Poll

This poll is inspired by this discussion thread in the group:

Is the brain the origin of our consciousness? OR is the brain merely a receiver? https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Here are a few articles, with differing theories, on the subject:

Is Consciousness A Product Of The Brain Or Is The Brain The Receiver Of Consciousness? https://www.collective-evolution.com/...

Harvard Scientists Think They've Pinpointed The Physical Source of Consciousness https://www.sciencealert.com/harvard-...

Scientists say your “mind” isn’t confined to your brain, or even your body https://qz.com/866352/scientists-say-...

Personally, I believe consciousness is "non-local" and our brains merely interpret or process it - a bit like a radio receiving a transmission.

But looking forward to hearing all your opinions!

Consciousness, a word most associate with awareness, has many layers few ever achieve. The brain is a biological computer that is both pre-programmed and has deep learning capabilities, much like AI. It’s the pre-programming that we cannot duplicate, yet, that we think sets us apart. The problem with this theory is it has been proven time and again that most of the organisms on our planet are indeed conscious, thus aware. This not only proves consciousness is universal, but constantly updating and growing exponentially. We are individual in our connection to consciousness, absorbing and learning at an individual pace, governed by our decisions and growth. Until we have learned (made aware) and have mastered our pre-programming, (emotion) we continue on (reincarnation) as what we call the soul, until we can truly understand the power of the universal consciousness and wield it for good.
That’s where I’m at right now, anyway 🙂

I think all the living organisms on the planet are conscious and we are the receivers of consciousness. I sometimes like to think even our planet itself is conscious!
I like to think on the mystical aspect of the phrase "As above, so below." I first encountered this phrase when I was reading "The Lost Symbol" by Dan Brown.
For me, the above phrase is all about how simply and elegantly we can map the macro to the micro.
We have simple, single cellular organisms like amoeba and then we have complex biological organisms like humans. If you try to scale down, we humans and for that matter any other living organism, they are an universe in themselves. And when you scale up, our personal mini universes are a part of earth, which is a part of our solar system, which is a part of a galaxy which in turn is just one among the many!
Such a complex system makes me want to believe that consciousness can't be merely a product of our minds. I believe we have always been part of a bigger picture, I hope someday we will see the whole picture. :)

All of the above, and more. Since thought is the product of the mind, and it seems pretty clear that the mind resides in the brain, then consciousness, which could be said to be a sum of having a mind, sensory input coupled with self awareness comes from the brain. There is however so much we do not yet understand about the way the observable (and unobservable) universe works that we can only guess. The simple act of observation changes physical reality which, selecting one of the infinite potential directions history can unfold into. Multiply that by however many billion quantum future influencers that inhabit the Earth and tell me what that means please.

Dianna wrote: "Consciousness, a word most associate with awareness, has many layers few ever achieve. The brain is a biological computer that is both pre-programmed and has deep learning capabilities, much like A..."(brain is only an organ, like other organs, inside the body. However, brain is equipped with receptors that triggers movement, inside the body, as a result of constant changes in magnetic fields, from time and space. We do not own our consciousness-awareness, that is why it keeps changing with time. De Branco

It’s hard to determine, but I believe the brain create consciousness. The brain instructs every aspect of the body and while a movement or body part may bring consciousness into view, the brain still has created that.

Perhaps the language here is a bit fuzzy ... the "brain" is not the "mind", just the physical structure that hosts the magnificent neuronal firings that form and create the patterns that are our thoughts, or at least that we perceive as our thoughts. And yes, agree, the mind is on temporary loan during our lifetime. The brain and indeed the whole body which serves as a well-entangled sensory system supporting our consciousness, is certainly part of nature, yet we transcend nature, and our thoughts are not ours alone, but are connected to a larger field, whether we choose to call that field a Consciousness field, an energy field, a Quantum field, the Noosphere, the Zero Field, etc., or the God Field. Oh, and there's so much more! How could such magnificence of thought be confined to a single brain!

