Can anyone list the evidences or reasons for the hyphotheses of non-local and localised explanations for consciousness? Dan, why does the former yield a straightforward and consistent answer to the hard problem of consciousness? Surely consciousness goes where the head goes and it is localised (we have been through this before). I am not conscious in a different location from my head! Maybe there are stray consciousness threads that escape and might explain telepathy and the like (if these are real). A bit like the stray fields around a wire with current flowing. But apart from that, home is where the heart is. Anyway, don't we only think we have consciousness? And what are we conscious of? The world out there is not as we see it, or hear it, or feel it. These are all possible figments of Unknown's imagination (see above), but more likely are figments of our restricted sensory and interpretive physiology.

Can anyone list the evidences or reasons for the hyphotheses of non-local and localised explanations for consciousness? Dan, why does the former yield a straightforward and consistent answer to the hard problem of consciousness? Surely consciousness goes where the head goes and it is localised (we have been through this before). I am not conscious in a different location from my head! Maybe there are stray consciousness threads that escape and might explain telepathy and the like (if these are real). A bit like the stray fields around a wire with current flowing. But apart from that, home is where the heart is. Anyway, don't we only think we have consciousness? And what are we conscious of? The world out there is not as we see it, or hear it, or feel it. These are all possible figments of Unknown's imagination (see above), but more likely are figments of our restricted sensory and interpretive physiology.

Your brain is not a 'consciousness particle', but rather a distributed network of particles interacting to generate consciousness. How can a network of spatially separated particles generate a unified 'consciousness' if 'consciousness' is local? Where in your brain is the location of your 'consciousness'?

A physicalist explanation of consciousness may be just around the corner, maybe not.

Be careful not to confuse the easy and hard problems of consciousness. The easy problem may seem hard (and it is), but the hard problem is harder.

The easy problem: how does consciousness arise from matter?

The hard problem: why should it be that there is something 'that it is like' to exist?

First, dualistic models are unsatisfactory and lead to contradiction. If consciousness is a separate thing from matter, then why do we need brains?

Second, the monistic assumption is not necessarily opposed to observer-observed distinctions, which are metaphysical.

Sigmund Freud was so wrong in so very many things, but his great contribution to psychology was his recognition of the importance of the unconscious mind. Mental structure is there when you go to sleep and it's there when you wake up. When you recall your own phone number, for example, it becomes conscious for a short time and then it's not conscious. It doesn't cease to exist because you can recall it again. It is a non-conscious mental state until it is recalled consciously.

Unfortunately, that simple idea has the difficulty of suggesting this question:

If the many consciousnesses of the many people and animals are distinct and private, how is it that they are all distinct properties of one universe? What is the mechanism that keeps them separate and private?

You have proposed elsewhere some sort of switching or time sharing mechanism to solve that problem, but it seems to just add more complexity. For example, where is this machinery? How is it coordinated? As the number of minds increases with population growth, how does the time sharing system know to shrink the time slices? How does this mechanism interact with the brain? When a person goes to sleep, how is he switched out of the time-share system? What about when he wakes up? What about semi- or quasi-conscious states (dreaming)? How does the speed of light limit come into play with people on different planets?

consciousness is not a 'separate thing', consciousness is not a 'thing' at all! That's the whole point

Fundamental to mathematical logic is observervation of a 'set'. This is the ontological basis for set theory, as mathemeticians may observe any 'set' they please with any such set being valid because they can effectively observe it in their mind. There is no 'set' without observation. It is, therefore, inconsistent to take observation itself as a 'set', as Russell so famously discovered. Talk of 'physical objects' boils down in logical terms to talk of a 'subset' of possible 'sets' (namely, those sets that share the property 'physical') and we run into the same contradiction if we identify our self (observer) as a physical set.

I disagree, in that those who claim to answer the 'easy problem' are simply correlating physical structures to mental structures. The 'hard problem' is to explain why physical structure generates consciousness.

To me, 'mental' implies perception. The brain can operate in an ordered fashion without these operations generating a coherent perception. Such 'blind' operations are not 'mental' to me, but rather are mechanical operations whose products generate a coherent 'mental' state.

I like to think of physical objects and consciousness(es) as things that exist, both subsets of the set of things that have existence. On the other hand, I think of metaphysical things as not having existence, but rather are encoded in things that do exist, like books and minds.

