Consciousness and Special Relativity

[fdesilva]

Consciousness involves Simultaneous events
The brain is an area of neurophysiology activity. Neurophysiology activity consists of electrochemical reaction. Thus at any given time, the brain state is defined by a subset of electrochemical reactions, derived from a large set of possible reactions.
Consider the phenomenon of a. conscious thought. As at any given time the brain physical state consists of a collection of electrochemical reactions (events), it can be inferred that they are collectively responsible for the conscious thought. This means that at least in part, simultaneous events are responsible for thought. In other words, thought creates a connection between simultaneous events. This is in contradiction to the consequences of special relativity, which states that the fastest connection between events is the speed of light and thus excludes the possibility of connection between simultaneous events.
Consider the memorizing of, say, the value 5. This would necessarily involve more than I point in space as, say, if it is assumed a single electron records 5 by taking a particular potential. Then it by itself cannot define (or know) 5, as its magnitude would be defined only with respect to another datum or event defined as a unit potential, thus involving at least 2 simultaneous events.
Consider the experience of vision. While we focus our attention on an object of vision, we are still aware of a background and, thus, a whole collection of events. This would mean at least an equal collection of physical events in the brain are involved.
1.2 Consciousness is 4 Dimensional
Take the experience of listening to music. It would mean being aware of what went before. Like vision, it would probably mean that while our attention at any given time is focused at that point in time, it is aware of what went before and what is to follow. In other words, it spans the time axis. Many great composers have stated that they are able to hear their whole composition. Thus their acoustic experience is probably like the average person's visual experience. While focusing at a particular point in time of their composition, they are nevertheless aware of what went before and what is to come. The rest of the composition is like the background of a visual experience. Experiencing the composition in this way, they are able to traverse it in a similar fashion to which a painting is observed. In this sense, an average person in comparison can be seen as having tunnel hearing (like tunnel vision) when it comes to music, thus making it very difficult for him or her to reproduce or create new music. It can be seen that consciousness is a 4-D phenomenon.
2 Contradiction with Special relativity
As stated previously Special relativity states that the fastest connection between events is the speed of light. This proposition excludes the possibility of connections between simultaneous events. Simultaneous events are also known as space-like separated events in special relativity. Yet from the description given above it can be seen that consciousness creates a connection between simultaneous events in the brain. The contradiction with special relativity will remain, independent of the rate of propagation of nerve impulses, provided that this rate is equal to or less than the speed of light. In order to recognise the contradiction, it is important that the reader takes note of the following:
When evaluating the statements made about consciousness, it is critical that this be done in relation to one's subjective understanding (experience) of consciousness. Every tendency to project one's imagination of it should be avoided.
This contradiction will now be further analysed.

2.1 A Need for "Connections of Consciousness"


Simultaneous events in the brain at some time, to, can and will give rise to another set of simultaneous events at the next instant. In fact, all activity in the universe can be viewed as a set of simultaneous events at one instant, giving rise to simultaneous events at the next instant. What is different with the simultaneous events of the brain is that while it shares the common property of giving rise to simultaneous events at the next instant, it also forms part of, or is fully responsible for, consciousness in the PRESENT. It is this "Connections of Consciousness" between simultaneous events that is in contradiction to the consequences of special relativity.
2.2 Computer Technology
This same problem is inherent in any attempt to explain consciousness by way of current computer technology. Consider the case of a computer made of discrete components arranged in a synchronised circuit. Let the data transmission between components be done through wires. To say the computer is conscious is to imply a "connection of consciousness" between the multitude of simultaneous events taking place in the computer at any given time. In order not to confuse the need for "connections of consciousness" with the physical connections present, the following
thought experiment might prove useful.

Let the rate of the clock synchronising the circuit be reduced to one impulse every hour. Now at this slow rate, it would be possible. to replace the wires by mechanical devices That travel between the components. Thus, now at any given time the computer will consist of components totally separated from each other physically. This highlights the need for "connection of consciousness" between simultaneous events. (See Fig 2.)
Figure 3 shows another situation in which the need for "connection of consciousness" is highlighted. The inputs to each component of a conscious computer are recorded, and the computer is then dismantled and the components run through the same phases using the recorded inputs. This situation would also have to be conscious.

If the need for such connection is still not evident, then consider the following consequences.
Consider the case of this computer communicating with another. Would not assigning any sort of consciousness to the computers imply a third consciousness created by the two together? By analogy, this would also apply to two people talking to each other. They would necessarily create a third person, which is the collective consciousness of them both.
It might also help to compare the activity of this computer with the activity associated with the fall of a set of rocks down a mountain. If the computer is conscious, so will be the rocks +activity, thus the whole universe would have to be conscious.
This is in total contradiction with the subjective understanding of consciousness to be personal.