Claire wrote: "It’s hard to determine, but I believe the brain create consciousness. The brain instructs every aspect of the body and while a movement or body part may bring consciousness into view, the brain sti..."Brain and body, becomes almost non existence, if the magnetic fields, stops connecting with brain neurons. Remember, we are about 75 % water and the bones and tissue. Water inside the brain, becomes super active, when triggered by the fields. Consciousness and awareness, is a bio product of body's magnetic fields, and triggered by outside fields. DeBranco

Alex wrote: "Perhaps the language here is a bit fuzzy ... the "brain" is not the "mind", just the physical structure that hosts the magnificent neuronal firings that form and create the patterns that are our th..." Mind is a "figure of speech" it does not exist. can you locate the mind? NO.

Fascinating topic. I had never heard of this debate before. I want to believe the brain is a receiver of consciousness but remain skeptical. If the brain is only the receiver than where exactly does consciousness come from? And what happens to it when the receiver (the brain) stops working? I keep picturing a bunch of invisible floating clouds of thought.

This poll has sent me down a rabbit hole. I'm googling consciousness, brain vs. mind, post-materialist science, etc. Any suggestions for articles, books or video links would be much appreciated :)

I believe:

All consciousness is one but our brains and bodies fool us into thinking this is not true.

:)

If consciousness is a result of quantum mechanics, and if my guidance wave interpretation of it is correct, then the answer would be "Both"! Nobody knows about the first "if", and in fairness, the second "if" involves an interpretation that would probably be regarded as "crackpot" by the establishment (but equally they would not be able to refute it) but then again, with a positive to the first "if" it makes me horribly biased on the second one, so I had to vote "Don't know".

One problem is we use the word consciousness without defining it. We all think we know what it is but we may all have different slants on it.

Julian Jaynes had a very specific definition in his OC. Most of his critics failed to understand it before evaluating his work.

Despite the strict materialist viewpoint in Jaynes' work, I think it has some value, especially if you think of the right brain as a receiver for a different kind of "consciousness."

Thanks Iain. I'll check the other discussions out.

How does one even define "consciousness"? Or "mind"?

There seems to be some pretty solid evidence that we can use our "thoughts" to influence physical phenomena (although there's something inherently slippery about capturing that evidence; George Hansen's book The Trickster and the Paranormal is a fascinating exploration of that slipperiness).

But assuming above assertion is correct, in crude terms, something about what the "brain" does seems to have a non-local effect that can, under some circumstances, affect physical objects. Presumably at the sub-atomic / wave / energy field level.

But all that tells us is that the brain generates energy fields, which we already know. We see it on EKGs etc.

Are those energy fields "consciousness" or "mind"?

If that's how you define those terms, then you have to answer that Consciousness is a product of the brain, because clearly EKGs etc. emanate from that organ. Psychokinesis is a 3D world phenomenon (3D world inclusive of quantum level / field theory physics).

But perhaps by "consciousness" or "mind" we mean something subjective -- some mix of self-awareness and identity?

Now we're on the dilemma's horns because by definition a subjective experience only exists for the subject. How do you even define "self-awareness" when it is 100% intangible and 100% confined to a single point of outwardly-facing radiation of an individual's perspective?

I have had hundreds of "Out of Body Experiences." They feel, subjectively, like my mind is operating separately from my body/brain. But I can't prove that's what I experience. For all I know it is an elaborate hide-the-banana game that my dreaming self plays when it gets bored with regular dreams. Or when I interrupt regularly scheduling dream time with a quasi-alert brain state.

Ian Stevenson's Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation, 2D might be the closest we can come to evidence for mind/consciousness freed from brain/body, because if the mind survives death then of course it's a separate "thing."

I find the rest of the "science-based" literature unconvincing, as much as I'd like to believe in it (because who doesn't in their heart of hearts!) -- now that I'm of a certain age & this sh*t is getting real, I've mostly abandoned it for straight occult stuff, i.e. the faith-based literature, because oh well ;)

Harry wrote: "I believe:

All consciousness is one but our brains and bodies fool us into thinking this is not true.

:)"

I was doing time in the "universal mind"...

The Doors - Universal Mind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx3a_...

Both.
Here is an idea.

In the primitive 3 dimensional world using the 5 senses as we know them, the brain is the origin of consciousness.
In the, as yet, mathematical world of 4 dimensions tied to sixth senses, a receptor is not such a ludicrous idea.

In the, as yet, theoretical world of 11 dimensions, using 21 recorded senses, on Earth, spinning at 1000 mph, around the sun at 63,000 mph, in the galaxy at 515,000 mph and through the known universe at 1.3 billion mph, where 95% of the cosmic soup is dark matter, who knows what the remaining 5% is doing with its time and space.

