My theory of Consciousness 'provides will'

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

So let’s say that someone created a robot which could pass the Turing test. It was seemingly no different than you or I. If you asked this robot if it has a conscious what do you believe it would say? I think it would say that it doesn’t have a conscious because, I believe that the conscious is something physical, within our own universe, even something located right inside our skull. I propose that electromagnetic fields have perspective. This perspective is gained through information. So, if electromagnetic fields have perspective, EMF’s (Electromagnetic fields) would need another property to them which is unique, and unlike anything we have ever seen before. That perspective is what I believe you and I call the conscious. If you think about what your conscious is, It is the information that you are currently aware of and the perspective that information gives you. If you think that there is a hard question, and that the conscious does exist, then you can see that neurons, electrons, protons and neutrons can’t give rise to what we perceive as the conscious. We’ll come back to that in a second. So evolutionarily speaking, if EMF’s have perspective, then ever since the brain has been evolving, so has the way it interacts with the EMF. So what would be the point to it? Why would evolution and nature use brains and the EMF anyway? If you think about how our conscious works, we can control the way our body moves, acts, or at the very least, it thinks it can. But, if you look at how much perspective matters in this universe than maybe not everything is predetermined. The double slit experiment shows that just the perspective of the experiment changed the outcome. The difference between the two outcomes depended on the information retrieved from the experiment. If they were looking at it at the quantum level, where electrons are small pieces of matter, it acted like marbles and created two bands. and if they didn’t put any quantum level measuring device then the electrons acted like a wave. So could EMF’s, one of the ‘4 fundamental interactions’ of our universe have another fundamental property of perspective? I think it’s a notion worth considering.

If our brain has been evolving with EMF’s because it is governed by this property, then we should be able to see proof of this in the actions of these beings with perspective. So i propose that the action of beings is not decided completely by biological functions, But also, by a fundamental property which i’m labeling as perspective. If this information can change the final outcome of the universe then with the right perspective it can protect itself, by giving perspective to the world. Evolutionarily speaking this is extremely behooving, like a leader that can make decisions when running into something new, that the unconscious has never encountered. While the rest of our body has been evolving biologically, our brain was evolving quite uniquely. It was trying to evolve to give the conscious more perspective. By allowing it to store information, by giving it constant access to it’s senses, and finally by giving it the ability to change the way the brain functions, by changing the way it’s connected. (biggest reason for our ability to adapt)

Now if you compare our behavior to other animal you see a great difference in the complexity of their behavior. While it’s hard to find other animals that laugh, it’s hard to even consider an animal exists that could hold it’s laughter back. It’s hard to say what humans were when they first showed up a couple of hundred thousand years ago. Biologically humans as they are today have existed on this Earth for 200,000 years, with slightly minor possible evolutionary changes within the first 100,000 years. yet the first city ever was only created 8,000 years ago. Why do you think it took us so long to get started? why is it that once it did, it doesn’t seem to be slowing down? I believe the answer to this question lies within our brain. meaning, value, and purpose, are all relative to perspective. So in order to gain the perspective we have, we would need to be able to give value, meaning, and purpose to things. Life has evolved in such a way that has allowed us to do just that. So because these things are based on information, the more accurate the information, the better perspective we gain. Now in order for information to change a perspective, which could potentially change the action of the being, they need to understand that information. So understanding information would be the key in viewing the changes of actions from one perspective to another. (e.g. the difference in actions between sentient beings, and beings that don’t understand they have a self) Language can create complex information. Because humans all had their own perspective, they really couldn’t change it without getting more information. language allowed human interaction on a level never seen before. This allowed humans to express each other’s perspective, which in turn could change someone else’s perspective, and so on and so forth until you have modern civilization.

