Consciousness, metaphysics, extentialism... (Science thread split)

[Caleb]

	Quote:	Flying Kite
	then will get in the resonance which theoretically will make as immortals

That doesn't belong in an "Ask a scientist" thread.

[MusicChick]

	Quote:	Caleb
	That doesn't belong in an "Ask a scientist" thread.

Hahaha. We welcome all!

I like the Big Bang entry! Saw it coming, too.

Nah, I found my stuff a few weeks back, I am thrilled. It's awesome and I knew it existed, it's relatively new - M/Ph Biology, treating symmetry in the natural world, statistically. Some view it through molecules, too (especially loved this one Hungarian paper). I'll add names when I sit down from work, Fri/Sat.

[Caleb]

	Quote:	MusicChick
	Hahaha. We welcome all!

I meant the BS post, not the poster. Clear, we're all welcome, but why post jokes in the Classifieds section? No, right? No new-age BS in an "Ask a scientist" thread either, I guess.

[Axa]

	Quote:	Caleb
	That doesn't belong in an "Ask a scientist" thread.

It's serious research on the effects of LSD on the human mind, science!

[MusicChick]

	Quote:	Axa
	It's serious research on the effects of LSD on the human mind, science!

CH does a lot of serious LSD/consciousness research! They were one of the 1st, too. Just sayin'.

[Ace1]

	Quote:	Caleb
	That doesn't belong in an "Ask a scientist" thread.

To be fair, it doesn't really belong in any English Language discussion. I'm not sure I want to know what on earth he was on about, do you?

[Ato]

	Quote:	Ace1
	To be fair, it doesn't really belong in any English Language discussion. I'm not sure I want to know what on earth he was on about, do you?

I can rephrase it if you want.

There are unaccountable perils to the unending life of perfect mathematically reflected alignment with the underlying frequencies of the very fabric of existence. The very essence of our fickle beings is reliant upon the unknown calculations remaining hidden from us, the many imperfections ensuring we will never truly dance in time to the universe. The sound of our existence is naught but the squeak of a chair in the cheap seats at the the culmination of the universes concerto. They will play again, we will never hear.

[Axa]

	Quote:	MusicChick
	CH does a lot of serious LSD/consciousness redearch! They were one of the 1st, too. Just sayin'.

There's not thank you button for mods, so thanks for the laugh!

[Flying Kite]

	Quote:	Caleb
	That doesn't belong in an "Ask a scientist" thread.

…I am assuming the WTF? are stands from Where To Find?...
…then take this copy-past...
…Pascal Fries, a German neurophysiologist with the Ernst Strüngmann Institute, has explored in his highly cited work over the last two decades the ways in which various electrical patterns, specifically, gamma, theta and beta waves, work together in the brain to produce the various types of human consciousness.

These names refer to the speed of electrical oscillations in the various brain regions, as measured by electrodes placed on the outside of the skull. Gamma waves are typically defined as about 30 to 90 cycles per second (hertz), theta as a 4- to 7-hz rhythm, and beta as 12.5 to 30 hz. These aren’t hard cut-offs—they’re rules of thumb—and they vary somewhat in different species.

So, theta and beta are significantly slower than gamma waves. But the three work together to produce, or at least facilitate (the exact relationship between electrical brain patterns and consciousness is still very much up for debate), various types of human consciousness.

Fries calls his concept “communication through coherence” or CTC. For Fries it’s all about neuronal synchronization. Synchronization, in terms of shared electrical oscillation rates, allows for smooth communication between neurons and groups of neurons. Without coherence (synchronization), inputs arrive at random phases of the neuron excitability cycle and are ineffective, or at least much less effective, in communication.

Our resonance theory of consciousness builds upon the work of Fries and many others, in a broader approach that can help to explain not only human and mammalian consciousness, but also consciousness more broadly. We also speculate metaphysically about the nature of consciousness as a more general phenomenon of all matter.

ARE ALL THINGS AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT CONSCIOUS?

Based on the observed behaviour of the entities that surround us, from electrons to atoms to molecules to bacteria to paramecia to mice, bats, rats, etc., all things may be viewed as at least a little conscious. This sounds strange at first blush, but “panpsychism”—the view that all matter has some associated consciousness—is an increasingly accepted position with respect to the nature of consciousness.

The panpsychist argues that consciousness (subjectivity) did not emerge; rather, it’s always associated with matter, and vice versa (they are two sides of the same coin), but mind as associated with most of the matter in our universe is generally very simple. An electron or an atom, for example, enjoy just a tiny amount of consciousness. But as matter “complexifies,” so mind complexifies, and vice versa.

Biological organisms have leveraged faster information exchange through various biophysical pathways, including electrical and electrochemical pathways. These faster information flows allow for more macro-scale levels of consciousness than would occur in similar-scale structures like boulders or a pile of sand, simply because there is significantly greater connectivity and thus more “going on” in biological structures than in a boulder or a pile of sand. Boulders and piles of sand only have thermal pathways with very limited bandwidth.

Boulders and piles of sand are “mere aggregates” or just collections of more rudimentary conscious entities (probably at the atomic or molecular level only), rather than combinations of micro-conscious entities that combine into a higher level macro-conscious entity, which is the hallmark of biological life.

Accordingly, the type of communication between resonating structures is key for consciousness to expand beyond the rudimentary type of consciousness that we expect to occur in more basic physical structures.

The central thesis of our approach is this: the particular linkages that allow for macro-consciousness to occur result from a shared resonance among many micro-conscious constituents. The speed of the resonant waves that are present is the limiting factor that determines the size of each conscious entity.