In 100 years when the internet of things, 5 or 6G networks, blockchain, and quantum computing run on sustainable power and gain some footing, this fictional, hypothetical idea may grow some legs.

Enjoy.

P.S. Are God and science the same thing?
P.P.S. Is the Kardeshev Scale possible?

I see the majority of people here think that the brain is a receiver of consciousness. I can share my own humble opinion.

I'm an AI enthusiast and I'm trying to develop human-like AI. I believe that human consciousness can be viewed as a generative model (in AI jargon). The brain receives information from the world and some information in the brain is congenital. Based on both congenital and obtained through different senses information, the brain generates its representation of the world. So, in my opinion, consciousness is a product of the brain.

However, I also believe that the brain can somehow receive and transmit information to other brains. I don't think that this process takes place by means of electromagnetic fields. Perhaps, some other physical phenomena are involved.

Life is a way for nature to see and experience itself. Life is a product of the constructal law.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/1...

Also, technology, morality, economics, governance, and language, etc., are products of the constructal law:
https://www.academia.edu/37021128/Sci...

The empirical footprint of the constructal law are dendritic patterns:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-NDw...

Kirk wrote: "In the, as yet, theoretical world of 11 dimensions, using 21 recorded senses, on Earth, spinning at 1000 mph, around the sun at 63,000 mph, in the galaxy at 515,000 mph and through the known universe at 1.3 billion mph, where 95% of the cosmic soup is dark matter, who knows what the remaining 5% is doing with its time and space...."

Well, when you put it that way...you're right! Who knows!!

You may find an interesting approach in the Journal of Consciousness Exploration and Research: Total Consciousness in Total Simultaneity.
https://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/articl...
best regards
Wilhelmus de Wilde
PS my new e-mail address is
wilhelmus45@outlook.com

I originally thought both but when I realized I had to pick I leaned more towards the brain being a receiver of consciousness b/c despite some exceptions, I believe people's minds (developed by the brain) does not innately have a sense of consciousness until it learns from theory, practice and relationships. So mainly it must be taught with the exception being that there are some things that just makes sense without necessarily having to be trained to have an understanding of something. It depends on personality, curiosity and survival techniques that despite "modern" times, a lot of people still depend a lot of their decisions on. My opinion might change once I read the articles available. Thanks for fun poll.

This questions moves from pure science to metaphysics. You could make a good case that it's impossible to figure this out, as the receiving instrument (the brain) is going to alter consciousness by its limitations and perceptions. (I believe Emmanuel Kant really got in the weeks with this question.) I'd say it's the brain creating consciousness, as animals are also self-aware at a certain level of cerebral development, but there has to be more in the creation and perhaps persistence of the spirit. (Something Kierkegaard also wondered about: was it extinguished by Death or does it somehow continue?)

As for "somehow continue" it might be possible. If you want to try something more obscure, I have an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics (published in an ebook called "Guidance Waves") that is a bit like Bohm's pilot wave except there are two differences. Bohm has a rather badly defined "quantum potential". I derive a specific value for an energy field that matches the energy of the particle. That means that there are variations in this field "elsewhere" for everything you do. If that field could persist in some way after death, your "soul" would persist. Doesn't mean it does, of course, but equally, it is not ridiculous that it might.

Iain, the short answer is, we don't have a clue. There is one way to find out, but I for one am trying to put that off for as long as possible.

The brain is a vessel for god.

Got Soul?

This is an exercise in creative fiction.

I suggest, whatever mechanism we discuss should work Universally, not just on a globe called Earth, or in the minds of what we call, humans.

>>>

Western thinking includes free will, individualism, and for some, a personal relationship with one's God.

Eastern thinking takes parts of the whole and gives them a Mobius quality.

I suggest, the only things separating religious beliefs are principles, politics, power, and money enough to sustain themselves, [and sometimes too much] - all man-made phenomenon.

What if both extremes, as well as everything, even the atheistic nothing in between, are right?

If Gods [and non-gods] as concepts, were not men with white beards on a white clouds or graven images -- but the essence between all things, thoughts, words, and deeds; human, biological, atomic, quantum and otherwise, the notion of which would ascribe to the ineffably ubiquitous, in the/His "image and likeness of " construct --

then the notion of our souls [also a man-made construct, as are religion, God, and consciousness] could remain.