The idea that our actions are based on perspective, a perspective gained by giving meaning, value, and purpose to the things around us, makes a lot of sense with how we think, construct, and work. I think this to be the key factor and explanation behind the complexity of human behavior, especially when comparing it to other animals. Because animals have a brain, they also have an EMF field of some sort. In earlier life it’s hard to say that the brain started evolving because it had an EMF field. It could be that th EMF field just happened to be there and evolutionary changes eventually gave it perspective, since beings with perspective would survive over those who don’t. So you should be able to see that at some point in evolution, animals actions are also based on perspective to some degree. But, with their inability to understand information like us, they can not change their perspective enough to say, create a language or have an opinion. Most of them can’t even understand that they are a being separate from everything else. This perspective gives us control of our bodies. We use the perspective we gain to interact with the rest of the world. So, our perspective rarely changes the outcome of external affairs. (like crossing your fingers to win the lottery when they call out the numbers.) But changing the outcome of internal affairs(e.g. control of hand and foot) is like breathing. This has happened because of the way our brains have evolved through the process of evolution. it has allowed the EMF to gain a perspective of control over the body. Allowing it to change the outcome of the bodies actions. (if this perspective has the ability to do so, which might be possible.)

In conclusion I believe I have a will, this will is governed by my perspective, which is gained through my interactions with my unconscious self and the information it has gathered. I think that if we can’t figure out how conscious exists, just like you can’t figure out why EMF exists either, we should consider that that the conscious could be a fundamental of our universe. By looking at what the conscious is, you can define it. It’s a perspective, a perspective based on information. of course you can see that biological function seem to say that perspective is gained through our functions. I think that because of the way we evolved the unconscious has gained a sort of fake perspective. This perspective can seem really selfish, because selfish acts lead to survival. It’s not that our brain gives us perspective, it’s our perspective that gives the unconscious something like perspective.

2

Cool. Why?

I don’t understand what you mean here. I know what EMFs are, and I know what perspective is, but I don’t understand how EMFs have perspective. This leads to me losing the track fairly early on in the discussion.

3

Answering your first question, This has to do with believing in a ‘hard’ question, and an ‘easy’ question. The differences lies int he logic behind the two sides. One side says that the consciousness is an illusion created by the biological functions of our brain. There is nothing that exists which can be defined as the conscious. If you believe that the conscious exists, then you have to consider how it exists. The robot wouldn’t have a conscious, because by my definition, consciousness exists in an EMF. The robot can be seen as a ton of biological functions. In order to get the functionality of a human based on these functions you would need a lot more power than we have, even then it may still not have the same adaptability power that we have.

I understand that looking at perspective as a fundamental is hard to do. But if you think about what the conscious is, It is information that has perspective. the information is all physical, so once you remove that, all you have left is perspective. without the information there is no perspective. If you were somehow able to remove the EM field from the brain, (a feat that may very well be impossible.) It would lose all perspective. Since it does not have access to the information to gain a perspective. without this perspective, we would just have the information. we can not use that information without perspective. I don’t know if that helps you with the idea that perspective can be seen as fundamental. But please add any conjecture, even if I am ripped apart today, I will not hold it against anybody. Meaning, any faults you see, you can deliver with a forceful hammer, without mercy. I will not mind.

4

He came here to get feedback. I think if you don’t have anything productive to offer to the discussion, why offer anything at all? We don’t have a metaphysics or philosophy of mind section so where else should he put this post?

5

Well, ‘made up’ would actually be the correct term here. But your conscious has the ability to ‘make up,’ this is what this theory implies. I’ll try and explain it as formulaic as I possibly can.

First Statement: Consciousness exists.

Second Statement: information + perspective = consciousness

Third Statement: information exists

Fourth Statement: Perspective exists (awareness, value, meaning, and purpose, are examples of things relative to perspective)

Now if perspective exists, and if it exists fundamentally, then we should be able to apply that fundamental to human behavior. We can see that human behavior seems to be governed by this perception. How can it do that? We have to be able to prove how perception can exists, and find information to support it. This is the where the science would come in. From the very limited information I have gathered on the subject matter, It is easy to see that conscious thoughts and EM fields are somehow related. Now from my perspective you can see that if perception were to exist, it would have to exist fundamentally. So here we have a relationship between conscious which has a fundamental attribute of perspective and another fundamental property, EM fields.