Russel's famous paradox goes away if we make a rule that sets can't include themselves. It makes the math a little awkward, but nothing that can't be worked around. It is, after, only a set of rules and their consequences.

So are you saying that for something to be mental implies that it is conscious?

To me, mental refers to things of the mind, whether conscious or not.

in exchange for explanatory power

it is the physical universe

subjective action is intrinsic to the coordination

every particle participates in a 'time slice' and there cannot be more minds than particles. However, particles can collectively participate in a 'time slice' yielding qualitatively more complex states of perception.

the brain is made of physical material, and all physical material participates in perception in a time-varying (oscillating) manner.

the elements that constitute his mind when awake become decoherent; the synergy of quals is disrupted and the complex state of perception is dissolved.

the elements 'recohere', the synergy of quals becomes coherent and the complex state of perception re-emerges

the state of mind is reduced but not eliminated

I'm guessing that there can exist a 'phase wave' front of particle position whose velocity is somewhere on the order of the length of the fundamental universe volume divided by the time of a single 'particle' oscillation

So after a lobotomy or leucotomy or part brain removal following surgery or after an accident all of the people who still have consciousness should not as some of the previously interacting network particles are missing. There goes the emergent property hypothesis, along with some of the individual components. OK there might be different consciousness types. Maybe we should the different types of consciousness as related to parts of brain remaining.

such a rule is not a real solution, it is an ad-hoc 'bandaid' that hides the problem so that mathemeticians can move on.

your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. If we alter the brain structure, the only necessary conclusion is that the associated mind is altered.

of course I realized this; I am pointing out that the 'whole brain' is not a location either, it is a space. If consciousness cannot be located in this space then it is at least true to state that, within the confines of this space, consciousness is non-local.

This observing issue is important. But remember Heisenberg. Maybe we are not so clever and there are many things (bad word) there but we can't yet observe them; we don't have the means (yet). But we all know this, don't we. And I don't mean some arty farty ephemeral property that lies between matter and energy as presently defined, but a real property of the universe (actually multiverse) that we haven't a clue about yet. Maybe, like gravity, most of consciousness lies in >4 dimensions and we only experience the tip of the iceberg.

(Sorry I think I've messed up the quote)

If you remove (say obliterate) that space then all evidence of the consciousness disappears. So the space (brain, matter, matter +EMF, matter + ????) surely must be the origin of the consciousness. Can we call this mind or can we define consciousness and mind separately in this discussion?

Well, you seem to have answered all my questions. Now remains the easy problem: how (exactly) does consciousness arise from matter? Most neural activity is unconscious (peristalsis, for example). How does the conscious stuff work?

And the hard problem: why?

Actually, most peristaltic actions are initiated by a conscious event. For example the conscious decision to eat a cream cake and placing it towards the back of one's mouth prior to autonomic displacement through the rest of the journey. And then at the other end........well, nuff said. Even a tube fed patient had the feed initiated by consciousness, albeit another persons. Not so easy then.

I'm guessing that there are a select number of 'ports' (for lack of better word) that are connected via the neural system. These 'ports' are the input/output of information, through which the sensory data is converted into a coherent conscious state and through which the needs of conscious origin can be fed back into the brain in such a way as to result in 'intentional' action.
If we can identify such 'ports', and can build them into synthetic neural structures, we will have yielded a massively powerful platform for the evolution of consciousness.

the only necessary conclusion to your sentence is that the space surely must be the origin of the evidence of the consciousness

The terms subconscious and unconscious seem to be used interchangeably. I have never seen a distinction between them defined. Jung spoke of the "collective unconscious" and Freud used the term "subconscious mind." Translators from the German might be a little imprecise.

There are two degrees of unconscious memory, and these coincide with short term and long term memory. Suppose you have a long term memory that you have not recalled for many years, and then one morning you remember it. That memory has transitioned from one degree to another. Later that day you may recall it more easily because it is at a readier level.

These two degrees of unconsciousness are distinct from the "levels" of consciousness defined by Leary:

Unconsciousness (deep sleep)

Dreaming consciousness.

Normal waking consciousness.

Sensory level.

Somatic level.

Cellular level.

Molecular level.