[Chewbie Chan]

Interesting thinking fdesilva. Unfortunately there is a basic problem I see with your grasp of how a thought arises in the mind and this undoes your argument long before you reach its conclusion.

Consider the phenomenon of a. conscious thought. As at any given time the brain physical state consists of a collection of electrochemical reactions (events), it can be inferred that they are collectively responsible for the conscious thought. This means that at least in part, simultaneous events are responsible for thought. In other words, thought creates a connection between simultaneous events. This is in contradiction to the consequences of special relativity, which states that the fastest connection between events is the speed of light and thus excludes the possibility of connection between simultaneous events.

A thought is (more of less) the result of a very great number of changes in the brain. This doesn't mean that thought itself is somehow connecting many different parts of the brain faster than the speed of light. In fact the connections are relatively (heh) slow compared to light.

Just as you would get an orange hue of paint by mixing red & yellow hues the apparent complexity of our thought is, in a simple sense, a combined outcome from the enormous amount of activity in the brain. Consciousness is more like a continuously changing mixture resulting from a highly complex mixing process. Its not the result of simultaneous immediate connections going faster than light between different areas of the brain. Its a nice thought though. If it was possible our reaction times could be shockingly fast, like some fictional super hero.

[fdesilva]

A thought is (more of less) the result of a very great number of changes in the brain. This doesn't mean that thought itself is somehow connecting many different parts of the brain faster than the speed of light. In fact the connections are relatively (heh) slow compared to light.

Just as you would get an orange hue of paint by mixing red & yellow hues the apparent complexity of our thought is, in a simple sense, a combined outcome from the enormous amount of activity in the brain. Consciousness is more like a continuously changing mixture resulting from a highly complex mixing process. Its not the result of simultaneous immediate connections going faster than light between different areas of the brain. Its a nice thought though. If it was possible our reaction times could be shockingly fast, like some fictional super hero.

Now as you say it is an enormous amount of activity at each and every second right?
However it is not all the activity in the brain. For example a nerve impulse is a localized change in the concentration of ions. Now beside these ions there is also water molecules. However the water molecules do not contribute to consciousness. If we look at it at a more macro level, there is connective tissue blood vessels etc that do not contribute or is not forming the events that make up the thought. Now given that the subjective experience of the thought exist, how does that subjective experience limit it self to some of this events (ions) while excluding others?

Consider the following assumption
Assumption 1. Consciousness is a result of the activity that takes place in the brain at nerve synapses and nerve impulses.

Consider the distribution of Nerve impulses and activity at nerve synapses in the brain. Let all of these regions at any given time be enclosed in the smallest possible virtual spherical globes.
Then over any length of time these Globes will never intersect.
Thus they are separate in space and time. These globes will form an ever changing pattern. We know that the activity within these globes together gives rise to a single phenomenon namely consciousness. However we know that distinct space and time cannot have any form of connections (special relativity). Yet Consciousness makes exactly such a connection as it is a singular result of all this activity

[Whitney]

I accidentally dumped this topic in the troll pile when trying to move the lamb topic...so, sorry if anything is missing.

[fdesilva]

I accidentally dumped this topic in the troll pile when trying to move the lamb topic...so, sorry if anything is missing.

Thats ok, I put this under Philosophy, however if you prefer it here thats fine with me. Thanks

[Sophus]

Simultaneous events in the brain at some time, to, can and will give rise to another set of simultaneous events at the next instant. In fact, all activity in the universe can be viewed as a set of simultaneous events at one instant, giving rise to simultaneous events at the next instant.

Things occur while other things occur. This doesn't violate any law. The rate at which we experience events is not, technically, simulatenous although the process happening to make that experience possible, obviously, is. There's just not enough delay to make anywhere near a significant difference.

[Chewbie Chan]

We know that the activity within these globes together gives rise to a single phenomenon namely consciousness. However we know that distinct space and time cannot have any form of connections (special relativity). Yet Consciousness makes exactly such a connection as it is a singular result of all this activity.

Well again, consciousness doesn't actually do this. It is the result of a process that has to go through motions in time & space same as everything else. It does not arise simultaneously from multiple discrete points in time & space. There is no need for it to do so and it has never been observed to do so.

[fdesilva]

We know that the activity within these globes together gives rise to a single phenomenon namely consciousness. However we know that distinct space and time cannot have any form of connections (special relativity). Yet Consciousness makes exactly such a connection as it is a singular result of all this activity.

