Consciousness and Special Relativity?

The brain is an area of neurophysiology activity. Neurophysiology activity consists of electrochemical reaction. Thus at any given time, the brain state is defined by a subset of electrochemical reactions, derived from a large set of possible reactions.
Thought
Consider the phenomenon of a. conscious thought. As at any given time the brain physical state consists of a collection of electrochemical reactions (events), it can be inferred that they are collectively responsible for the conscious thought. This means that at least in part, simultaneous events are responsible for thought. In other words, thought creates a connection between simultaneous events. This is in contradiction to the consequences of special relativity, which states that the fastest connection between events is the speed of light and thus excludes the possibility of connection between simultaneous events.
Memory
Consider the memorizing of, say, the value 5. This would necessarily involve more than I point in space as, say, if it is assumed a single electron records 5 by taking a particular potential. Then it by itself cannot define (or know) 5, as its magnitude would be defined only with respect to another datum or event defined as a unit potential, thus involving at least 2 simultaneous events.
Vision
Consider the experience of vision. While we focus our attention on an object of vision, we are still aware of a background and, thus, a whole collection of events. This would mean at least an equal collection of physical events in the brain are involved.
Consciousness is 4 Dimensional
Take the experience of listening to music. It would mean being aware of what went before. Like vision, it would probably mean that while our attention at any given time is focused at that point in time, it is aware of what went before and what is to follow. In other words, it spans the time axis. Many great composers have stated that they are able to hear their whole composition. Thus their acoustic experience is probably like the average person's visual experience. While focusing at a particular point in time of their composition, they are nevertheless aware of what went before and what is to come. The rest of the composition is like the background of a visual experience. Experiencing the composition in this way, they are able to traverse it in a similar fashion to which a painting is observed. In this sense, an average person in comparison can be seen as having tunnel hearing (like tunnel vision) when it comes to music, thus making it very difficult for him or her to reproduce or create new music. It can be seen that consciousness is a 4-D phenomenon.
Contradiction with Special relativity
As stated previously Special relativity states that the fastest connection between events is the speed of light. This proposition excludes the possibility of connections between simultaneous events. Simultaneous events are also known as space-like separated events in special relativity. Yet from the description given above it can be seen that consciousness creates a connection between simultaneous events in the brain.
EPR
Einstein, on studying quantum mechanics, found it highly disturbing that it implied an instantaneous correlation between space-like separated events (Simultaneous events). He suggested the EPR experiments with the hope of falsifying quantum mechanics. (If it had occurred to Einstein that he is instantaneously aware of space-like separated events , (Simultaneous events) I wonder what he would have inferred on the nature of consciousness)
Thus if consciousness is a physically explainable phenomenon, it can be expected that such an explanation would involve EPR type effects and as such physical explanations at a quantum level will be involved.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nothing special is needed to explain or support the existence of self-awareness (consciousness). It is a natural outcome of evolution.

Even single cell organisms are self-aware in that they "know" the difference in themselves and their surroundings.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Also another glaring error, in addition to a massive wealth of untested assumptions about the nature of the human brain: EPR allows for spacelike correlations, but no information is exchanged faster than the speed of light in the process of establishing these correlations. There are ways for things to affect you from across the galaxy without you having any knowledge of it nor any means of measuring it.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#EPR_Paradox

I quote from the article directly:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This sentence sounds dodgy. It seems self-contradictory, and seems to imply exactly what you deny - FTL causation.

Doesn't "affect" mean "cause some effect"?

A quantum correlation between something here and something across the galaxy doesn't mean that one is affecting the other, right?

 

The "effect" I'm referring to is merely the quantum physical guarantee that the outcomes at both ends will be correlated. To say that one measurement caused the other wouldn't be a good phrasing, because different observers would disagree on which measurement happened first. Maybe my choice of wording wasn't so good.

 

In starting I will note that most of the functionality of a single cell organism, is also shown by cells in the human body. Now lets takes the parallel you are drawing. Firstly we are talking of the consciousness. This is an experience that all humans have and are capable of describing. As such could you please
1. Describe what you mean by “know” as is relates to the human experience, which is similar to the “know”experience that you anticipate the single cell organism to have?
2. Now many structures and functionality has been identifies in single cell organisms. (E.g cell membrane, protein molecules on cell membrane, nucleus) Could you further describe what you think constitutes an example of the structures and functionality that working together, bring about the cell “Knowing” experience described in 1.
Thanks

 

Untested assumption? Lets say you are watching your TV. Now firstly with the use of the nerve impulses from your eyes your brain needs to make a model of the TV. This will take time. However this model once in place will be distributed or made of a multitude of events, do you agree? Now when you say you are "aware" or looking at that TV model does it not imply you are interacting with all of these simultaneous events?
Or put it another way what are the events that correspond to the "looking" aspect and how do these events bring about this singuler "looking" experiance?
Is more than a single event needed at any time, to bring about this singuler experiance?

 

Well the thing to first understand is that consciousness is nothing more than self-awareness and self-awareness is little more than being able to distinguish one's self from one's surroundings. It's all downhill from there.

There is really nothing else (other than evolution) needed.

