Consciousness : Scientific study of Consciousness and the "The Hard Problem"

[The Occult]

Now, whatever has been told in our Hindu Philosophy has been examined by many of the scientists.They have begun to some what agree that there is some thing called consciousness that exists .

They're trying to study it and a lot of experiments have been performed to form a scientific explanation of what consciousness really is.Is consciousness a electrical phenomenon or a neurological phenomenon?, can it be explained physically or is it a non material entity?

While many have been trying to explain this, a notable philosopher David Chalmers has laid down questions that may arise while trying to explain consciousness

These questions or issues are classified as Easy problems and Hard problems

The reason being that he believes that easy problems could be possibly explained by neuroscience(even though it may take about 100 years) but the hard problems still remains and he feels that diferent approach would be required

What do you think about this ongiong research on consciousness?, Do you think that some sort of conclusion could ever be arrived at? IF so, do you think it would have contradiction with what is being told in Vedanta?

Your thoughts

[Rudy]

I've been trying to figure this out for a while. But it might just be beyond my intelect. Saying that I look forward to reading the responces.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: I don't see how intellect can process something beyond intellect. So indeed there would have to be a different approach. And indeed there exists one. Its called yoga, in particular raja yoga, and the deep meditation that implies. The intellect is a barrier, another 'thing' to be removed sop we can actually see the universe for what it is.

Aum Namasivaya

[Kismet]

Now, whatever has been told in our Hindu Philosophy has been examined by many of the scientists.They have begun to some what agree that there is some thing called consciousness that exists .

They're trying to study it and a lot of experiments have been performed to form a scientific explanation of what consciousness really is.Is consciousness a electrical phenomenon or a neurological phenomenon?, can it be explained physically or is it a non material entity?

While many have been trying to explain this, a notable philosopher David Chalmers has laid down questions that may arise while trying to explain consciousness

These questions or issues are classified as Easy problems and Hard problems

The reason being that he believes that easy problems could be possibly explained by neuroscience(even though it may take about 100 years) but the hard problems still remains and he feels that diferent approach would be required

What do you think about this ongiong research on consciousness?, Do you think that some sort of conclusion could ever be arrived at? IF so, do you think it would have contradiction with what is being told in Vedanta?

Your thoughts

Neuroscience will never discover the 'lynchpin' to what consciousness is. That is because of the simple subjective irreducibility of it, and that it is not a "thing" susceptible to material science.

[The Occult]

Neuroscience will never discover the 'lynchpin' to what consciousness is. That is because of the simple subjective irreducibility of it, and that it is not a "thing" susceptible to material science.

That's what Chalmers have been arguing with these materialists who deny that there is a non material medium in it.What he says is that they will keep showing that its a bunch of complex neurons interacting with each other to being about that effect but the question still remains as how does that equate to a subjective experience.The problem is more difficult to answer than what actually it looks to be.Many materialists trying to downplay the difficulty by saying that the problem is overrated and that the hard problem is not really a hard problem but its something that's an illusion that will go away once the easy problems are solved.To that Chalmers says that they are missing the point.Chalmers feels that neuro sciences may address the easy problems but will not address the hard problem or atleast a different approach would be required(probably quantum physics)

However it still remains a mystery for many

[The Occult]

Vannakkam: I don't see how intellect can process something beyond intellect. So indeed there would have to be a different approach. And indeed there exists one. Its called yoga, in particular raja yoga, and the deep meditation that implies. The intellect is a barrier, another 'thing' to be removed sop we can actually see the universe for what it is.

Aum Namasivaya

They dont agree with yoga or any of the practices of what they consider as "mystical".The methods of science are purely objective and how can something objective study something that's a subjective phenomena

[Obelisk]

One of the greatest mysteries of present, indeed. Being in the medical field myself, I'm enthusiastic about neuroscience myself but most of the materialist explanations I read regarding consciousness were far from satisfactory. Quantum physics has indeed been promising to reveal a lot about this field, from what I've read from various sources. I need to take up more books on this subject and start reading; been interested in it since quite a while, but lack of time prevented me from exploring it further. :)

[wundermonk]

The question of consciousness will never have a scientific answer. The reason is that science will never admit the existence of a "soul"/Atman that exists before birth and lasts after death.

The Hindu [Advaitic view] on this is as follows:

Inside us there exists Atman which is self-luminous [i.e. something that is not an object of something else's knowledge]. There exists an "internal organ" which is capable of discrimination. But this is insentient without Atman. The "internal organ" becomes sentient because of the light shed on it by Atman. Indian philosophers have tried to prove the existence of the "internal organ" as a logical necessity as follows:

If no "internal organ" existed, the sense organs "present" their inputs directly to the Atman. Atman's role is that of making insentience sentient. We therefore either have to experience perception or non-perception. Because sense organs are constantly providing us inputs [in some cases simultaneously] we need to have constant perception or non-perception. But this is not how we experience the world. In a crowded room when we are talking on the cell phone, we dont perceive a person in front of us with as much intensity as we are perceiving the conversation we are having on the cell phone. The sense of hearing is decided by this "internal organ" to be of greater importance than the sense of sight.

But in reality, we neither have continuous perception nor continuous non-perception. Thus, some "internal organ" has to exist which serves as the mediator between Atman and the sense organs. This "internal organ" assumes different modes at different points in time.

It is called mind when there is indetermination, buddhi when it has the mode of determination, self-sense when it has the mode of self-awareness and attention when it has the mode of concentration/remembrance.

[PS: I have paraphrased thus far an argument presented in Indian Philosophy by S. Radhakrishnan.]

The Yogasutras define Yoga as "Yogash chitta vritti nirodhah" which means gradually moving the attention inward away from the sense organs so that the true self - the Atman shines through. When there is no flow or thought in the mind, Yoga is achieved. Here (http://www.swamij.com/yoga-sutras-10104.htm) is an interesting take on this.