Next I look at the double slit experiment, It shows that the perception of the experiment changed the outcome of it. The perception was based on the information retrieved from the experiment. Here you can see a relationship between my theory and the idea that perception is fundamental. now in order for information to change perspective, you would have to consider what would constitute information that perspective can see. understanding seems to be the key here. if the perspective understands the information, it can then change the perspective, thus changing it’s actions. So it would need control to understand. If you look at what we understand, we are a being separate from everything else. understanding this information changes the actions of the being dramatically. This understanding comes from the perception of control over it’s body. This is a natural occurrences that happened because of the way the brain evolved in conjecture with the EM field’s fundamental property of perspective. A relationship that has been growing since the evolution of the brain started, one of the most ancient biological parts in evolution history.

This is pretty much all I can do, I’m a normal person with absolutely no schooling in this field. That is because I don’t have a particular want to be a philosopher or scientist. But just like many people I needed to find an answer to this. This is the answer I came up with, All theories have holes and i’m sure this one is no exception, but theories exist so that people can tie the loose ends later. I just want people to consider my theory and give it judgment. This is the only way I can truly know if it’s possible or if there is something That i’m not seeing. My current perspective on the view can not find a loophole to this. Please enlighten me or admit it’s possible.

6

Not necessarily - it needn’t be a ‘thing’. Lots of things aren’t ‘things’, they’re processes, relations, states, potentialities, outcomes. There’s nothing that exists that can be defined as economic inflation, for example, it’s the outcome of a great many interactions. It can be quantified, but not physically observed.

I still don’t understand what you mean by ‘having perspective’. Do you mean it’s information that is made to relate to one particular point in space?

This seems easy to test. Do unconscious people have electromagnetic activity in their brains?.. yes.

That’s at least a good attitude to start with :slight_smile:

Are you saying we can’t separate any information from a perspectival viewpoint? I think I’d disagree. The thing about philosophy is, you have to be clear about your important terms. If you can define what you mean by perspective, it’s a lot easier to discuss.

7

I think I understand and get at what you are trying to convey, but it’s tough to comprehend because of the language you are using. If you could build your theory from smaller, simpler concepts and examples, and then build upon those ideas and lead us to the complex, I think we could make more sense of it.

Are you equating EM fields to information? I’m not quite grasping how the EM fields relate unless they are to be considered synonymous with information as you describe it as being an attribute of consciousness.

From my current “perspective”, I’m understanding you to be saying that we take information and change it through our perception. In this way we are controlling or willing the information we experience. Our initial perception and control comes from the experience of our body and it is through the body that we can perceive and essentially and control what else is known through it. We understand through our initial understanding of our body. Is this right?

8

Yeah i understand, I have really been thinking about how perspective can exist, and I This is what I came up with so far.

Perspective has to be able to understand. Understanding something changes the perspective and potentially a future action. Implying that perception can change the outcome of something would mean it has some sort of control. So in conclusion if perception exist, so does understanding and control. This actually gives rise to some pretty interesting formulas.

First Statement: perception exists

second statement: understanding + control = perception (I understand there may be other factors in perception which I am not seeing, but I think both understanding and control are necessary for perception to exist.)

third statement: understanding exists and control exists

fourth statement: if control is necessary for understanding then, perception of control of the self = self-awareness

fifth statement: if perception needs control to exists, then perception of control of the self = will

sixth statement: self-awareness = will

Trying to figure out how existing perception can understand is where I’m having trouble. It is definitely is limited by biological functions, different brains have different levels of understanding capability. understanding I believe to by physical somehow. It has to do with information, which does exist.

information doesn’t have to be true to exists. information doesn’t have to be true to be understood. deception is possible. These are some other things that need to exist in the conscious that we perceive. Because our conscious isn’t perfect. I’m still defining everything yes, but can anyone see where I am coming from yet?

