Spirit - Soul - Binding problem of consciousness

[Davidz777]

One of the continuing great mysteries of science is the binding problem of animal consciousness including that of humans. And one of the great mysteries of our Christian religion is, "What is soul or spirit?", because then we are not only talking about both the nature of God and his race of angels but also what we humans apparently can be changed into after our fleshly organic death. Although science has created incredibly complex electronic devices to control electromagnetic phenomenon and are rapidly developing artificial intelligence, we still do not clearly understand how animal nervous systems (including we humans) actually are aware in their bodies.

Likewise the religious mystery over spirit is so profound that it is obviously a primary reason why many people do not believe in God as there has never been an explanation for how we humans might be saved into the afterlife. Even today many atheists scoff at any notion a dead organic animal, much less a complex human can be brought back into sentient existence as though it is and will always be impossible. What I present below is very speculative, however it should illuminate at least some hope in those that cannot see any logical and science based way spirit, soul, afterlife might be possible.

There are a few theories that addresses the binding problem that I've personally embraced over decades that suggest what we are is actually the field of electromagnetic waves within our nervous systems. One called the Conscious Electromagnetic (cemi) Field Theory is summarized at this link:

EM Field Theories of Consciousness | Johnjoe Mcfadden

What this suggests is what we actually are as intelligent entities is not the fleshly organic body we are within but rather the complex EM field within the nervous system containers of axons, dendrites, synapses and all.

If one looks at a still pan of water and then momentarily raises one end up a half inch, a wave of water will propagate to the other end, rise up on the opposite pan side, then return in like matter to the near end that was raised up. And will continue to do so sloshing waves back and forth as resistances to the water against the pan sides and within water itself cause each consequent wave to be smaller until the wave deadens out leaving calm. If on the other hand at either end a very small up and down raise occurs coincident with the arrival of each wave, then if of sufficient strength, may result in the wave never dying out while continuing to bounce water back and forth. The key here is an oscillator has been created that maintains waves within a container it exists within.

One might use this analogy for what is going on within our nervous systems that is however vastly more complex with feedback loops, oscillations, and interconnects. All animal life that contains a chordate neural tube has such wave phenomenon that is very much different than in the plant kingdom of species. Thus even creatures like an ant have these waves that allow their tiny brains to simultaneously have awareness to much of their brains. So when an ant sees you trying to grab them while crawling on the ground, the ant's eyes see, and then their brain controls their legs muscles to quickly escape away. In that sense all chordate animals may have awareness via a field of electromagnetic waves within their nervous systems. There is a key difference between organic brains with nervous systems and our modern electronic devices. Our silicon devices are all compartmentalized into myriad totally isolated sections that pass EM signals through barriers often called gates. Organic chordate brains pass EM fields through synaptic gaps that do not fully isolate signals into compartments and are further sustained by synchronized feedback thus creating a simultaneous awareness of all parts that can focus in different areas. Importantly it is not only the physical structures in such a nervous system that affect EM waves and signals but also the EM phenomenon itself may directly affect waves and signals independently of physical structure.

So what does this have to do with spirit and soul? Well there may come a day when scientist can exactly duplicate the nervous system of an ant by creating an non-organic container that results in an identical pattern of waves and signals as was within the ant. When that happens the non-organic ant with EM waves propagating about would not be able to tell whether it had an ant's organic body or was something else. And this is what I propose God and his angels have done but at a vastly more complex level.

Exodus 25:17>22 indicates an intelligent cloud nature of God. Likewise in the Samaritan Woman story at JHN 3:5>14, Jesus talks about a special water:

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God...Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again;
but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”

The water molecule with its tiny bipolar chemical properties is unique among all molecules. What we experience as space/time/energy/matter is incredibly empty space. Every moment trillions of solar neutrinos pass through every square centimeter of our bodies and then continue on through our whole planet Earth without ever running into anything. That shows how incredibly small things are down at the quantum Planck level. Ultimate intelligent entities may use other forms of matter with orders of magnitude smaller size to create micro machines that fit within these emptinesses and act to control water molecules in structured ways. Even today scientist grapple with answers to dark matter and dark energy as though they may be invisible to our normal matter in most ways except gravity. Each molecule of water with a controlling machine that communicates at some non electromagnetic energy level might exist as a cloud of special "water". And if so there may also be created structures that represent the structure of the human nervous system, that God might then be able to transfer what was within an individual human EM field into a container that can then exist for eternity in. It would be the greatest possible gift to give to an otherwise fleshly mortal organic intelligent being.

