How Close is Science to Understanding Consciousness?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vkwa_s2zmAQ

"With Julia Mossbridge, Donald Hoffman, Edward Frenkel, Anthony Aguirre, Federico Faggin; facilitated by Deepak Chopra.

Five different scientists with varying views of consciousness or mind. This panel will be a conversation between these different views to understand their contributions, and to see how they understand each other, and how they relate to other theories of consciousness. The point is to have a genuine deep dialogue between scientific theories of consciousness, to find commonalities, and the meaning of the differences. We will explore whether scientific theories have a consensus about anything relating to consciousness, like an operating definition of consciousness. This panel will be facilitated with an eye from the nondual view of consciousness, to ask questions and address issues in the study of consciousness that can help in looking deeper into the assumptions and conclusions of each theory."

[iamthat]

This sounds like the story of the five blind men feeling an elephant and trying to describe it.

If people seriously want to understand consciousness then maybe they should start by studying the Yogis of India who have spent decades exploring their own consciousness.

Peace

[guthrio]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vkwa_s2zmAQ

"With Julia Mossbridge, Donald Hoffman, Edward Frenkel, Anthony Aguirre, Federico Faggin; facilitated by Deepak Chopra.

Five different scientists with varying views of consciousness or mind. This panel will be a conversation between these different views to understand their contributions, and to see how they understand each other, and how they relate to other theories of consciousness. The point is to have a genuine deep dialogue between scientific theories of consciousness, to find commonalities, and the meaning of the differences. We will explore whether scientific theories have a consensus about anything relating to consciousness, like an operating definition of consciousness. This panel will be facilitated with an eye from the nondual view of consciousness, to ask questions and address issues in the study of consciousness that can help in looking deeper into the assumptions and conclusions of each theory."

Hi, JustASimpleGuy,

How Close is Science to Understanding Consciousness?....this close:
http://holofractal.net/introduction/

Excerpted from the paragraph, Nature's Guiding Principle: The fractal-holographic universe is a geometric understanding of reality and thus represents a divergence from the assumption of a universe composed of subatomic particles towards a recognition of nature’s underlying patterns. Both the inner and the outer world can thus be described as pattern-based systems through geometric shape, proportion or principle.

...and if you were to take a look at the individual posts which amplify the introductory articles, you may be as amazed as I, to recognize the symmetry of consensus emerging from what "appears" to be from separate sources (i.e. the 2 URLs we've contributed herein).

In addition to what you've provided in your reference: (which I'm very much enjoying!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vkwa_s2zmAQ, there is, at point 15:14 into the discussion of your YouTube, the following sentence which is uttered: "Consciousness is the context that gives meaning to information". THAT is the symmetry between our respective sources that is reflected in the sub-articles below. (it's uncanny)!

Spiral Vortex Meditation
Consciousness and The Brain in a Fractal-Holographic Universe
The Schwarzschild Proton
Renormalization
The Quest for Quantum Gravity
The Unified Space Memory Network
The Biocrystal

How close? Everywhere at once.

....or as I'm fond of saying Ever here, Even Now.

Enjoy!

[guthrio]

Please disregard this as a duplicate to my post immediately above. Thanks...

Originally Posted by guthrio

Hi, JustASimpleGuy,

How Close is Science to Understanding Consciousness?....this close:
http://holofractal.net/introduction/

Excerpted from the paragraph, Nature's Guiding Principle: The fractal-holographic universe is a geometric understanding of reality and thus represents a divergence from the assumption of a universe composed of subatomic particles towards a recognition of nature’s underlying patterns. Both the inner and the outer world can thus be described as pattern-based systems through geometric shape, proportion or principle.

...and if you were to take a look at the individual posts which amplify the introductory articles, you may be as amazed as I, to recognize the symmetry of consensus emerging from what "appears" to be from separate sources (i.e. the 2 URLs we've contributed herein).

In addition to what you've provided in your reference: (which I'm very much enjoying!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vkwa_s2zmAQ, there is, at point 15:14 into the discussion of your YouTube, the following sentence which is uttered: "Consciousness is the context that gives meaning to information". THAT is the symmetry between our respective sources that is reflected in the sub-articles below. (it's uncanny)!

Spiral Vortex Meditation
Consciousness and The Brain in a Fractal-Holographic Universe
The Schwarzschild Proton
Renormalization
The Quest for Quantum Gravity
The Unified Space Memory Network
The Biocrystal

How close? Everywhere at once.

....or as I'm fond of saying Ever here, Even Now.

Enjoy!

Since we're talking fractals...