 

"distinguish one's self from one's surroundings. "

If your definition of consciounes is the above, could you please relate the above 1.To a example of a conscious experience, of watching TV.
2. Give an example of the above functionality ("Self Aware") in a single cell?
Thanks
Please note without the above explanation all you have done is substituted a phrase "self aware" for "consciousnes" and then "distinguish one's self from one's surroundings. " for the phrase "self aware"

 

Do Amoeba eat?

How do they feed themselves? Do they eat themselves?

Consciousness is nothing more than self awareness. The ability to recognize one's body, one's heartbeat, one's thoughts. There is no need for trying to define it as anything different.

If you believe it is then please provide your own definition (per the scientific literature) that distinguishes consciousness from self-awareness.

 

"Self awareness" is fine however this article is about the physics and the chemistry behind it, as such if you are defining self awareness as the "ability to know ones thoughts" please relate this to neural events. Or in the case of the amoeba to events taking place in the cell. e.g what physical events constitute "themselves"
This article is not about finding definitions of consciousness but rather about giving a definition and then relating that definition to physical and chemical events.

 

There is no need to. You seem to be trying to grasp at something outside normal biological processes in order to define consciousness. Consciousness is nothing special. As I've explained it is a normal consequence of living things. Nothing else needs to be explained. Particularly nothing involving Special Relativity.

 

You would agree, not all biological processes are a part of Consciousness. As such an explanation is needed of the biological processes that constitute consciouness as well as relating those processors to the physical and chemical events.
Just saying Consciousness = Self awareness =Biological Processes =
normal consequence of living things, is not giving any explanation in terms of physical and Chemical events.
So if you accept that all biological processors can be explained in terms of physical and Chemical events then all I am asking is
1. Show the relationship between the experiance of consciosness and the Biological processors.
2. Give the physical and chemical events that make up the biological processors.
If I ask a biologist what is the biological processors involved in vision, then 1 and 2 can be given right? Now all I am asking is give that explanation and I will show you the contradiction.

 

No, I'm not going there. Your initial post seemed to try and say that consciousness is somehow related to special relativity. I'm saying there is no need to even discuss it as all the processes that make up consciousness are clearly understood and have been researched and explained. See Daniel Dennets "Consciousness Explained" for example.

The burden of proof is on you, if your claim is that conscious cannot be explained by the existing science or if it consists of something different.

 

If it has been fully explained by Dennets book why does time carry an article title "The Mystery of Consciousness" 19.1.2007 I have given many examples in the article of contradictions here is one
"Consider the experience of vision. While we focus our attention on an object of vision, we are still aware of a background and, thus, a whole collection of events. This would mean at least an equal collection of physical events in the brain are involved. "
If you think the above is not a contradiction then explain why it is not so.
For your information this article was published in IEEE engineering and Medicine

 

Certainly we do not know everything about how our brains function, there is still much research to do, but nothing you state in your opening post contradicts anything that IS know or claims to explain something that is not known.

The brain is a massively parallel processor, many things happen simultaneously the results of processes are filtered and combined.

Your vision example is no contradiction of anything I'm aware of. The eye feeds it's input into the brain which can simultaneously process an item of interest while at the same time separately processing the background. It's what kept our ancestors alive when predators attacked.

In this example you seem to think the brain can only do one thing at a time. It simply isn't so. Otherwise we'd never be able to ride a bicycle or chew gum and walk.

Your other examples are no less understandable and none have to resort to Special relativity or QM or God for that matter. It's all perfectly natural.

 

Let me show how the above is a contradiction.
As you say the brain has many parallel processor's.
Please let me know if you agree with the following
1. Parallel Processors in the brain give rise to or is one and the same as consciousness.
2. Parallel processors are made of parallel events, nothing more nothing less.
3. Parallel event = simultaneous events
4. Restating 1 simultaneouse events give rise to or is one and the same as consciousness.

 

No. I don't know where you get this stuff. Parallel processors do not give rise to consciousness. That's not even the point. Nor do your steps(assumptions) make any sense.

You claim there is something MAGICAL about being able to process visual images. Parallel processing of the brain allows this. No magic needed, not Relativity, not QM.

Please state simply what your claim is wrt Consciousness and its relation to Special Relativity. The initial post is a mess of misunderstanding, speculation and hand-waving.

 

Also a couple of Daniel Dennett's Ted Talks:


http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness.html

And an associated one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjbWr3ODbAo

 

In the first paragraph you state "Parallel processors do not give rise to consciousness."
Then is the second you say with regards to images "Parallel processing of the brain allows this. "
What exactly are you saying? In your opinion, how are the physical and chemical processors, that is responsible for consciousness distributed in time and space?
My answer to the above questions is as follows, if you dont agree please give me your answer.
assuming the following
Assumption 1. Consciousness is a result of the activity that takes place in the brain at nerve synapses and nerve impulses.

Consider the distribution of Nerve impulses and activity at nerve synapses in the brain. Let all of these regions at any given time be enclosed in the smallest possible virtual spherical globes.
Then over any length of time these Globes will never intersect.
Thus they are separate in space and time. These globes will form an ever changing pattern. We know that the activity within these globes together gives rise to a single phenomenon namely consciousness. However we know that distinct space and time cannot have any form of connections (special relativity). Yet Consciousness makes exactly such a connection as it is a singular result of all this activity