In a recent years, Many scholars and philosophers start advocating that consciousness exists outside the brain.
Does Non-local consciousness exist or it is an emergent property of physical process inside the brain?
Please take a look at this useful RG link.
Article Human Consciousness: Where Is It From and What Is It for
In my experience what maybe deemed "inside" or "outside" the brain may not be as obvious as one might imagine.
For example the brain is involved with very fine electrical activity and this also generates is own electromagnetic field.
Some of this field may interpenetrate the brain and some of it may extend beyond the physical borders of the brain into the environment you have described as non local.
"Consciousness is not yours: abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness. For what reason? Because ... that is neither our self nor what belongs to our self." (Samyutta Nikaya)
Dear Piyush Kant
Nothing we know about (and likely NOTHING important unto itself) just exists "inside the brain" (wouldn't that be brain masturbation?). Furthermore nothing in significant behavior patterns (or in most significant adaptations) simply emerges FROM THE BRAIN "fully formed" unless perhaps you consider reflexes or some basic perception. So, that is what I have to say about what good can likely come from [somehow] thinking about "emergent property of physical process inside the brain". In short, I cannot understand any point of view where consciousness (involving some set of significant flexible activities) can exist OTHERWISE, than OUTSIDE THE BRAIN -- at least in any way we can meaningfully understand.
Philosophers: Start and stay empirical; abandon the airchair.
P.S. For over forty years the best thinkers in behavioral science have said there is no real nature/nurture dichotomy (NONE AT ALL) w/r to significant behavior patterns. Even basic perception is not meaningful in ANY SENSE (to us), until it is used in interaction with aspects of environmental circumstances (actually the situation is: when new basic perceiving emerges it emerges IN (many might want to say "with", BUT it is IN, NOT "with") other behavior patterns (which are thusly shifted)). My perspective for a science of Psychology clearly and totally eliminates any nature/nurture conceptual conflicts; it really has yet to be seen when people can come out of the "boxes" they are in and read my writings meaningfully AND THUS SEE (this "accomplishment" is certainly clear and cogent in my writings). This alone should make my writings of interest for any interested in the science of Psychology, but there is also much more there, including the clear outlines of clear overt behavior pattern phenomenology and therein the where/when/how of TESTABLE hypotheses. BUT, people must get out of their medieval frames of reference (and I DO mean medieval) and (quite possibly also) out from "under the thumb" of their demanding and restricting professors.
Hi, I am not sure about the meaning of "outside of the brain".
My question regarding "emergent property" is: let's say there is such a property, but all properties in some sense are just certain ways of grouping things (or perhaps grouping particles, neuron activities, etc.).If there were no human beings, so-called properties would just be things in the ways they are. The naming or mentioning of a certain property seems to suggest an observer, and how would consciousness as an emergent property explain this observer?
I think I am risking my admission, but this is what I should sincerely say.
Ancient Hebrew wisdom states that human heart&brain are only earthly receivers of 'cosmic' (holy)
consciousness; some authors do locate the antenna as the medulla oblongata.
I found these teachings also in other religious traditions, but I can see no proof with our current scientific methods.
Please take a look at this useful RG link.
Article Human Consciousness: Where Is It From and What Is It for
Consciousness is the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings. It is an one's awareness and perception of something. The brain and the mind are indispensable in human consciousness
“…Does Consciousness Exist Outside of the Brain? ….”
- it seems evident that to answer on this question it is necessary before to understand – what is “brain”? – and what is consciousness?
When to answer on the last question above it is necessary before to understand – what are utmost fundamental for humans phenomena/notions “Matter” and “Consciousness”.
In the mainstream philosophy and further in sciences both these phenomena are principally transcendent/uncertain/irrational, and so any answers in framework of the mainstream quite inevitably are in most cases irrational as well, besides rare, and rational very limitedly – because of are principally ungrounded – premises.