Fish, even elasmobranchs seem to fit the bill for consciousness so we need to look earlier or at the borderline of the appearance of fish. So maybe your suggestion of something in the Cambian is a good one. But fossils don't think unfortunately. Hence the requirement for suggestions from living organisms. There are quite a range starting from, say, worms through to those conscious fish. Where is that borderline? There could be a similar borderline between living and non-living entities that might help to better describe "life".

Rhymer.
Rhymer. Is this why Rome prefers an infallible pope?

Mind is the functional side of the human brain, both conscious and unconscious. Memories, desires, fears, inclinations, experience, etc.

Duh! (quoting my kids) Yes, of course.

Learn and practice critical thinking.

No, some are more dangerous than others. All, however, to the extent that they distract believers from the truth, are harmful. There is no supernatural and no true superstition.

An intuition that when put into words makes no sense.

[pardon the bug getting rid of my capitals.]

probably, all readers of my posts know that i am a retired minister of the united church (methodist, presbyterian and congregational, and others, which came together in 1925, in canada). btw, one can be a minister and/or member of the ucc and hold to wide variety of theologies, rituals and polities regarding the practice of religion--traditional theism, middle-of-the-road concepts, panentheism (which i call unitheism) and the like. if it is within the civil law, promotes morals, ethics, justice, mercy and the public good, we say go for it.

god, or g-d, for me, is not a personal being separate and apart from all-that-is. i use it as a symbol, a short form, to indicate all-that-is, nature

by the way, currently i am reading a book, ask and it is given--learning to manifest your desires, by esther and jerry hicks http://www.abraham-hicks.com lurkers, has anyone of you dipped into it, yet?

on the surface of it, what the writer's write about in aaiig may sound too "new-age-like", too crazy, for some. but let us remember: all new and different ideas, in the past, were usually met with rejection and ridicule, if not outright persecution. look what happened to socrates, jesus, ghandi, m.l. king, galileo and a host of others, philosophers, prophets and scientists and social reformers.

using the instructions in the book, i am experimenting, in a harmeless way, with the ideas presented there because of the amazing promises that are made. i want to see if what they claim is true, to see if it works, for me. if it does not, i will abandon the experiment, and go on to something else. thomas edison conducted thousands of experiments before he created the electric light.

you only hear what
you are ready to hear
interestingly, in this paragraph, the authors refer to the divine name using all capitals, god, which they indicate refers to total existence--all-that-is. btw, i am not sure if the writers, mentioned above, are familar with his work, but like alfred north whitehead, they refer to their techniques of communicating to, or connecting with the "non-physical" (the spiritual, the pneuma, or self) part of ourselves--part of ati--god--as a series of processes (page 5).

they refer to 22 processes beginning with appreciation
it was while i was thinking about this: process # 1 the rampage of appreciation that i came to the feeling of appreciation for all that is (ati)--that is, all existence, nature as i find it--including the good, including the evil, the beautiful, the ugly, and even that which is banal and boring. suddenly: "in all things, god works together for good" as paul puts it, came to have significant meaning for me.

I cringe everytime somebody uses this to validate an 'alternative' position. Sure, new ideas can be hard to swallow...but so can bad ideas. A certain nutter that used to hang out here (and continues to poke his head in on occasion) uses this very same idea to validate his nuttery both to himself and to the world at large, quoting it in different forms from various famous personalities in order to 'strengthen' it. I'm sure this quote is a responsible component for many self-reinforcing delusions

Rev,
I think Dan is trying to prove your point.

The Lur-ker

From dictionary.com:

men·tal adj.

1. Of or relating to the mind; intellectual: mental powers.

2. Executed or performed by the mind; existing in the mind: mental images of happy times.

3. Of, relating to, or affected by a disorder of the mind.

4. Intended for treatment of people affected with disorders of the mind.

5. Of or relating to telepathy or mind reading.

6. Slang. Emotionally upset; crazed: got mental when he saw the dent in his new car.

7. Offensive Slang. Mentally or psychologically disturbed.

mind n.

1. The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination.

2. The collective conscious and unconscious processes in a sentient organism that direct and influence mental and physical behavior.
...

I lean more toward the second defintion of mind, so we are both right. I like the second definition better because in normal waking consciousness, most of the brain activity is non-conscious, and brain structure and activity is what mind is (to me).

When a person goes to sleep, his mind does not cease to exist, but his consciousness does.