That is correct! defining perception is really hard to do, but i’m trying my best.

if understanding stems from control. Then any conscious understanding represent some sort of control. Now false information must exist in order for consciousness to exist. we consciously perceive false information all the time, and it can lead to misconception, misunderstanding, decepetion. So if information is received from biological functions, then information biological functions give aren’t necessarily true. still if we make a connection between functions, (my definition of understanding) by having control of these connections, then we can see how misconception, deception, and misunderstanding exist.

9

Aright so i’m going to try and explain my theory again, this time using only logic. This is from the perspective that agrees that consciousness exists.

  1. consciousness exists
  2. consciousness = information + perspective
  3. information exists.
  4. perspective exists. (note: awareness, value, meaning, purpose are all relative to perspective)
  5. understanding can change perspective.
  6. perspective can change. (thus)
  7. perspective has two identifiable essentials, understanding and control.
  8. understanding exists (and)
  9. control exists
  10. control is essential to understanding. (if you can’t understand this refer to first paragraph after statement list)
  11. understanding is essential to perspective.
  12. control is essential to perspective.
  13. information that the conscious perceive’s is all due to biological functions.
  14. interaction between biological and perspective exists.
  15. not all information gathered by biological functions is true.
  16. information doesn’t need to be true to exist.
  17. not all understanding is true.
  18. consciousness can misunderstand.
  19. consciousness understanding is the control of physical connections of neurons which represent different functions of the brain.

So to explain the essential of control, let us start with, perception exists. In order for perception to change it needs to understand something that it didn’t before. in order to understand it would need to be able to change the perspective. changing the perspective requires that control exists. Because a change in perception would mean a potentially different outcome from the possible actions before this understanding. so to consciously understand is to control something fundamentally. So in this way, understand = fundamental control

It’s interesting that when this logic is applied you can get a formula like this:

self-awareness = understanding of the self

self-awareness = fundamental control of the self

self-awareness = will

With this theory, you can make an exact duplicate of the universe and both would play out exactly the same. The smallest thing you could do to change something within either universe, would be to give information to this perspective, and if that information was understood, then it could potentially change the outcome of the being that perceived this understanding.

I understand that what i’m saying is different than anything you have probably heard, but I just can’t pinpoint my mistake. Let me, at this point, reference information which agress with this theory. The doubleslit experiment not only shows that perception matters when determining the outcome of the universe but also that we have the ability to perceive. associations between consciousness and EM fields has been observied. If this theory is true than this is all fundemental. Which the doubleslit experiment also shows. So if EM fields are a fundemental property of our universe, then it seems likely that it could be there. Especially since this theory requires biological interactions with fundamental rules. How these things corelate I don’t know, I’m not a scientist, but I did manage to come up with this theory. So philosophical forum lovers, please tell me how I am wrong.

10

perspective is what the conscious has. The conscious has information and perspective. I’m saying that in order for these to exist at all, they have to exist fundamentally. This is all based on the idea that the conscious exists. You want proof about something that can’t have physical form. Yet, the only thing we do know about the conscious is what every single individual observes about themselves. All we can know at this point, is what we can observe. from what I can tell, (let me know if you know different) It has information and perspective. Also it exists more than anything else I know. So I wondered how this was possible, and came to this answer.

The whom you’re referring to is the conscious. The conscious is different then the self, it’s a part of it. So, will = conscious control
this information is all based on Priori’s.(I hope) You mentioned loose existence and strict existence, if the difference between the two is just proof, then your asking for the impossible. (when dealing with the conscious anyway.)

The question is not, “why not?” but, “how so?”

If all we are made out of is atoms, how does the conscious exist?
What physical attribute can you tie to the conscious to?
The answer: you can’t. scientifically we know almost nothing about the conscious. That is one of the reasons I came up with this theory.

I’m sad to hear you still couldn’t understand how perspective can be fundamental.(my own fault, no doubt) Perspective is the conscious, perspective needs information to exist. Perspective needs control to exists. So conscious is information with control. This control is limited biologically, depending on the interactions between the brain and this fundamental property.