Well again, consciousness doesn't actually do this. It is the result of a process that has to go through motions in time & space same as everything else. It does not arise simultaneously from multiple discrete points in time & space. There is no need for it to do so and it has never been observed to do so.

" It does not arise simultaneously from multiple discrete points in time & space. "
Lets keep the simultanity word out for a moment.
However do you agree that the points responsible for it is always multiple discrete points in time & space?

[Chewbie Chan]

Yep, I'll agree to that.  

[fdesilva]

Yep, I'll agree to that.  

I am going to put my case forward from a few different angle. However I would like to present my ideas in a way that I am sure we are on the same page. As such you may find me repeating  the same thing.
Now from what you have said so far I think I would be right in saying that you agree
1.   Assumption 1. Consciousness is a result of the activity that takes place in the brain at nerve synapses and nerve impulses.
2.   And that these events are always multiple discrete points in time & space
Now do you also agree that given that a nerve impulse is a localised change in the concentration of ions.
That in the progress on the Nerve impulse along a nerve fibre, it will also give rise to other events such as an  ion colliding with a water molecule, which results in the water molecule changing speed and direction, and then heating a protein molecule etc. Now these other events while supporting the conscious experience do not form the set of events directly responsible for it?
Now if you agree with the above could you also say what in your opinion would be the reason, for them not to be part of the events directly responsible for the consciouss experience?

[i_am_i]

Many great composers have stated that they are able to hear their whole composition. Thus their acoustic experience is probably like the average person's visual experience.

Name one of these great composers who've said that they are able to hear their whole composition, whatever that's supposed to mean.  

And what, exactly, do you mean by "acoustic experience?" You know what the word acoustic means, don't you?

[fdesilva]

Many great composers have stated that they are able to hear their whole composition. Thus their acoustic experience is probably like the average person's visual experience.

Name one of these great composers who've said that they are able to hear their whole composition, whatever that's supposed to mean.  

And what, exactly, do you mean by "acoustic experience?" You know what the word acoustic means, don't you?

Source : Talks with Great Composers, by A. Abell, Replica Books; 2000
Mozart
"My subject enlarges itself, becomes methodized and defined, and the whole, though it be long, stands almost complete and finished in my mind, so that I can survey it, like a fine picture or a beautiful statute, at a glance."
"Nor do I hear in my imagination the parts successively, I hear them all at once. What a delight this is! All this inventing, this producing, takes place in a pleasing, lively dream."

[McQ]

Yeah, baby! Neuroscience. Now we're talking! Agree or disagree, this is a good topic to discuss. I only wish I wasn't working a ridiculous week this week, so I could dig in more and chat this up. Alas, for now, must go and only get to say it's a fun topic to discuss.

 

[i_am_i]

Source : Talks with Great Composers, by A. Abell, Replica Books; 2000
Mozart
"My subject enlarges itself, becomes methodized and defined, and the whole, though it be long, stands almost complete and finished in my mind, so that I can survey it, like a fine picture or a beautiful statute, at a glance."
"Nor do I hear in my imagination the parts successively, I hear them all at once. What a delight this is! All this inventing, this producing, takes place in a pleasing, lively dream."

Well, if Mozart said that then I agree with whatever it is you're talking about.

Can we go home now?

[Chewbie Chan]

fdesilva, thanks for taking the time to get into this in more depth. I definitely appreciate the effort. To try to help make sure I'm same page I'm going to break up your last post and respond to it in several parts so where I might diverge should be clear.
 
Now from what you have said so far I think I would be right in saying that you agree
1.   Assumption 1. Consciousness is a result of the activity that takes place in the brain at nerve synapses and nerve impulses.

Aye. There is a great deal going with consciousness and much not well understood, but its well established that the nervous systems plays an essential part.

2.   And that these events are always multiple discrete points in time & space

Aye. I'd add that they are discrete as in individually unique but also interconnected.

Now do you also agree that given that a nerve impulse is a localised change in the concentration of ions.

Yes

That in the progress on the Nerve impulse along a nerve fibre, it will also give rise to other events such as an ion colliding with a water molecule, which results in the water molecule changing speed and direction, and then heating a protein molecule etc.

I follow.

Now these other events while supporting the conscious experience do not form the set of events directly responsible for it?

Here things get problematic for me.

These other events are essential - just as essential as those nerve synapses and related to them. They are part of the processes going on in the brain. So, they are part of the events responsible for consciousness.

The notion of them being direct or indirect would not make sense in this context.

Now if you agree with the above could you also say what in your opinion would be the reason, for them not to be part of the events directly responsible for the consciouss experience?

Well I do take them to be part of the events responsible for the conscious experience. I'm not sure if that helps or hinders where you are going with this but you definitely have my attention.