[Mana]

Namasté all

To my mind, the scientific model has not yet adapted fully to the leap in understanding brought about by the new ideas of this century (new to scientists). It takes time for the universal conciousness to adapt to a different perspective or a perspective leap.

Once the Hadron has been proven to not exist (this is my prediction any how) Physics will be looking to completely change its model of Reality.

So an electrons vibration within in a neuro chemical reaction may well become "seen" as a temporal manifestation of energy due to a fluctuation of PrakRti in Purusha. As opposed to a tiny vibrating ball smaller than is conceivable to imagine.

Both views are scientific.

Physics is to busy justifying its own base and neuro science is now challenging Physics, so it may be a while before we get any solid standing on a subject such as consciousness. Modern computing however may present us with some interesting conundrums, in the not too distant future, machines may become imbued with jiva.


Pranam

Mana

[The Occult]

To Mana,

LOL, What Chalmers is suggesting is that just like how we have the fundamental quantities in physics like light,heat it may require science to accommodate Consciousness as a fundamental quantity to probably answer the hard question

[Mana]

What do you think about this ongiong research on consciousness?, Do you think that some sort of conclusion could ever be arrived at? IF so, do you think it would have contradiction with what is being told in Vedanta?

Your thoughts

Hi Occult,

I am not familiar with this chap Chalmers. But for the further understanding of conciousness in science I look towards "neuro epiginetics" and "neuro endocrinology" combined with longitudinal electricity and Genetics, for the next evolution.

So to my mind there will be a joining of philosophy and science in the near future and that it may well come from these fields but not directly the study of conciousness.

Pranam

Mana

[Svapnaja]

The "hard problem of consciousness" is that it cannot be addressed solely by the investigative means of the hard sciences. It is also known as the problem of "qualia" (subjective, qualitative experience). Since consciousness can only be experienced first-hand, it cannot be explained in all its subjectivity by bodily processes alone. However, consciousness as we experience it is not disembodied. There must be some middle ground.

Not all neuroscientists approach this problem from a purely materialist standpoint. Within the Western approach to philosophy of mind, there is a school of thought known as non-reductive emergentism, whereby such things as thoughts, ideas, consciousness, etc. are said to emerge from physical properties, but cannot be reduced to them or explained entirely in terms of the physical properties from which they emerge.

For instance, non-reductive emergentists posit that consciousness emerges from a complex arrangement of neurons in the brain interacting in specific ways, but maintain that consciousness is not MERELY a complex arrangement of neurons in the brain interacting in specific ways. In other words, consciousness emerges therefrom but cannot be reduced thereto. One might think of this as "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". From my studies, this approach seems compatible with that taken by the contemplative traditions of India. Both sides have much to learn from each other, and a collaborative effort is sure to reveal valuable insights.

[Omni-Psyence]

Glad to see this thread! I've just made a blog post on my website dealing with exactly this subject. If it's not a big deal to anyone here I'll just post the introduction of my blog and let you all read it for yourselves if you decide.

"Hello everyone! It’s time for some serious discussion on mind-blowing concepts such as the nature of consciousness and the evolution of the universe. This will be my first blog post to ruminate on cutting edge science theories, and the ideals that I am about to put forth might seem very awkward and suspicious to those who do not know any better. I’ll give everyone a disclaimer right away; these theories are unproven, come from a very renegade faction of science, and have very little mainstream support. With that being said, these ideas are also falsifiable and offer great insights into the nature of consciousness and cosmology that current disciplines fail to address."

http://omnipsyence.com/2011/09/consciousness-part-1/

[The Occult]

Omni-Psyence , Thanks for the blog, I'll look into it... :)

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

As per the issues raised in this article, consciousness aka intelligence can be inferred to be located beyond all the manifestations on the quantum level.
http://www.hitxp.com/articles/science-technology/quantum-level-intelligence/

• The I-consciousness will always be felt beyond the vagaries of material and subtle manifestations. If a neuro scientist thinks that the brain is the origin of consciousness, then he has to deal with the problem of a logical conundrum: the difference between 'I' and 'my'. If his brain feels it is the 'I', why should he feel it as 'my brain'? He cannot just dismiss the 'I/my' as vagaries of lingual comminication because they are subjectively and consciously felt by every human being/brain.

We can illustrate the point of subjective references further with an example:

• Suppose an individual sees a photographic image of his/her brain. The individual would exclaim, 'Hey, that's my brain!' Would the brain then exclaim, 'Hey, that's my brain!' or 'Hey, that's I/me!'?

• Now, if that same individual sees a photograph of him/her, that individual exclaims 'Hey, that's my photograph!' What would the brain exclaim in this case? Perhaps, 'Hey, that's the individual who is I', or 'Hey, that individual has my brain' or perhaps keep silent?

• These are not frivolous examples because, the neurological ramifications of each exclamation above would be distinctly different, wouldn't they be?

• Sometime back I watched a film titled What the bleep do we know?, which explores using computer-animated graphics, the connection between consciousness and quantum physics and if that connection can be spiritual or just neurological. The film concludes that there will always be an observer who won't be located anywhere in the brain.

Here is a Wiki book I just came across, titled Consciousness Studies:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Consciousness_Studies
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Consciousness_Studies.pdf

[The Occult]

Saidova, I just saw the wikipedia on that movie, a lot of the rationalists( like James Randi )and scientists community have criticized that movie as "pseudoscience".They believe that although both quantum theory and consciousness are mysterious things, what was shown in the movie was considered as nothing to do with what quantum physics or consciousness is really about.They also feels that the movie can easily target the gullible into believing that stuff.