprehensive, cooperative and coherent set of nerve impulses and pathways to allow my muscles to properly control my body in order to type a response onto this debate forum. This is response.

All of this happens repeatedly with constant new alterations hundreds or tens of times a second until my response is crafted and submitted. This manic inter-neural conversation continues for several minutes until my typed response is submitted. Then the neural networks settle down and switch to dealing with other things until my sensory organs and their neurons notice the little red check mark has appeared in the upper right of the screen triggering the whole process to recommence. The voice in my head is the result of the din of neural conversations firing neural impulses and neurochemicals back and forth. The voice is the brain's recognition and meaning of familiar patterns of neural activity travelling along familiar pathways in the brain and body. Those familiar pattern cause me to imagine but not utter words and patterns of words which have familiarity and thus meaning to my neural network because they are familiar nerve impulses travelling along familiar neural pathways. I am a huge committee of kibitzing neurons creating reality out of limited sensory inputs, vetting and censoring by neurons, pattern recognition, meaning recognition of neural impulses, decision making by neural interaction and finally execution of a response by many different types of neurons throughout my body.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Light comes out of my computer screen of different intensities and colours. The rods and cones in my eye's retina receive an inverted and negative image of what's on the screen and translates the light image into a series of nerve impulses which flow from the eye, along the optic nerve and through inter-neurons in the brain to the vision processing part of the brain. There the neurons electro-chemically discuss with each other about which neural impulses coming from the eyes are important and which can be ignored (like dust on the screen or the reflection of the desk light on the I-pad screen). Then these neurons try to fit the cleaned up neural pattern representing the now cleaned up and simplified image into a coherent pattern which they recognise because it corresponds to an existing neural partway. If it does, then pattern recognition kicks in and I imagine, "c-r-a-i-g-2-3-4 .... y-o-u-r- - h-e-a-d-.", in my mind. These symbols and patterns are familiar to me and thus my neurons in conversation with each other assign meanings to these nerve impulses allowing my brain to assign my meaning to those symbols and patterns. This is recognition and meaning.

Now neurons in my brain and spinal cord discuss the significance of these patterns' and pathways' meanings and they formulate thousands of reactive responses to these inputs. As the inter-neural discussion continues possible reactive responses are discounted and discarded until just one (understanding) or a few (confusion) remain. Assuming understanding is the neural state, then the neurons further discuss a response to this coherent body of recognisable neural impulses and pathways called understanding. This is thinking.

Then the neurons electro-chemically formulate thousands of possible neural responses and begin discarding them until one (certainty) or a few response pathways (indecision and guessing) are settled upon. This is an idea. Once the idea is settled upon by neuron intercourse then the neurons discuss how to respond to this idea and my need to convey this idea outwards. More neuron discussion in the brain and spinal cord develops many thousands of possible response strategies and these are eliminated by inter neural discussion until just one remains. This is decision.

Then the neurons of the brain and spinal cord, the sensory neurons and the motor neurons have a big debate to develop a comprehensive, cooperative and coherent set of nerve impulses and pathways to allow my muscles to properly control my body in order to type a response onto this debate forum. This is response.

All of this happens repeatedly with constant new alterations hundreds or tens of times a second until my response is crafted and submitted. This manic inter-neural conversation continues for several minutes until my typed response is submitted. Then the neural networks settle down and switch to dealing with other things until my sensory organs and their neurons notice the little red check mark has appeared in the upper right of the screen triggering the whole process to recommence. The voice in my head is the result of the din of neural conversations firing neural impulses and neurochemicals back and forth. The voice is the brain's recognition and meaning of familiar patterns of neural activity travelling along familiar pathways in the brain and body. Those familiar pattern cause me to imagine but not utter words and patterns of words which have familiarity and thus meaning to my neural network because they are familiar nerve impulses travelling along familiar neural pathways. I am a huge committee of kibitzing neurons creating reality out of limited sensory inputs, vetting and censoring by neurons, pattern recognition, meaning recognition of neural impulses, decision making by neural interaction and finally execution of a response by many different types of neurons throughout my body.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
I like it . Sounds like a wild party. Still don't understand how they reduce to a single voice. I guess for some they don't.
 
But I think Feynman's point is that ultimately nothing can be truly understood, to truly understand something means we have no questions about, nothing is unknown about it and yet we can never get to that stage and we certainly aren't there now.

Sherlock Homes:

Understanding in a horseshoe locus, not a bullseye point. Understanding is a never-ending and constantly evolving process as theories are created based on empirical analysis, refined, are improved, are challenged, collapse from successful challenging and are altered or replaced accordingly. Understanding is a road, not a location somewhere along the road. Understanding is a whole movie reel, not a single frame from the reel. One need not know everything about an object of attention to have a working understanding of it. Chaotic systems are unknowable, but still produce coherent and predictable results. Only when a possibility collapses into a certainty through hindsight is there a measure of certainty. Until then it's all just probability and informed prediction.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
I like it . Sounds like a wild party. Still don't understand how they reduce to a single voice. I guess for some they don't.

ciagr:
cigar:
racig:
craig: that's the one I recognise!

