..if science can't tackle the rather commonly experienced phenomenon of consciousness, including definition, then science is largely useless (which i don't think it is)
.

This is an interesting idea. Much like the Higgs Field, a similar "Life Field" or "Consciousness Field" could lend interaction to individual particles, dependent upon their properties (a boson could carry the life/consciousness force). The level of consciousness could perhaps be defined by the neural network of the "individual".

The Higgs Field is a good analogy, as is simple electronics. The interaction of the electric current with the circuitry and components (diodes, IC's, transistors etc) give the electronic item function, and thus "bringing it to life".

Peace

Macre

Allright allright nen and olympus mon, I was not saying science, or physics for that matter, can't handle consciousness. We are trying to handle it in science of course, especially in neuroscience, and are making progress imo (at least when it comes to correlating brain processes with mental states). But my point was that bringing consciousness in the way you do, olympus mon, is "dangerous" because you have not, and many still have problems with it, given a working definition of what it is. Physics is a hard science and we need to define clearly what we are talking about in order to do anything.

So as of yet science is not handling consciousness very well because of the inherent difficult nature of definition, what it is and how to look for that which we are immersed in and so on and so forth. But nen, even if this is so it does not make science useless, just very incomplete. That you can say this almost makes me sad, because you are then ignoring the very fact that science makes it possible for us to have this interesting discussion, among countless other things that are very important to us.

Anyway, hope that clarified my point a bit. Cheers.

Lots of scientists know that there are aspects of consciousness that are just beyond their ability to explaiin..even a guy like Dave Nichols who has a vast understanding of neurosciences and who I always thought of as a strict rationalist claims to know that psychic phenomenon exists from experience, yet he has no way of objectivly testing it.

Tesla's view of science and the universe was definatly not in line with the current model at the time, or now..they guy was basically a mystic compared to people like Edison yet look at the things he brought to our world. His work is what gave us modern technological civilization, period.

Even Einstein claimed that he "knew" god exists..he said he could not beleive, becasue he knew. I dont even know what that means but it does seem like the great scientific thinkers who actaully really contributed great things definatly felt like something greater was going on that what everyone else was talking about.

One day science will explain everything(if explaining everything is even possible), but it's not going to be the science of today obviousily. Newton thought he had it figured out with his laws..so did Faraday, Maxwell and Tesla I am sure..Einstein etc..Science only tries to explain what it has the ability to observe, or conceptualize with mathematics like string theory. I am sure there is more out there atm going on around us that we are just unable to observe at this point, but will be able to in the future.

Einstein did not believe in Quantum Mechanics..and he was thought to have been one of the brightest minds around. He was wrong though..people also couldnt conceive of the idea of higher temperature superconductors at one point..Tesla's instructors laughed at his ideas of alternating current when he mentioned alternating the magnetic field instead of what what was already in place with DC..they thought he was crazy talking about radio waves..

People are going to have to all agree at a fundamental level within the physicis community to come up with a fully accepted working model on all levels I think..you have some physicists calling others "particlists" now..some who think string theory is rediculous, others who support it etc..You have fringe phd's talking about weird ideas of superlight and magnetricity and many other people who are laughed at just like other people were in the past who turned out to be right.

It's a difficult theory to test. I'm guessing (this is just a very basic forethought) that perhaps it could involve (somehow) the use of neural stem cells and measurement of neural oscillation activity. First, an idea of how the force carrying particle would interact with a cell would have to hypothesised. If such a boson exists, it will be extremely difficult to find, for now all we can do is speculate.

I agree with jamie that a generally agreed, or at least substantially agreed model would need to be put forward. Not that long ago, the mention of a black hole to an astrophysicist would gain a snigger, so who knows what is on the horizon?

Peace

Macre

I understand what your saying and more or less agree. Consciousness doesnt really have a universal definition admittedly by science and I doubt any of us could come up with one either. Its too complex.

But I am quite dangerous mhuahoohahaha!