As a shared resonance expands to more and more constituents, the particular conscious entity grows larger and more complex. So, the shared resonance in a human brain that achieves gamma synchrony, for example, includes a far larger number of neurons and neuronal connections than is the case for beta or theta rhythms alone.

It’s resonating structures all the way down—and up.

Our resonance theory of consciousness attempts to provide a unified framework that includes neuroscience and the study of human consciousness, but also more fundamental questions of neurobiology and biophysics. It gets to the heart of the differences that matter when it comes to consciousness and the evolution of physical systems.

It is all about vibrations, but it’s also about the type of vibrations and, most importantly, about shared vibrations...

[greenmount]

	Quote:	Caleb
	I meant the BS post, not the poster.

Reading some pseudo-intellectual random thoughts here me wonder why are you so set against this user and not others.

[Caleb]

	Quote:	greenmount
	Reading some pseudo-intellectual random thoughts here me wonder why are you so set against this user and not others.

I have absolutely nothing against the user, I debate only the post content. Stuff like this has no place in a scientific discussion:

	Quote:	Flying Kite
	[...]all things may be viewed as at least a little conscious. [...] An electron or an atom, for example, enjoy just a tiny amount of consciousness. But as matter “complexifies,” so mind complexifies, and vice versa. [...] Boulders and piles of sand are “mere aggregates” or just collections of more rudimentary conscious entities [...]

Perhaps a mod can move these to "Ask a metaphysicist" new thread.

[Axa]

	Quote:	Caleb
	Perhaps a mod can move these to "Ask a metaphysicist" new thread.

I can help with commentary on healing with crystals. Don't know anything about it, but no prob, no one does

[MusicChick]

	Quote:	Caleb
	I have absolutely nothing against the user, I debate only the post content. Stuff like this has no place in a scientific discussion: Perhaps a mod can move these to "Ask a metaphysicist" new thread.

They wouldn't be happy. The metaphysicists.

	Quote:	Axa
	I can help with commentary on healing with crystals. Don't know anything about it, but no prob, no one does

I only like crystals around my neck..in my ears, too, fingers. Awesome bling powers!

[greenmount]

	Quote:	Caleb
	I have absolutely nothing against the user, I debate only the post content. Stuff like this has no place in a scientific discussion: .

Neither a lot of other....stuff, that was my point.

But hey, I guess we have to start from somewhere.

[newtoswitz]

	Quote:	greenmount
	Reading some pseudo-intellectual random thoughts here me wonder why are you so set against this user and not others.

Possibly because that user has never posted anything that makes any sense.

My theory is that some spambot accidentally got attached to EF and keeps forgetting to include the links pushing drugs or porn. The posts make about as much sense as the spam I reject from blog comments, although to be fair there are less passages from the Bible and Moby Dick.

[FrankZappa]

	Quote:	newtoswitz
	Possibly because that user has never posted anything that makes any sense. My theory is that some spambot accidentally got attached to EF and keeps forgetting to include the links pushing drugs or porn. The posts make about as much sense as the spam I reject from blog comments, although to be fair there are less passages from the Bible and Moby Dick.

Indeed. It seems to be the rare instance of a human imitating a spambot perfectly.

Just for giggles, I Googled "Pascal Fries, a German neurophysiologist with the Ernst Strüngmann Institute" (Pause to ask if Pascal Fries is French - geddit?). He turns out to be real and doing not-obviously-ridiculous research. I was shocked.

[amogles]

	Quote:	MusicChick
	I only like crystals around my neck..in my ears, too, fingers. Awesome bling powers!

A diamond is a crystal, and they are used in some surgical instruments.

A laser wouldn't work without crystals, and some surgeries use lasers.

So who says crystals don't have healing properties?

[MusicChick]

	Quote:	FrankZappa
	Indeed. It seems to be the rare instance of a human imitating a spambot perfectly. Just for giggles, I Googled "Pascal Fries, a German neurophysiologist with the Ernst Strüngmann Institute" (Pause to ask if Pascal Fries is French - geddit?). He turns out to be real and doing not-obviously-ridiculous research. I was shocked.

Totally real. And solid stuff, too.Though I think metaphysicists will not want to be associated, neurosci yes.

Thanks, Flyin.

[MusicChick]

	Quote:	amogles
	A diamond is a crystal, and they are used in some surgical instruments. A laser wouldn't work without crystals, and some surgeries use lasers. So who says crystals don't have healing properties?

They definitely heal me through the sense of aesthetics. I am kidding.

I do like the ideas on symmetry since from cognit angle, it's boring and easily avoidable. Nature has it for a reason, to a certain point.

[amogles]

	Quote:	FrankZappa
	Just for giggles, I Googled "Pascal Fries, a German neurophysiologist with the Ernst Strüngmann Institute" (Pause to ask if Pascal Fries is French - geddit?). He turns out to be real and doing not-obviously-ridiculous research. I was shocked.

A lot of stuff can sound weird when taken totally out of context.

I think many people accept the view that levels of consciousness correlate with neural complexity.

Thus a monkey has more consciousness than a fish and a fish has more consciousness than a snail. And we can tell this just by looking at their brains.

If you take that idea forward, then a sufficiently complex computer should also be considered to be conscious. And at the other end of the scale there should be some degree of micro or even nano-consciousness in all things that somehow have connections that somehow transmit information.

If this concept is absurd, then that should, scientifically speaking, invalidate the original assumption that consciousness comes from complexity.

Which I think is a valid point.