EDIT: (interesting theory)I thought about it and the conscious = perspective BUT, in order for conscious to have any perspective, it would need some information. So information stored in the EM field can have perspective, because of the interactions with the brain. So, the information would have the perspective. So in order for information to gain perspective it needs to be able to control?

11

How is the information contained in memory replicated when passed on to the next generation? Probably through language, books and other various sources where knowledge is provided to be acquired. Memory is in the brain. How did the current brain capacity come into being? Gene-selected evolution?

If consciousness is dependent upon memory, what purpose does this consciousness have in the genetic evolution? Just because we are adding to this ‘sphere of memory’ doesn’t’ mean that it has a purpose in evolution. It can ascribe a purpose to its own separate evolution.

12

I’m still struggling to find any definition of perspective in what you’ve written. It’s ‘what consciousness has’, as far as I can see, which solves nothing but adds a circular definition to the problem.

The question is still ‘why not?’ The fact is, there is a very physical link with consciousness. There’s a wealth of information about anaesthesia, for instance, that doesn’t require information or perspective to work. There is a vast amount of MRI studies showing the physical locations in the brain associated with various aspects of consciousness. If I hit you with a stick, you lose consciousness. The assumption therefore seems that it is in some way physical, only we don’t know how…That you can’t see how an emergent process arises in a physical system does not mean it’s self-evident that it’s not physical.

A theory needs to be testable. Have you any ideas for test to support yours?

13

Lol hi.

Just an issue I noticed with the essentialness of control :slight_smile: You wrote:

“So to explain the essential of control, let us start with, perception exists. In order for perception to change it needs to understand something that it didn’t before. in order to understand it would need to be able to change the perspective. changing the perspective requires that control exists.”

I disagree with the part in bold. I can imagine a conscious mind having no control over the external world and not changing anything yet developing ideas due to naturally occurring changes it did not initiate. Just imagine a head with no control over facial muscles… Just sitting there… observing…

I think You have not made a successful case for why control is essential…

14

Well, i’m not just saying the conscious is just for show. It provides present and relative information to something with ability to react. Anything that ‘taps’ into this ability would have a much greater chance of survival. This allows the creature to pass on it’s genes which aquired this ‘tap’ in the first place. So, if the information sent to the consciousness wasn’t relevant to survival, then I agree, it would not have anything to do with the evolution of that creature.

Consciousness = Perspective

i’m sorry, ‘has’ was the wrong word, the appropriate word is, ‘is’.

perspective is useless without information, that is why it ends up turning into information + perspective = consciousness.

I did read up on studies on people with anesthesia symptoms. It shows that the unconscious learns differently then the conscious. It still learns, but not as quickly. for example, sometimes they were asked to solve a puzzle. They were able to see a time differences each time they solved it, so it did indeed learn something. Or when the unconscious recogized a pattern before the conscious did. It then gave the conscious that information and it was able to see the pattern too. I agree that the unconscious is advanced learns, effectiveness Is what i’m referring to. The unconscious learns through a process known as priming, which I believe to be less efficient then the unconscious.

I agree that a physical link with consciousness exists. But consciousness link to the non-physical also exists.(conscious observation of the conscious self is observing the non-physical connection.) There are problems with current theories on consciousness, yes. Mine, like I say, is probably is no exception. I just didn’t know the exception this time. The fact is we don’t know either way, so i’m picking a path from the information we do have. From the things that I believe. (consciousness exists)

As for knocking out someone with a stick…becoming unconscious doesn’t mean that the conscious is completely gone. There are big differences in the brain between a conscious being and an unconscious one. information can still enter the em field as dreams, or forceful intrusions by the unconscious self. (e.g. being woken up by a loud noise) The interaction between the conscious and the unconscious when the body is unconscious is just a lot different then when awake.

consciousness is perspective. Saying consciousness exists, is the same as saying perspective exists. All we can know about the conscious is what we can observe within ourselves and the physical relations they have to our body. I’m attacking this from one end of the spectrum, since the rest of the world seems to have the other side covered.

hey, :slight_smile:

Very interesting point. Perspective without control has no choice about what will happen next. I think if our perspective had that, it would be able to tell that it was just a spectator. Yet we appear to be in control. So if it actually doesn’t, I can only wonder how it feels like it has control. what specific information is the conscious perceiving that gives it a perception of control? (Darwin’s theory states that everything in our bodies is there for a reason) What would be the point to such a thing? How come I can watch a comedian on TV, but while watching it, I will not be aware of my eyesight. I will be thinking about something so deeply that I am no longer using my eyes, ears, or touch. if someone walks into the room, i’ll gain my eyesight at that time, my unconscious sends info to the conscious without my will. But it also comes at my will. (or perception of will) What are the differences between these two different observations of conscious behavior? (i can’t recall what my senses gathered while I was consciously thinking about something else. I can’t recall anything about what I missed because I wasn’t aware of my eysight, and I didn’t laugh at the comedians jokes like I would have if I was consciously watching it. Why does the conscious have awareness, and awareness seems to be a lot more effective then unconscious. These are just problems I see with the conscious not having control. I know I can’t say it’s essential, but I’m having trouble figuring out why, or how, it creates this illusion.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, but the average person believes that most of their actions are conscious. in fact most people believe the unconscious has very little to do with our actions. I know this is false, but I once let my unconscious get the better of me, because I didn’t think it mattered much either. Denying the unconscious gives it more control than accepting it is there. Once I realized how much control it had, and how much nonsense it made, I was able to reign it into control. I believe my conscious has control. And I see how my conscious perspective effects my entire body. The conscious slowly teaches my unconscious self, and slowly my unconscious changes to what my new conscious perspective is. The conscious controls your conscious actions, and eventually your unconscious ones. It just takes more time for the ladder of the two. (slower learning process)

yeah, for my theory to work you would need to see that fundemental information and biological information are one and the same, or find a function which transforms it. there is no information which corealates for the second option. But, we do know how information is stored in the brain. And actually, EM fields could potentially hold information using the same material…according to some theorist.

Thanks for the feedback guys, it was very helpful. I’d like to thank those who entertained my idea. Looks like the mistake I made was trying to come up with a theory for consciousness based on what I could observe from the consciousness perspective, about the consciousness as absolutely true.(The ‘truth’ that I observed about the conscious from observing it, is that it has a perspective of all the information it receives, this perspective is necessary for the conscious.) There are a lot of holes in this theory for sure, i’m glad you guys pointed out some of them. When I finished this theory I got really excited because of how much sense it made in correlation with a lot of information. Now I see that theories are better left to scientist which have studied all the information for a long time. I still believe perspective to be the key to understanding the conscious, I just have to step back a little bit, take a breather, and think some more. That is all I can do, I am not satisfied until I find a way for ‘will’ to be possible. Just possible, not even proof that it is true, just possible.

15

Hey theberto,

I didnt mean to argue that consciousness doesn’t have control. Just that its not an essential aspect of consciousness. The point was relevant because I believed you to be making the following argument, paraphrased: Consciousness cannot exist without control, or control is an essential element of consciousness. Control implies will, so consciousness implies will.

Instead, I would say control over its perceptual reality is a function of the consciousness. A rather big and important function. I would even argue in Darwinian terms, control is the very reason consciousness exists. It is a much more complex and adaptive behavior inducing mechanism than genetically hard wired behaviors. But as my example was meant to point out, the consciousness can operate in certain circumstances with no control. In this case, consciousness ceases to useful, for what is the point of understanding if you cant do anything with that understanding? But it is still consciousness operating in some capacity, minus enaction of will. Though I would imagine the will itself, as I understand it, would still be active. It would just be impotent.

Now I looked over your argument and saw that you might have meant control in the sense of: control over biological structures in the brain, such as neurons and transmitters. But again, I can imagine the will and control playing no role in the creation of ideas at the level of biological structures. When an idea suddenly pops into my head, without me trying to generate any idea, I would say my brain is changing its structure independently of my will. Maybe in response to external stimuli.