.Citta..don't be sad, only thoughtful..what i mean is that, to have definitions in science we need philosophy..the two shouldn't be separated..neither, dare i say, should they be separated from a thinker's spiritual views (which may be subconsciously inseparable from the thinker)
.

..if for the sake of conjecture we define 'consciousness' as 'self-aware/freely thinking' then, with the development of AI we could start to test if really a program or set of instructions can be 'self aware' and 'think freely'..
feeling is a bit harder to define (or imagine programming)
..the notion of consciousness being field-derived would cover both 'universal' (the field) and individual (the value at a point) forms..
in other words, the 'particle'/object (e.g. brain) doesn't generate consciousness, but is 'given' it by a Field '(spooky action at a distance' ), as Mass does not derive from the object, but the Higgs Field..
.

I think this is on the right track as far as definitions would go and also the physics of consciousness (as a field).
"Self aware" and "free thinking" may need to be broken down though. What is self aware? Philosophically speaking, to view my self as a separate entity would require a degree of conceptualization or shift of "awareness" from its standard perspective to that of an "outsider looking in." So to be aware of my self, where is the awareness then located? It appears to be in the mind or mental space. So could consciousness be defined as awareness residing in (partly or temporarily) the mental space? Is it the measure of the ratio between the mental and physical realms?
"Free thinking" is just as tough to define. I do not personally feel fully in control of my thoughts. So for me the "freedom" of thought is the freedom of thoughts to flow naturally (based on the self's experience, developed responses) and my freedom resides in choosing how to direct or guide the thoughts and express them in the physical realm.

I'll be looking more into the physics, but the idea of conscious being our mental field makes the most sense to me. I would imagine the individual to be a vector providing both a value at a point (history or perspective) and a direction ("free thinking" or decisions).

I don't see how consciousness is claimed to be unique to humans. Any observable process meets the criteria since the only change occurring appears to be in the mental space, which is then sent down for physical processing. Any expression of consciousness, viewed from our human perspective, is limited to our human perspective. Anything that goes beyond human processing would appear simply as a process of its own. Considering we are but one observable process, why assume we are the exception rather than the rule? If anything we may be more removed from consciousness than most of what we observe. After all, we are masters of the physical world but can't even define the concept (consciousness) of our "unique" characteristic.

I wonder though if consciousness is the result of the necessity for increasing order or moving towards equilibrium. Uncertainty within the self seems (yes, not scientific) to be disordered. Could consciousness be the awareness of these uncertainties?
Access to an infinite (potentially) mental space seems like a great place to work out any uncertainties or bugs in the system. The physical realm that our bodies inhabit gives us precision over our physical environment but little precision with introspection in the mental space (compared to what DMT shows to be possible).
It is as if we automate most responses that occur without knowledge of actively doing such. Without any focused navigation of mental space we can walk, read, listen to music. Even thinking and talking are learned, developed, and expressed for interaction with the environment by what amounts to "second nature."

I feel as though I can only claim to be conscious when actively making a decision. Conjuring up something in my head in the mental space. When I am creating something. Outputting something. Compressing my mind into thought to be expressed in the physical world. The interesting thing is now that I can see this mental space from the DMT perspective, it doesn't look [I]that much[I] different from some aspects of physical reality, but characters are incredibly more aware and in control of the mental space. Many entities appear thoroughly developed to a point of expression beyond human capabilities on Earth (perhaps a less persistent atmosphere allows this). The mental space lacks the persistent atmosphere/environment I am accustomed to on Earth but resembles a world/dimension(s) operating autonomously. Such that it resembles "another reality" as I would previously define it (now it is simply reality). Making me wonder if consciousness is a collective property of the universe expressed through points of uncertainty within the field of consciousness. Making consciousness the universe's "all seeing eye" (tool) that is used to observe uncertainty/incongruity and direct it (Using available processes. At least humans respond strongly to emotion) towards an increased universal equilibrium. So basically with this view we are processing the universe's want or need. What does the universe want/need? I'm uncertain. Maybe it wants to know why it is uncertain. Maybe our universe is what an entity in a universe even more aligned with the physical realm and less with the mental space sees in its head hiding behind its language? Maybe we are one calculator in a multiverse-chain of calculators calculating a single decision by some higher order. Maybe the entities in my mental space think they exist in a universe of their own? I'll stop the rambling now.