Whether souls remain intact, attributed to our brief human selves is a larger question.

But, at least in fiction, I would say, each individual's contribution, intention, inspiration, and imagination are contained in memory pockets of time and space.

>>>

As man evolves, and machine intelligence helps us understand the Universal Soup --

will we discover God and science are the same thing -- not a thing, but that which is contained between all everything?

In this mechanism, The Golden Rule works universally, where upon doing unto everything, everything goes around and comes around, and actions have equal and opposite reactions.

Because, "Everything then would be [particles, fields, and] information." [Thank you, John Wheeler.]

This link touches on the subject:

https://qz.com/1490276/the-science-of...

Like "spooky action at a distance," or RetroCausality in multi-verse layers where mass and energy remain constant [in a closed system,] even impossible possibles would then be possible. [That which lies beyond our current imagination or math.]

Instead of creative fiction.

[Maybe] even souls.

Merry Xmas.

[P.S. What if we are not in a closed system, or the system is Mobius and fractal?] ... ;)

Jo wrote: "This questions moves from pure science to metaphysics. You could make a good case that it's impossible to figure this out, as the receiving instrument (the brain) is going to alter consciousness by..."
Why does it have come from "science", as science it self can NOT explain, nor comprehend the the biology of human existence. Besides, there are other players at work, influencing, this organ, we call brain, such as magnetic fields from, Solar cycle, minimum and solar cycle maximum, as well as planetary fields. We are living inside of a cocoon of fields.

The other question is? Are we in control of our destinies? Most likely not. And there is no such thing as (free will).

I think it is wrong to suggest that science cannot explain or comprehend human existence. It cannot explain everything about it, yet, but suppose you are on a journey, then it is wrong to argue the journey is useless merely because you are not there yet.

One problem for science, and rightly so, is that consciousness does not lend itself easily to the scientific method. You can't do experiments on living and working brains that alter the conditions of their operation. But just because it is totally wrong and unethical to probe for physical causes does not mean that deep down there aren't any. It merely means we cannot get past speculating about them.

Did you say (wrong) what is that one? No such thing. Wrong, we call it! Definition-is not yet realized, or concluded, by facts or observation. Remember, science,like religion is on the same path, of fabrication.

Ha, we agree. Wrong! My first sentence explains what.

DeBranco wrote: "Remember, science,like religion is on the same path, of fabrication. ..."

Disagree, I think both science and religion are on exactly the right path and same path tho both have drifted off path at times (e.g. "organized religion" on the religious side, and academic rigidity on the scientific side).

Maybe this guy got it right...

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
―Albert Einstein

I certainly agree that science does not always perform well, and in my opinion, this is in part due to the way it is funded. If you disagree with the mainstream, when they peer review your fund application, you lose. But just because it isn't always being done properly does not mean that that one day a scientific explanation will be found. As an aside, science says nothing about religion. Some scientists don't seem to appreciate that.

What is consciousness? Sir Roger Penrose speculates https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ReEP...

Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS is an English mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science. He is Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford.

DeBranco wrote: "... Remember, science,like religion is on the same path, of fabrication."

If science is a “fabrication,” then my smartphone is a myth.

Words are so inadequate for this conversation ...

Science is a fabrication, literally, from the Latin fabricare, "to construct."

You're objecting of course to one way the word is used, Mike, which is a synonym for "falsehood." But of course science has validity as a system for understanding the physical world.

The question is, are there aspects of our experience for which science is not adequate to explain?

My smartphone is an actual object but it also functions as a mythical construct. Consider: when I was in my twenties in the 70s/80s, I "disappeared" for weeks on end, from the perspective of my parents. Today, my college-age daughter is always "there" -- it's rare that more than a day or two goes by without our exchanging at least a few words. I don't have to bear the void of her absence in the same way my parents did --the not knowing if she is dead or alive, well or struggling.

This has an impact beyond what can be touched or heard; it has a conceptual impact. Our phones are therefore a physical stand-in or symbol for an idea (immediate/constant connectedness that transcends physical space) that didn't exist a couple decades ago, and that has a reality or impact apart from the device itself.