Including the “answers” in the posts above have to the objective reality too indirect relations – human’s consciousness isn’t some mystic “Orchestrated objective reduction”, “…a kind of behavior that, of course, is controlled by the brain like any other behavior...”, etc.
The fundamental phenomena/ notions in human’s sciences above can be, and are, scientifically defined only in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904,
- where it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set;
- and so “Matter” and "Consciousnesses” are nothing else than some informational systems, which are constructed basing on some sets of fundamental [eventually logical] laws/links/constants. I.e. Matter and the consciousness [though human’s consciousness is only utmost developed version of the informational system “consciousness on Earth”] are some rough analogues of the informational system “a computer+ a program shell”.
However Matter and consciousness are based on fundamentally different sets of basic laws/links/constants; and so the primary “microchips” in “hardwares” and the “shells” in these systems are fundamentally different as well, and so, say, any consciousness principally cannot “emerge” from any material structure.
Nonetheless the fundamentally non-material consciousness is able to impact on material structures, and so has built for herself material residence, which is stable in the Set a few billions of years ago on Earth, and uses these residences as the sable houses till now.
Including the brain(s) is only some practically material the consciousness’s hardware module, which, functionally, first of all:
- transforms material signals of practically material body’s sensors with information about environment into codes that are understandable by non-material hardware’s modules;
- stores on a long time processed by consciousness information, and
- transforms practically material energy, which the body obtains at consuming food, into form, which is consumable by the non-material modules, what is in this case the next step in existent in Life on Earth food chain, where bacteria and plants consume purely material energy of radiation and chemical reactions, transforming this energy into consumable for more complex living beings’ bodies form, which eat bacteria and plants, and each other.
More see the first approximation model of consciousness on Earth, which is based on the conception above
- at least two SS comments Dec 9, 2019 and Dec 10, 2019 in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousness/comments?focusedCommentId=5ded35bacfe4a777d4f8a648&sldffc=0 , and, of course, the whole paper.
More see also the first link in the post, to understand the conception in this case is useful to read a few SS posts [starting from March 26 post, begins as " Dear Dragoljub, "] in the short thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_difference_between_matter_energy_and_information
Cheers
I have just published a Preprint of the article: "Full automated system-cognitive analysis of the periodic criteria classification of forms of consciousness by Prof. E.V. Lutsenko". This work continues the author's series of works devoted to the application of modern scientific methods in research of human consciousness. In 1979-1981, two monographs were written on higher forms of consciousness, perspectives of man, technology and society. One of these monographs was a two-volume book called: "Theoretical bases of synthesis of quasi-biological robots". These monographs have suggested: 1) criteria-based periodic classification of 49 forms of consciousness, including higher forms of consciousness (VFS); 2) psychological, microsocial and technological methods of transition between different forms of consciousness based on this classification, including methods of transition from the usual form of consciousness to VFS; 3) information and functional theory of technology development (including the law of improving the quality of the basis); 4) information theory of value; 5) 11 functional schemes of technical systems of future forms of society, including systems of remote mirotelekinetic (mental) control; 6) the concept of society development in groups of socio-economic formations; 7) the concept of determining the form of human consciousness by the functional level of the technological environment; 8) mathematical and numerical modeling of the dynamics of the probability density of human States of consciousness in evolution using the theory of Markov random processes. This paper provides a complete automated system-cognitive analysis (ASC-analysis) of the periodic criteria classification of forms of consciousness, proposed by the author in 1978. To do this, the paper solves the following tasks: cognitive structuring and formalization of the subject area; synthesis and verification of statistical and system-cognitive models (multiparametric typing of forms of consciousness); system identification of forms of consciousness; their typological analysis; research of the modeled subject area by studying its model. A detailed numerical example of solving all these problems is provided.
This is something I have been advocating for several years. Consciousness separated discretely within individual brains does not make clear sense as it is a shared experience.
If we see the individual brain as connected to others but also to the environment consciousness merely becomes a symptom of a larger scenario. A discussion I had a while ago with a physician here that human consciousness is determined by being alive or being dead does not take into account that it is still relevant and active whether a person inhabits either state.