Don't have any hard numbers to throw up here, just some partially developed thoughts.

..i'm still re-reading your cool post VIII..i agree not just humans have consciousness, which i'll mention, but first..

the definition of 'free thinking' is hard, and indeed volumes of philosophy has been argued on the subject..i guess, trying to define with more focus, the question is to do with the 'mode' of thinking..the 'free' aspect is to do with the 'will' or 'central operator' if you like of the thinking..can a set of instructions (program) result in the kind of thought humans often do, which includes non-rational and 'intuitive' leaps..? and also emotion, but i don't know how to define that..

..this point leads us to the other definition: 'aware'..
if the 'will', or Observer, if you like, is at it's quantum (or string or whatever) level a kind of Force, like mass, or even associated with a particular boson, then this suggests it derives from a Field..hence intuitive leaps and 'insights' of thought are linked with a greater sum than the individual brain (object, program or whatever)

[quick aside:..many mathematicians report intuitive leaps in arriving at solutions that could not have been arrived at through linear logical thought..the hypercube was 'felt' or 'seen in a transcendental state' before being mathematically worked out and 'proved'..]

..back to 'thinking', one test of this would come out of advanced Artificial Intelligence research..(and 'intelligence' is not the same word as 'conscious' btw) ..
if a program was created that was intelligent and could do some degree 'think', if it did indeed at some point experience free will and intuitive 'connection' to a greater whole, that would be deep..like, could a computer report unique mystical experiences? ..or a feeling of love..? if so, that would show that consciousness is not simply 'life' derived..but some kind of 'object orientated programming'..

and if that did turn out to be case, then careful quantum measurement may perhaps show an associated field..

..on the other hand, i do think most if not all forms of life possess consciousness to some degree, and that human is simply more complex (giving a greater entanglement/locus of theoretical field values), ..but we know a dog is conscious, don't we..??
.again we arrive back at much debated philosophy..solipsism and existentialism..how does one really know that there's any other consciousness out there but one's own?
..my suggestion, via the Field (through the Force)

what Science needs, after intuition and philosophy, are parameters and tools with which to measure/test them..
.
ps. more conjecture:
what good is the so-called 'god' particle (Higgs Boson) ?
well, if you could somehow interfere with the strength of the Higgs Field for a particle, maybe you could reduce it's mass briefly to zero or negative, allowing you know..hyperspace..intergalactic travel..and through time
.

Haven't read through the last two post in detail, but I have something else to add on the problem of science handling consciousness. We need not only a proper definition of consciousness, we also need a definition that allows us to do science on it - i.e take measurements, handle it quantitative and through mathematics. If we then, for the sake of conjecture, accept your definition nen, how would we measure it? How can we study whether or not something has the qualities you describe as being consciousness? How can we demonstrate that someone else, or something, has these properties? How can we even make a working hypothesis through mathematics and the rest of physics in order to test it?

No criticism, just highlighting the problems science, or my "religion" as some would say, have with this fundamental concept.

It may sound like a dodge, perhaps like even a cop out, but I agree with Citta.

Until science can explain the the phenomenon that is consciousness, then we certainly can't pretend to know what it is or how it works. Perhaps its a force, or perhaps its the flower which bloomed from the complexity of synapses and neurons,(perhaps even both?) these are two accepted hypotheses, but until we can test them and agree on an actual definition objectively we will never truly understand the implications of what births consciousness and what consciousness even is.

If I got him right, what Citta remarked is that science, at the moment, has a few big problems in order to treat consciousness as a subject - namely, a definition that "allows us to do science on it".

But the fact science cannot currently handle consciousness doesn't necessarily keep us from knowing it or studying it to a certain extent. Which is like saying, I don't think science is the only valid way to knowledge.

