A major but biased new paper on consciousness

I am much more hopeful than you.  I like the paper's take on changing the paradigm.  Here is the logic ladder from my point of view.

Psi happens.

Psi happens due to detectable process capabilities.

Define Psi.  Delineate the process as to major variables and their active environment.

Measure the variables diligently and carefully record the outcomes.  Graph the results in a modeled environment. (in a space such as non-local consciousness, as the paper discusses) 

Go to town on pattern matching.


Here is another paper that goes right to the work at hand. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/...124v1.full

Yeah I think the bridge between the supposed "blue sky" papers where someone links Psi to information processing and the supposed "hard science" papers are converging...perhaps a bit slower than we'd want but nevertheless I take the IIT guys putting out "Mind in Action" as a bold step in the right direction given they not only assert mental causation but even argue aspects of the "physical" are actually less real than the mental/information aspects.

 Encoded as a holographic wave pattern, the same information reaches all conscious cortex regions: the same world view, and it integrates actions (“will”).

 Short abstract

Brain world representation emerges not by philosophy but from integrating simple followed by more complex actions (due to drives, instincts) with sensory feedback and inputs such as rewards. Our simulation provides this world representation holistically by identical information encoded as holographic wave patterns for all associative cortex regions. Observed circular activation in cell culture experiments provides building blocks from which such an integrative circuit can evolve just by excitation and inhibition transfer to neighbouring neurons. Large-scale grid-computing of the simulation brought no new emergent phenomena but rather linear gains and losses regarding performance. The circuit integrates perceptions and actions. The resulting simulation compares well with data from electrophysiology, visual perception tasks, and oscillations in cortical areas. Non-local, wave-like information processing in the cortex agrees well with EEG observations such as cortical alpha, beta, and gamma oscillations. Non-local information processing has powerful emergent properties, including key features of conscious information processing.

Nothing in this exposition bridges the gulf between the material and the mental/subjective, the primary conundrum facing PSI and paranormal investigators looking for scientific theories. Holographic wave patterns, integrative circuits, excitation and inhibition transfer to neighbouring neurons, "non-local, wave-like information processing in the cortex", etc. etc. are all fundamentally physical in that they involve the workings of physical neurons and linked electrochemical and electromagnetic waves.

But the essence of mind and spirit is nonphysical, as clearly seen theoretically in the formulation of Chalmers' Hard Problem, and as seen observationally and evidentially in the phenomena of NDEs and reincarnation memories..

Nothing in this exposition bridges the gulf between the material and the mental/subjective, the primary conundrum facing PSI and paranormal investigators looking for scientific theories. Holographic wave patterns, integrative circuits, excitation and inhibition transfer to neighbouring neurons, "non-local, wave-like information processing in the cortex", etc. etc. are all fundamentally physical in that they involve the workings of physical neurons and linked electrochemical and electromagnetic waves.

But the essence of mind and spirit is nonphysical, as clearly seen theoretically in the formulation of Chalmers' Hard Problem, and as seen observationally and evidentially in the phenomena of NDEs and reincarnation memories..

But surely there has to be some model regardless as to how something that is non-physical is correlated with "physical" neurons?

Whether this is interaction, or dual-aspect monism, or brain is the image of Mind, etc...there will have to be some model that incorporates some aspects of the "physical"?

But surely there has to be some model regardless as to how something that is non-physical is correlated with "physical" neurons?

Whether this is interaction, or dual-aspect monism, or brain is the image of Mind, etc...there will have to be some model that incorporates some aspects of the "physical"?

I agree that there must be some sort of interactive interface between the physical body and brain and the (mostly) immaterial mind/immaterial center of consciousness that can leave the physical body in an NDE OBE and observe it and many other things in this world and other realms. 

My point remains, that the nascent model pointed to by the subject paper whose abstract was quoted ("Quantifying and modelling non-local information processing of associative brain regions"), does not qualify, since it has the same problem that all the other ones have had so far - they appear to try to equate mind with the physical operations, the workings, of brain neurons, whether it be by fields or by quantum mechanical effects of microtubules, etc. Like most researchers, they appear to blithely ignore the NDE OBE and other evidences for the basic immateriality of the human consciousness.

It only is needed to look up the basic definition of "fields" (in physics) to realize this; the definition is: "A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction of a force, such as the electrostatic force near an electrically charged object, that would act on a body at any given point in that region." Prominent in this basic definition are the premise of the necessary existence of bodies, objects, forces, electrical charges, regions, etc., in order for fields to exist. Fields are physical, drop off in strength precipitously with distance according to the inverse-square law, etc. etc. 

One of the main (so far insurmountable) problems of these attempts at scientific models is accounting for the OBE accompanying many NDEs, in which some sort of a mobile center of the NDEer's consciousness separates from his physical body and brain and goes elsewhere, usually starting with observing his body from another physical location, often near the ceiling of the ER or operating room. Veridical details have been verified for many of these occurrences. 

The model abbreviated from the abstract, and many others, don't address this  because they assume that the model necessarily has to explain the human mind as some sort of mechanism tied to the physical brain, either directly, or by the brain having generated EM or other fields. But EM or other fields cannot have independent organized existence so as to go drifting off to other locations in the world or in spiritual realms of existence.