If we were to suffer a massive disruption to our technology infrastructure, such that smartphone use was suddenly wiped out, imagine how the loss would feel to this generation that grew up with them. The impact will be far more than we'd expect from a mundane-level loss of a useful tool. It would be on par with the Copernican revolution--it would change how contemporary humans view themselves.

We humans have our feet in two worlds, one that we perceive with our senses and one that we engage with via mind. In a way, it's silly to debate which one is more "real." They both are. They just play by different rules.

Mike wrote: "DeBranco wrote: "... Remember, science,like religion is on the same path, of fabrication."

If science is a “fabrication,” then my smartphone is a myth."

this made me lol :)

Iain wrote: "Chelsea wrote: "The brain is a vessel for god."

Or a hassle for god."

Kirsten wrote: "... You're objecting of course to one way the word is used, Mike, which is a synonym for "falsehood." But of course science has validity as a system for understanding the physical world...."

Thanks for sharing your philosophy on the subject of science.

The way I understand it, philosophy guides science where scientific discovery reforms philosophy; and there is no reason why this cycle should ever end, until the end of reason. Information leading to the evolution of enlightenment is just another flow system guided by the constructal law. An example of philosophical reformation as a function of discovery:
https://www.academia.edu/37021128/Sci...

I apologize, Mike, but truthfully I struggle with this sort of paper (including the ones you linked here a couple weeks ago) because to me they seem like articulations of models, and the model isn't the thing.

There's the thing, there's the idea of the thing. There are models but models are neither the thing nor the idea of the thing--they are something else altogether (an idea of something else).

‘"For a finite-size flow system to persist in time (to live) it must evolve such that it provides greater and greater access to the currents that flow through it."

What is flow? What is a system? What is time? What is "greater"? What are currents? If flow systems can live, can they also die? (Not asking you to answer, just illustrating how this sort of thing puzzles me.)

I'm also bothered that the definition of constructal law seems to rely, in part, on circular reasoning. A flow system is a system with currents that flow ...

And gravity is the force that exerts gravitational pull ;)

But what the heck is gravity?


Mike wrote: "Kirsten wrote: "... You're objecting of course to one way the word is used, Mike, which is a synonym for "falsehood." But of course science has validity as a system for understanding the physical w..."

Kirsten wrote: "I apologize, Mike, but truthfully I struggle with this sort of paper (including the ones you linked here a couple weeks ago) because to me they seem like articulations of models, and the model isn'..."

You need not apologize. Evolution is real, otherwise we would not be here. Life is a product of the physical laws of nature. Therefore, life is a way for nature to see and experience itself. Hence, the evolution of philosophy via the constructal law.

The latest discovery in thermodynamics, the unification law of evolution, known as the constructal law states: “For a flow system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve freely such that it provides greater access to its currents.”

Relative to nature experiencing itself, for the flow of human reasoning to persist in time (to live), it must evolve freely such that it provides greater access to the pedagogic currents of nature. Resulting in the evolution of enlightenment, promoting change in the configurations of philosophy, culture, markets, technology and scientific understanding, etc.; generating dendritic patterns guided by the physical constructal law all superimposed on the same area (the globe) and in the same volume (the brain).

From those pedagogic currents of nature, individuals, including social systems, evolve relative to their currents. That is, the currents of the individual flow towards happiness, the currents of the market is wealth generation, the currents of governance flow towards the power to rule, and the currents of a civil society flow towards harmony. The critical link in the convolution of those social currents is the individual’s morality, the exclusive pinnacle in advancing the evolution of a civil society towards harmony.

Therefore, evolution transcends all domains leaving dendritic patterns in its wake, the empirical footprint of the constructal law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-NDw...

James wrote: "DeBranco wrote: "Remember, science,like religion is on the same path, of fabrication. ..."

Disagree, I think both science and religion are on exactly the right path and same path tho both have dri..."
It is not, so much the (science itself), but, in these days, scientists and religious gurus, are bought and sold. Meaning, these individuals, setting in high positions of so called "authority" can not be trusted, with their research. $$$ are everywhere.

$ are everywhere? Damn! I can't find them. Does that mean I am nowhere???

Yes, indeed, you are everywhere and nowhere. We are all in that direction. Somewhere and nowhere in real time.

Sir, what we have been told since birth, is NOT what it is. Figure this one.