In any case, looks like simply measuring consciousness already would require a big leap, both theoretically and technologically wise. How can we objectively define consciousness without including in the definition a process, involving measurable particles or fields? And how can we measure either in the current paradigm?

I don't think we can, but who knows... whenever the momentum becomes strong enough, we might stumble upon a consciousness field... we made the Higgs happen, didn't we?

..that Science cannot cope with a definition of consciousness, yet discusses, for instance, 'observation', that's a fairly big hole in the picture..perhaps even a 'flaw' in it's current mainstream ideologies/paradigms..

i think, however, it can..time to leave the 20th century behind us..

First off...Great post VIII..

As for definition of consciousness...perhaps we already have one!?!...

Quantum theory says that a 'Field of Probability' (Infinite knowledge/possibility OR Zero Point Energy OR Source/godhead) 'exists'... and when an 'observation' (Will/Thought/Idea) takes place the field collapses, into this physical realm, and coalesces to form 'matter' (This can be interpreted by our brain function as consensus reality. A receiver of the transmission, if you will.)

This 'version' of consciousness/reality is unique to Humans precisely because of our unique brain function.
Other brain functions (lower animals even plants(debatable)) would experience reality in a slightly different way, depending on the complexity of their brain (receiver).

The Higgs, other bosons and 'particles' are the entangled frequencies that constitute the 'Field' or 'Source' (Cosmic Consciousness).
(electro frequency and magnetic force appear to be ALL in this observable Universe...these are just names given by some smart humans)

It appears that Science and the Mystics are all searching for the same thing, spending time and effort and 'Force of Will', to derive the 'Ultimate Answer' to the Mystery of Existence.

Both parties seem to have reached the same or similar conclusions Only they are dressing their answers up in different language and are fighting their corners hard, using differing wordage.

As Nen says...it is time, now, in this new age of technology and extra knowledge, to leave behind 'the old ways' and join hands with both ideologies and push forward with a common theme.
Perhaps a New Language is needed...one that satisfies both sides of the same coin...

Very good posts, cyb and VIII.

I think of consciousness more at a emitter/receptor level. Tesla said :



I think it is a good place to start.

I also think that ancient mystics were a few steps ahead of modern science and maybe still is. In order to understand consciousness I think a certain level of understanding of life is necessary.

..yeah good points cyb, VIII and Journey to Jah,

..one point i think VIII and myself had in common is that aspects of ideas of 'greater' vs individual consciousness make some sense from a field theory perspective..
it is a bit of a cop out to not start somewhere!
..or will there forever be a dualism between science and study of consciousness.?.we should remember some forms of yoga describe themselves as 'sciences of mental phenomena', through observation and experiment..

and Higgs was called a nut by very eminent physicists when he first proposed his theory..

I just remember I had sort of a vision on the last san pedro ceremony.

I saw everything that we know and understand so far being contained into a bigger organism, which was inside of a bigger one containing everything below it and so on.

I think we will keep discovering larger structures containing our universe then maybe a universe system and so on.

Maybe it is just about how far our understanding can go... but this will take some time. We still cannot properly understand terms like light years, supermassive black holes and so on. When they are properly integrated into our consciousness we can move on to higher forms of organisation of 'life'.

Maybe there is intelligent life out there or everywhere around us but we are just not evolved enough to perceive them and they to perceive us.

Still, in the end there must be only one source - but as we study fractals and holograms we can assume that the power that fuels that source could be us, at a microcosmic level, as creators.

Also, I think it was Gregg Braden who said this : The action of observing something like the Higgs boson may create it because we are looking for it. Our consciousness is actively participating in creating reality, yet consciousness is something so hard to define and agree upon.

I like science and true scientists who admit that everything can be proven to be wrong at any time, it was never and never will be something exact, it is just the evolution of understanding.

Now more than ever science and spirituality are getting closer together and I think it is a good step into further understanding life and the universe.

Have a nice day

On what do you base this claim?

I agree, this claim can only be supported by mis-interpreting and not understanding Quantum theory.