More basically and theoretically, such concepts inevitably run afoul of Chalmers' Hard Problem of consciousness, in this case because fields are basically physical and mind is basically nonphysical.

I don't pretend to have any solution to this conundrum, but I have to point out the great difficulty in applying the methods of science to the problem of analyzing and modeling whatever it is that constitutes the interactive interface between mind and matter, in particular the brain. 

I think that the magnitude of this problem is such that it appears likely that the methods of science may not be sufficient to solve the problem, which may be only approachable from some other standpoint altogether, or simply not understandable by humans at all. It sounds like defeatism, but this reasoning seems to me to be necessitated by the situation.

I think that the magnitude of this problem is such that it appears likely that the methods of science may not be sufficient to solve the problem, which may be only approachable from some other standpoint altogether, or simply not understandable by humans at all. It sounds like defeatism, but this reasoning seems to me to be necessitated by the situation.

I absolutely agree. I would say it's wholly unapproachable. It's the 'stuff' of ourselves, that we feel we should be able to account for (if we try hard enough) since we feel we know ourselves, but we can't. We don't know what it is we're looking for, or through which potential future device (or theory) we should peer for a view.  Of what ? There's nothing there and yet there's everything there. 

I've no sympathy with sceptics who say this is not happening, there's nothing going on, all explainable etc. That is unacceptable. I would hope or prefer the experiments to continue until it becomes untenable to argue with the hypotheses that we are spiritual beings (whatever they are) acting on and in the physical world and then I hope they'll leave it be. I don't think it will help us to disconnect from this world looking for something better whilst we are here. If we do that there won't be any stories to tell, nothing for 'god' to experience or watch, if he's separate.

Yeah I think the bridge between the supposed "blue sky" papers where someone links Psi to information processing and the supposed "hard science" papers are converging...perhaps a bit slower than we'd want but nevertheless I take the IIT guys putting out "Mind in Action" as a bold step in the right direction given they not only assert mental causation but even argue aspects of the "physical" are actually less real than the mental/information aspects.

I agree with you, Sci! I mean anyone writing an academic paper about consciousness is walking something of a tightrope, that is life.

I was a bit surprised they missed out NDEs, but they included a lot of deeply anomalous phenomena, and the very title questions the conventional view of consciousness.

I absolutely agree. I would say it's wholly unapproachable. It's the 'stuff' of ourselves, that we feel we should be able to account for (if we try hard enough) since we feel we know ourselves, but we can't. We don't know what it is we're looking for, or through which potential future device (or theory) we should peer for a view.  Of what ? There's nothing there and yet there's everything there. 

I've no sympathy with sceptics who say this is not happening, there's nothing going on, all explainable etc. That is unacceptable. I would hope or prefer the experiments to continue until it becomes untenable to argue with the hypotheses that we are spiritual beings (whatever they are) acting on and in the physical world and then I hope they'll leave it be. I don't think it will help us to disconnect from this world looking for something better whilst we are here. If we do that there won't be any stories to tell, nothing for 'god' to experience or watch, if he's separate.

I think that "leaving it be" after finally establishing that we are spiritual beings having a physical experience, is probably as far as the "powers that be" will allow mankind to delve into the true nature of spirit and the spiritual realms. Attempts to pin it down and analyze it and develop scientific models and theories I think will always be fruitless because of this - an outside imposed limit to the effectiveness of science in understanding the world and reality as a whole. I think that we are intended to "stew in our own juice" for as long as it takes to realize and accept this limitation.

There always seem to be enthusiasts who hope to "break the code" and communicate with the afterlife, but the great difficulties and failures encountered so far are evidence for this artificially imposed barrier to knowledge. For instance the failure (to my knowledge) of every one of the many attempts of husband and wife and father and son, and brother and brother, etc. to establish a code sequence of some sort that the first deceased will try to communicate to the surviving loved one. And there was Henry Ford's abortive attempt at communication using a radio-like technological device. No success whatsoever, except for a couple of controversial cases. Zilch. 

And attempts using mediumistic communications to gain reliable knowledge of "the other side" have been plagued by inconsistencies and other problems, to the point that at least in my opinion few or no reliable conclusions can be drawn from this source as to the real nature of the afterlife.  

Now, as a follow-up to his successful 'evidence for the afterlife' essay contest, Robert Bigelow is offering grants of up to $1M to fund attempts to actually communicate with someone who has died. My prediction is that this will ultimately prove to be an overreach and a failure, simply because we are not supposed to acquire such communication and knowledge while in the physical, as indicated by the abysmal track record so far. I hope I'm wrong about this, but this reasoning seems to be in accordance with the evidence of a century and a half of psychical research. It's very determined to remain hidden from Man's understanding.

I don't know why you guys assume we are spiritual beings.  As a philosophy, I'm OK with you believing that of course, but what makes you assume that if science finds that consciousness isn't a product of the brain, it's proof that we are spiritual beings?

[Ninshub]

I don't know why you guys assume we are spiritual beings.  As a philosophy, I'm OK with you believing that of course, but what makes you assume that if science finds that consciousness isn't a product of the brain, it's proof that we are spiritual beings?

Speaking for myself, I've long passed the point where C is not a product of the brain, and every single source of profound experience of the sort says that we are. (Science will only take you so far.)

And if you accept that C isn't a product of the brain, then how would you otherwise characterize us? And based on what sources?