“…Consciousness separated discretely within individual brains does not make clear sense as it is a shared experience.…..”
- that isn’t so. There exist so many different consciousnesses how many, of at least of unequally known for humans now, consciousnesses of living beings [which all have some versions of the, seems one, “consciousness on Earth”], exist.
At that not all living beings have brains, when the consciousnesses of those beings, which have individual brains, use the brain only as a specific functional module of the “computer + program” system “consciousness”, which consists of a number of the modules,
- where the main modules are fundamentally non-material, and when
- the practically material brain is a module of only practically material part of “hardware”, which is used mostly as the power supply for non-material modules, decodes practically purely material signals from practically purely material body’s sensors for non-material modules, and, as a “hard disk”, serves for the long term memory.
Consciousness is the real host of humans, and uses the practically material body+brain as the stable residence in the “Information” Set, and for the function above; and after a body death returns somewhere in the Set. So that
“…human consciousness is determined by being alive or being dead does not take into account….”
- is indeed so. However from that doesn’t follow that
“…the individual brain as connected to others but also to the environment consciousness merely becomes a symptom of a larger scenario.……”
- though such connections seems indeed exist, they aren’t something critically necessary for consciousnesses; and if exist that are some minorities.
More see the SS posts above an links in the posts; a few SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_every_neuron_in_a_human_was_accurately_simulated_in_a_computer_would_it_result_in_human_consciousness#view=5efcee85e7a29825b63b7512 are relevant to this thread question as well.
Cheers
Piyush Kant
I have recently proposed a new model of consciousness. Please find the same in the below RG link. Welcome comments and suggestions. Thanks!
Preprint A new model of consciousness derived from black hole informa...
It is unclear. We need to rule out all the possibilities that the self-as-subject is mindbrain-based. Please see a proposed real-time OBE experiment in my research project discussion.
“…it is unclear. We need to rule out all the possibilities that the self-as-subject is mindbrain-based.…”
- really that is practically for sure clear: “the self-as-subject” i.e. the self-awareness, is simply obligatory attribute in every informational pattern/system [whereas there exist nothing else besides some informational patterns/systems, that is rigorously proven – see the SS posts above], which interact with other patterns/systems in some system, which these patterns/systems compose.
For example – in the system “Matter” any/every particle, say, an electron, completely truly knows that it is an electron, and just this electron, and interacts with other particles as just one completely singled out concrete electron, and nothing else; and at every interaction, i.e. after obtaining some message from other, say, electron, it completely understands the message and behaves completely correctly accordance with the message – just the same electron.
As well as every living being on Earth, which has a version of fundamentally non-material system “consciousness on Earth”, also has a self-awareness, however, unlike the electron above, consciousness interacts/obtains messages with/from arbitrary patterns/systems, and so always precepts obtained information limitedly and so with some uncertainty; and, including because of she has limited ability to process information, so processes the obtained information always, at least partially, with some uncertainty.
Including in the “homo-two sapiens consciousness version, which is able to operate in highest – “mind mode”, of operation, when [in this mode] she processes information “abstractly”, makes that always limitedly and uncertainly; and so in some cases some such consciousnesses have rather strange self-awarenesses - in fundamental contrast with electron, etc., which are self-aware completely truly, though “automatically”.
Including seems as from experiments it clearly follows, that the consciousness resides first of all on brain; and, besides, uses the brain as important auxiliary module at the information processing, including in the “mind mode” [and in other modes, that occupy seems more 90% of the consciousness operation] – any damage of any body’s organ inessentially affect on the consciousness operation, whereas a damage of brain leads to essential the consciousness’s dysfunctions.
More see the SS posts above and papers that are linked in the posts.
Merry Xmas and Happy New Year coming.
Cheers
I recommend this publication of Prof. López Moratalla:
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5269588
Best!