Your neurons filter out most of the din and the resulting ersatz neural noise you recognise as a word, a feeling, an image, etc. That's why there is no free will. We are all slaved to our neural committees, neuroelectric and neurochemicals debates in a neuron-filled and raucous parliament making decisions for the whole (ourself). I are we! The self is a collective under the tyranny of neural absolutism.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
ciagr:
cigar:
racig:
craig: that's the one I recognise!

Your neurons filter out most of the din and the resulting ersatz neural noise you recognise as a word, a feeling, an image, etc. That's why there is no free will. We are all slaved to our neural committees, neuroelectric and neurochemicals debates in a neuron-filled and raucous parliament making decisions for the whole (ourself). I are we! The self is a collective under the tyranny of neural absolutism.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
Nice. Funny and plausible. My grandma had 15 grandsons. When I went to see her, she would say each of their names until she said Craig. Then she knew me. I was going to ask about the free will part but I guess you think we are just along for the ride. Like a rollercoaster you can't get off.
 
Last edited:
Why do we need to? As in why confine the explanation?
 
Why do we need to? As in why confine the explanation?
Do think how consciousness evolved can explain what it is? If so go for it.
 
Sherlock Homes:

Understanding in a horseshoe locus, not a bullseye point. Understanding is a never-ending and constantly evolving process as theories are created based on empirical analysis, refined, are improved, are challenged, collapse from successful challenging and are altered or replaced accordingly. Understanding is a road, not a location somewhere along the road. Understanding is a whole movie reel, not a single frame from the reel. One need not know everything about an object of attention to have a working understanding of it. Chaotic systems are unknowable, but still produce coherent and predictable results. Only when a possibility collapses into a certainty through hindsight is there a measure of certainty. Until then it's all just probability and informed prediction.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

I agree.
 
ciagr:
cigar:
racig:
craig: that's the one I recognise!

Your neurons filter out most of the din and the resulting ersatz neural noise you recognise as a word, a feeling, an image, etc. That's why there is no free will. We are all slaved to our neural committees, neuroelectric and neurochemicals debates in a neuron-filled and raucous parliament making decisions for the whole (ourself). I are we! The self is a collective under the tyranny of neural absolutism.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

That isn't "why" some people believe we have no free will.

That belief is based on the assumption that we are deterministic machines, because it is believed nature is deterministic but that no longer seems to be the case.

Free will is (by definition) a claim for non-determinism, the current state does not inevitably lead to some determinable next state.

So I don't see how one can claim we have no free will when determinism isn't a law of nature.
 
Do think how consciousness evolved can explain what it is? If so go for it.

Mainly because we define it, we are the ones that came up with the term consciousness to explain the concept of being awake and aware of our surroundings.

Like just about everything else from science the term is applied to explain, measure, and thus give credibility to the term.

So in a way we already have our explanation about consciousness even though we both know science will continue to study, clarify, and gain new understandings. That is where evolution of the understanding really comes from.
 
Mainly because we define it, we are the ones that came up with the term consciousness to explain the concept of being awake and aware of our surroundings.

Like just about everything else from science the term is applied to explain, measure, and thus give credibility to the term.

So in a way we already have our explanation about consciousness even though we both know science will continue to study, clarify, and gain new understandings. That is where evolution of the understanding really comes from.
So are you saying consciousness exists because we named it? Or we discovered consciousness and named it? It is a difficult problem because the phenomena is naming itself.
 
That isn't "why" some people believe we have no free will.

That belief is based on the assumption that we are deterministic machines, because it is believed nature is deterministic but that no longer seems to be the case.

Free will is (by definition) a claim for non-determinism, the current state does not inevitably lead to some determinable next state.

So I don't see how one can claim we have no free will when determinism isn't a law of nature.
The observer may be the determiner.
 
So are you saying consciousness exists because we named it? Or we discovered consciousness and named it? It is a difficult problem because the phenomena is naming itself.

Not quite, what I am saying is we determined there is such a thing as consciousness and we applied a name to define our understanding of it. In this case it is as simple as the concept of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. And it is easily validated against the understanding of unconsciousness.

Of course these things 'existed' before we termed them, and that understanding evolved over time as 5000 years ago this was not necessary to define in a manner we commonly do today.

Perhaps in another 5000 years we will determine a more metaphysical explanation for all this but what we do know today is valid.
 
Not quite, what I am saying is we determined there is such a thing as consciousness and we applied a name to define our understanding of it. In this case it is as simple as the concept of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. And it is easily validated against the understanding of unconsciousness.

Of course these things 'existed' before we termed them, and that understanding evolved over time as 5000 years ago this was not necessary to define in a manner we commonly do today.

Perhaps in another 5000 years we will determine a more metaphysical explanation for all this but what we do know today is valid.
Good discussion. So we are still at square one, "I think therefore I am". Science really hasn't advanced our understanding.
 
Good discussion. So we are still at square one, "I think therefore I am". Science really hasn't advanced our understanding.

Thinking is not synonymous with consciousness, I know plenty of people who are awake and aware of their surroundings yet I am sure they are not "thinking" about a damn thing.
 
Thinking is not synonymous with consciousness, I know plenty of people who are awake and aware of their surroundings yet I am sure they are not "thinking" about a damn thing.
Yes. there is also a name for that, a "philosophical zombie"
 
Yes. there is also a name for that, a "philosophical zombie"
This can be combined with an old joke. You and I are not philosophical zombies but sometimes I am not so sure about you.
 
Back
Top Bottom