The way I see consciousness and will working is as follows. Consciousness is some kind of complex mechanism that has an input (external stimuli) It organizes that input to generate thoughts, ideas, beliefs. One of the organizational mechanisms are pain and pleasure. Some inputs are classified as painful while others pleasurable. This leads to the complex mental phenomena of desires, needs, wants. These are interpreted by the consciousness and an output is generated. This output is meant to induce behavior. So these desires, needs, wants and the output that follows is the realm of the will. The will is the interpreter of these mental phenomena and the producer of output that is meant to induce behavior. (this is way over simplified ofcourse, theres probably billions of different chemicals and reactions involved in the complex phenomena we call pain, pleasure, desire so on so forth)

So according to this perspective, humans have a will, and that will does have the capacity to influence and control its surroundings. But the will is a function of the brains organizational mechanisms and the brains inputs (external stimuli). Is this a perspective that doesn’t appeal to you?

16

Ah, sorry I misunderstood. Yeah I see what you are saying, I mean, I didn’t expect absolute will to exist. I know there are things that happen in my body that are not in my control. But the function of the will which you mentioned, are biological functions which simulate will. So my mind is like the representations of those mechanisms, and how these mechanisms are used is decided by my mind. If this is how it works, then that is good enough for me. So at least this way I know I’m in control of at least those functions. Now, don’t tell me that what I see as the mind is just the information afterwards, hehe.

17

So perspective is consciousness minus information? I’m still no wiser, sorry.

Consciousness is the ‘unknown’ that you’re trying to describe with your theory, I presume. Putting another unknown (perspective) into the equation, defined in terms of consciousness, is not helpful.

For example, I am holding a shweeb. A shweeb is a ball with a florp on top.
A florp is the top bit of a shweeb.
Are you any wiser? :stuck_out_tongue:

…?

18

If you think about what the conscious observably is, it is nothing but information. Now, information alone can not create the mind. Something is seeing all this information. This ‘seeing’ I have labeled the perspective. It has the ability to experience, and control. The EM field holds information, Each piece of information would be experienced by this perspective that the EM field has. And adding more information would add it to the same perspective. And depending on what this perspective can control, decides what it can think and formulate and do. The unconscious has also evolved to force information into the consciousness for a multitude of reasons, that the conscious doesn’t have control over, like ideas, emotions, senses. The control of this perspective would be on the quantum level I believe. But since perspective would have a will and control, it has to make decisions. Decisions would imply intent. So I think that was missing in my theory too. the control would be based on decision. I had just thought to control, I was still not thinking far back enough! Just wanted to let you know, that I had already abandoned this theory a few posts ago. I hope that at the very least this paragraph helped you understand what my theory ‘WAS.’

Sorry, didn’t know that about theories, I would have to give it more thought to figure out a way to test it.

19

Ah, OK, now we’re getting somewhere. Thank you :slight_smile:

I don’t think the conscious is information, I think according to this approach it is more like ‘experience’. Information is what we extract to characterise a database or a genome, it’s a way of classifying and ordering things for processing and communication. But perhaps ‘experience’ would serve as well in your description.

So why don’t people go insane or die when they go into an MRI scanner? EM fields can be easily externally manipulated by electromagnetic events, which doesn’t seem to happen to our minds. Applying focussed EM interventions to stimulate neuron activity in certain parts of the brain does create sensation, though.

Well, only theories that claim to model or say something about reality. It’s conjecture about something we have a way to investigate, so why not investigate whether you’re right or not?

20

“So at least this way I know I’m in control of at least those functions. Now, don’t tell me that what I see as the mind is just the information afterwards, hehe.”

Haha. Yes we certainly feel like we have control and choice. For someone to say that the feeling of our will’s role in behavior is an illusion or just a feeling that occurs after… would be, as far as I can tell, unreasonable. For now it seems perfectly reasonable to believe in this type of choice. But let me remind you that this is still deterministic choice. How our will operates is still a function of our brain’s physical operation, and so our will and our choices are just another link in a causal chain.