The last SS comments to official paper in https://www.researchgate.net/project/Creative-Particles-of-Higgs-or-CPH-Theory/update/6003ca40fb1e350001e64bc4 , and
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Quantum-Field-Theory-What-are-virtual-particles/update/6003ca5f7e98b40001bc47c4 ,
- and two last SS posts in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-is-the-difference-between-cognitive-beliefs-and-feelings
- are relevant to this thread question.
Cheers
Piyush Kant Allow me to give you an answer to resolve your misunderstanding.
"Does Non-local consciousness exist or it is an emergent property of physical process inside the brain?"
Physicists invoke quantum mechanics (QM) to the brain in order to explain consciousness. Especially when it comes to David Bohm's nonlocality.
This is incorrect. The quantum charge distribution represents the nonlocality caused by the local variations in electron density
Therefore the nonlocality is not cosmic and the quantum state cannot be replaced by the concept of electron density.
For a distinction between QM and QTAIM (quantum theory of atoms in molecules) See Olimpia Lombardi
You've touched on a critical distinction. Fundamental consciousness- the ambient, unorganized glints of feeling exploited by evolution, exist outside the brain, and have been exploited by evolution by way of brains to weave animal-level consciousness made by and local to brains.
It is unclear. Basically, you are asking if self survives death, which is still controversial. However, it can be addressed in a proposed real-time-OBE-experiment as follows:
A proposed experiment for investigating the underlying mechanism for “real” (100% disconnection) OBE on real-time basis and for testing the null hypothesis: the self-as-subject does not survive death
The out-of-body-experience (OBE) is well accepted in neuroscience as an evolved phenomenon that has survival value under some conditions involving risk to life. In current neuroscience, it is a mindbrain-based phenomenon and is considered one of the various types of hallucinations.
Null hypothesis: A scientific hypothesis should be testable/ falsifiable. Therefore, a testable/falsifiable null hypothesis related to OBE is proposed: The self-as-subject operates through OBEr’s gross-physical brain-body (GPB) in real-time during OBE. How do we rule out the possibility that the “self” is operating through GPB on a real-time basis during OBE? If we can rule it out then it will give us clues for testing another very important null hypothesis based on materialistic neuroscience: the self-as-subject does not survive death.
Proposed design of a cost-free experiment: The experimenter can keep objects (such as random numbers written on a paper or objects or equivalent) behind the OBEr so that the eyes of her/his GBP cannot see, and then ask the OBEr to report the real-time activities behind the GPB. If the OBEr can report/see the object (from-up-the-ceiling perspective) correctly then we rule out that possibility and the null hypothesis can be rejected. Otherwise, we cannot reject the null hypothesis.
In other words, the OBErs with true OBE (OBE with 100% disconnection from her/his GPB) should able to report correctly the objects and/or random numbers (RNs) written on a paper and kept behind the GPB in real-time-online basis. Usually, all OBErs feel that they are 100% disconnected, but are they really? The proposed experiment will scientifically test it. Since OBE is spontaneous and last for few minutes (such as less than 2 min), it is always good idea to keep RN-paper behind her/his GPB (ask a friend to tape the paper on the back so that that paper is invisible to GPB’s eyes).
To sum up, a “true” OBEr (100% disconnection from the OBEr’s GPB) should satisfy all the following criteria (Criteria 5-11 are advised by Dominique Surel):
(1) The OBEr should able to read the random numbers behind the GPB in real-time-online basis.
(2) The OBEr should honestly self-report that they have an OBE.
(3) Perform control experiment during no-OBE state (by asking the OBEr to read different RNs which are kept behind her/his GPB). If the OBEr doesn’t report correctly then for the purpose of experiment on that day the OBEr have no other psychic abilities such as clairvoyance, RV, CRV, telepathy, etc. This does not mean that the OBEr will not have this ability in future through proper training.
(4) These experiments must be done in the presence of skeptic scientists from start to finish making sure they are not done in a sloppy way. Hopefully, these criteria scientifically demonstrate that it was a true OBE experiment because the person correctly read the numbers.