Here's an interview with Stuart Hameroff on the Penrose/Hameroff Orch OR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction) hypothesis of consciousness. Roger Penrose is arguably the top theoretician on the fine scale geometry of space.

https://youtu.be/YpUVot-4GPM?list=PL...XfywQvhBzzdrQA

"Dr. Stuart Hameroff is a Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, and Director of the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona. Together with British quantum physicist Sir Roger Penrose, Hameroff is the co-author of the controversial Orch OR model of consciousness."

Roger Penrose is a mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science. He's absolutely brilliant.

[SolXx]

have reviewed this concept. and your directions for further study's. Not one of them can find a solution. Ask each of those 5 one question and get back to this tread line for there individual answers please. "How can identical twins have the same thoughts the same emotions even being separated at birth 40 years later?"

If a single one of them answers NOT about vibrational frequency patterns? then they perhaps are fraudulent in there assumptions. (Edit here); given bio-chem genetic engineering on the cellular level involving engrams of the genetic hosts.

I do applaude you for presenting 5 different aspects of the riddle so that others may question and then seek a solution.

[Shivani Devi]

"Looking for consciousness inside the brain is like looking inside the radio for the announcer" - Nassim Haramein

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

"Looking for consciousness inside the brain is like looking inside the radio for the announcer" - Nassim Haramein

There has to be some interface mechanism or mechanics. That's what I find fascinating about Orch OR. I have no clue of it's veracity, but it's a very interesting hypothesis. It posits consciousness is an innate quality of the fine scale structure of existence and manifests in microtubules via quantum effects, I believe entanglement.

So that argues against consciousness being an emergent quality of the brain's complexity and instead is a quality of observable existence itself. I know, we would say observable existence is a quality of consciousness but Orch OR is a step in the right direction and if one thinks about it that would fit the hypothesis too. Just depends on one's point of view.

Copenhagen interpretation - (conscious) observation collapses the wave function.

Orch OR - collapse of the wave function is tied to the geometry of space and results in a conscious instance.

Alternative interpretation - the unified field/consciousness structures spacetime in such a way that the geometry of the space that arises from it ensures collapse of the wave function, making tiny instances of itself available for reception.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

There has to be some interface mechanism or mechanics. That's what I find fascinating about Orch OR. I have no clue of it's veracity, but it's a very interesting hypothesis. It posits consciousness is an innate quality of the fine scale structure of existence and manifests in microtubules via quantum effects, I believe entanglement.

So that argues against consciousness being an emergent quality of the brain's complexity and instead is a quality of observable existence itself. I know, we would say observable existence is a quality of consciousness but Orch OR is a step in the right direction and if one thinks about it that would fit the hypothesis too. Just depends on one's point of view.

Copenhagen interpretation - (conscious) observation collapses the wave function.

Orch OR - collapse of the wave function is tied to the geometry of space and results in a conscious instance.

Alternative interpretation - the unified field/consciousness structures spacetime in such a way that the geometry of the space that arises from it ensures collapse of the wave function, making tiny instances of itself available for reception.

Very good...very good. "D - All of the above".

Here is something for you.

After revisiting Roger Penrose's book "The Emperor's New Mind" as the result of a radio broadcast I heard 25 years ago from an eminent Australian scientist at the time, the late Darryl Reanney (who was a colleague of Rupert Sheldrake back in the late '80's), the trail of the origins of consciousness within the brain (as being the receptive reagent according to the model postulated by one Paul Davies in his book "The Mind of God") all led me to one man... Rodolfo. R. Llinas...please stop me if you have heard this one..

Professor Llinas comes closest to presenting a plausible theory for the origin of consciousness, when he discusses the concerted timing and the binding principle of the oscillations within the neurons themselves...but that is still a long way off..he just found the modulating mechanism of consciousness where the Microtubules are the receivers (not the generators) of consciousness.

Where was that video of Rodolfo in action?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6T3ovN7JHPo&t=27s

So now, I invite you to enter the "I" of the Vortex..and I also hoped you enjoyed that 1993 interview with Darryl Reanney only months before his death that I shared in the "Enlightenment" thread..

How deep down the rabbit hole do you wish me to take you?

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Very good...very good. "D - All of the above".

A - Copenhagen interpretation - Existence, consciousness, bliss is the ultimate observer.

B - Orch OR - Existence, consciousness, bliss structures spacetime in such a way objective reduction occurs and can be received via microtubules.

C - Alternative interpretation - Reiteration of the above qualification of "B" and further qualification of the above qualification of "A".

Therefore all of the above is a correct answer, depending on one's point of view. LOL!