(5) Hear and report a conversation.
(6) Read anything such as headlines of a newspaper, title of book?
(7) Read: numbers, letters
(8) See objects a/ behind people, b/ behind furniture, c/ behind a wall, and also behind the GPB of the OBEr.
(9) Move: a/ anywhere in the room b/ outside the room by going through a wall c/vertically (up/down).
(10) Speak and be heard?
(11) Important criteria: The ideal environment for this type of experiment would be to blindfold the OBEer and take him into a room that he is not familiar. Once he has the OBE, whatever he describes will not be from memory since he has never been in the room before. Also, keeping the blindfold will demonstrate whether or not he is looking through his GPB's eyeballs.
On I agree. However, we will be testing her/him thru other criteria so if s/he is not OBEr then we will soon find it. The reason for keeping it as one of the criteria is, in the first person subjective (1pp) research, subject’s 1pp report is also counted.
On . If the activities of TPJ (temporal parietal junction) and AG (angular gyrus) are disturbed by some means, system ejects the subtle ethereal body (SEB) from person’s GPB (gross physical body). This happens spontaneously, samādhi state, drugs (ketamine: (Dietrich, 2020) and (Bower, 2011)), accidents, cardiac arrest, near death terminal cases, and perhaps applying rTMS (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation) (Jay et al., 2014). NDE is also a type of OBE.
As per (Jay et al., 2014), “Patients with medication-resistant DSM-IV DPD (N = 17) and controls (N = 20) were randomized to receive one session of right-sided rTMS to VLPFC or temporo-parietal junction (TPJ). […] The TPJ region was chosen due to its relevance in out of body experiences (OBEs), researched previously using TMS [40,41]”
[Articles: 40. Blanke O., Ortigue S., Landis T., Seeck M. Inducing illusory own-body perceptions. Nature. 2002;419:269–270. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Blanke O., Mohr C., Michel C.M., Pascual-Leone A., Brugger P., Seeck M. Linking out-of-body experience and self processing to mental own-body imagery at the temporoparietal junction. J Neurosci. 2005;25:550–557. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
(Levitan, LaBerge, et al., 1999), (Blanke et al., 2002), and (Blanke et al., 2005)]
Justifications: Neuroscientists could argue that OBErs were getting information (related to up from neck, i.e., their face head, ears, nose, cheeks, and eyes located on their GPB) from their cortical homunculus , which were stored in their long-term memory (LTM) when they saw themselves in front of a mirror or from their photos. However, whatever was going during OBErs’ OBE behind their gross physical brain-body (GPB) in real-time-online cannot be stored in their long-term memory. Therefore, if OBErs can report online-real-time activities (such as seeing objects and reading random numbers written on a paper, etcetera) behind their GPBs from the out-of-brain-body (GPB) perspective during their OBEs then OBE may not be mindbrain-based. This is a testable and falsifiable cost-free experiment to test the null hypothesis that the OBE is mindbrain-based. In other words, a scientifically easily testable and falsifiable hypothesis is: the subjective experiences (SEs) from the location out of OBEr’s gross physical body (GPB) fail to provide online-real-time activities hidden from OBEr’s gross physical body (GPB). If it is rejected then one could argue that the self-as-subject is 100% disconnected from OBEr’s GPB. In that case, how could we explain the vivid memory of OBE/NDE of the OBEr?
There is a significant difference between (a) “true” (100% disconnect) OBE and (b) similar appearing psi such as clairvoyance, RV, CRV, and telepathy. In the former (a) the self-as-subject appears to be located outside of GPB (gross physical brain-body) and in the latter (b) the self-as-subject is located in the GPB.
Justification for using reading random numbers: It is assumed that a “true” (100% disconnection) OBEr does not operate thru her/his GPB. So s/he is like us in normal mundane reading the RNs written in o a paper kept in front of us with 20-20 vision; i.e., it is DIRECT reading with 100% accuracy. We will enlarge the random numbers to match for the 20-20 (or better) vision. We need to exclude who have other psychic abilities on that day when we perform the experiments. In other words, we need exclude the data of such psychic subjects from the data analysis related to “true” OBErs. The RNs are very useful and important for excluding CRVers, RVers, clairvoyants, and telepathists. Yes, we can use symbols, letter, objects, etc. for other psychic abilities such as CRV, RV, Clairvoyance, and telepathy. But for a "true" OBE, reading the random numbers might be the best because it is direct reading like we do on laptop or paper in our mundane life.
Control experiments: It is assumed that clairvoyance, remote viewing, CRV, and telepathy are not involved. It is directly reading the numbers. It is a local viewing. We could design control experiments for clairvoyance, RV, CRV, and/or telepathy without OBE: if at normal-wakeful state without OBE, the subjects are able to read the random numbers written on paper and placed behind their GPB, then their data will be excluded from the data analysis of OBEs.
As per (Annus, 2020), “An out-of-body experience [OBE] is defined by the presence of three phenomenological characteristics: disembodiment (location of the self outside one’s body), the impression of seeing the world from a distant and elevated visuo-spatial perspective, and the impression of seeing one’s own body from this elevated perspective [(Brugger et al, 1997)]”.
As per Wikipedia, “Clairvoyance … is the claimed ability to gain information about an object, person, location, or physical event through extrasensory perception.[2][3]”
In OBE, the self-as-subject is apparently located outside of GPB (gross physical brain-body), whereas in clairvoyance the self-as-subject is located within GPB. The subjects do not report OBE in clairvoyance-state. As elaborated, a control experiment can be performed in non-OBE state to test if the subject has clairvoyance. A true OBE is defined as OBE with 100% disconnection from her/his GPB, and OBErs with true OBE should able to report the objects and/or random numbers (RNs) written on a paper and kept behind the GPB in real-time-online basis.
The issue of ‘subtle light brain-body’ / ‘subtle brain-body’ (SLB/SBB) / ‘astral body’ will be addressed later if OBErs are successful in reading the numbers through other control experiments. This issue was raised by Vinod Sehgal on19Nov2020 (personal communication): “Where is the scientific evidence for the existence of any SLB/ SBB, which has a self and which shall read random number, thru direct mapping or otherwise? Without this evidence, the existence of a self as surviving death can't be deduced scientifically even if hidden random number is read correctly.” As per neuroscience, OBErs will not able to read them and SLB/SBB does not exist, so we will address this issue after the experiment and its conclusion.
If OBErs report correctly the object(s)/RNs(random numbers), then it is a great achievement because this paranormal phenomenon will enter into mainstream science for further research. This will be a great news because it will change physics and neuroscience. This is the main goal of the experiment. To rule out if it is due to clairvoyance/remote-viewing/telepathy (CRVT), as elaborated above, we will perform control experiments at non-OBE states with the object(s)/RNs placed in another room or remote distances, if they respond correctly then results might be due to their CRVT ability.
If the OBErs cannot read such RNs (hidden from their GPB’s eyes), then the OBErs are not 100% disconnected from their respective GPBs, which implies that they are not “true” OBErs. This means that either “true” OBErs do not exist or we keep on searching for them. In the latter case, the neuroscience’s claim (self-as-subject does not survive death) will hold until we find such “true” OBErs. On the other hand, if true OBErs exist then the self-as-subject survives death.
If a goal is how to bring any of the paranormal phenomena into mainstream science (MSS), the existence of “real” OBE (100% disconnection from the OBEr’s GPB) is in one of them.
It is unclear if the OBErs were 100% disconnected from their gross-physical-brain-body (GPB). To test them, our proposed experiment will be useful. Perhaps, there is no disconnection in OBE; it is all endogenously generated subjective experiences, which are true in the world of imagination similar to dreams as elaborated in (Levitan, LaBerge, et al., 1999) on .
Comments are most welome!
Kind regards,
Ram
- Badges
- Science topic