 

[devin553344]

i Don't read things that long. Can you summarize?

 

[Ophiolite]

i Don't read things that long. Can you summarize?

I agree with you that lengthy posts benefit from a synopsis, summary,abstract - call it what you will. I tend to avoid such posts unless the writer catches my interest with such a summary. If the summary tells me this is not a topic that interests me I still make mental note that the author is both thoughtful and professional, and has saved me some time.

 

[Davidz777]

Spirit may be an EM/quantum field phenomenon within a non-organic container God creates.

 

[Ophiolite]

Spirit may be an EM/quantum field phenomenon within a non-organic container God creates.

Perfect - clear, concise and (I trust) comprehensive. (Not agreeing with your hypothesis, just thanking you for the summary that will encourage me to carefully read the post. )

 

[Michael]

Spirit may be an EM/quantum field phenomenon within a non-organic container God creates.

Why would it necessarily have to be a "non-organic" container? The universe itself is full of EM/quantum fields.

 

[Davidz777]

Organic life can decay thus is mortal. If God created a container for organic life EM fields that defeats death, he would do so in a more permanent material/device not so subject to decay and destruction. That God may be capable of putting such into organic containers may have indeed been the special situation into the infant Jesus.

 

[Michael]

Organic life can decay thus is mortal. If God created a container for organic life EM fields that defeats death, he would do so in a more permanent material/device not so subject to decay and destruction. That God may be capable of putting such into organic containers may have indeed been the special situation into the infant Jesus.

Ok, I think I understand where you're coming from now.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Organic chordate brains pass EM fields through synaptic gaps that do not fully isolate signals into compartments

This is misleading at best. Synapses use chemical transmission, not electromagnetic. Neuronal transmissions travel to the synapse via ion-channel depolarisation cascades, leading to the release of packets of neurotransmitter chemicals at the synapse that diffuse across the synaptic cleft and trigger a further cascade in the receptor pad.

Ultimate intelligent entities may use other forms of matter with orders of magnitude smaller size to create micro machines that fit within these emptinesses and act to control water molecules in structured ways.

This would not be feasible, as, even if unspecified 'other forms of matter' could be made into 'machines' with sufficient free energy to control enough individual water molecules to have significant effect in the bulk, the mass of those 'machines' alone would significantly change the physical properties of the water. It's a fun science-fiction idea but it won't fly.

Each molecule of water with a controlling machine that communicates at some non electromagnetic energy level might exist as a cloud of special "water".

This is just sciency-sounding word-salad.

I'm not particularly impressed by EM Field Theories of Consciousness, either. I see the following issues:

1. Magnetic fields are known to affect consciousness and specific brain functions, but even allowing for transcranial penetration, they need to be many orders of magnitude larger than endocephalic EM fields.

2. Artificial electrodes introduced to the brain do not appear to trigger cascades of activity beyond their direct (intended) influence, which would be expected if, as McFadden suggests, the EM fields work by affecting neurons 'teetering on the brink' of firing.

2a. Neurons are typically threshold devices, that trigger on accumulated inputs beyond a threshold, so are generally not hypersensitive to stray EM fields. A single input pulse to take them over the threshold is much greater than the influence of the EM fields generated around it. Also, ion-channel depolarization is an electro-chemical process, resilient to natural-level EM fields.

2b. Some neurons fire continuously (tonic), modulated by inputs and local neurotransmitters, some fire in bursts (phasic), and some fire very fast (fast spiking). Neurons are also thought to be able to encode both digital and analogue information - it's hard to see how global EM field activity can modulate these various types appropriately. Also, some neurons use temporal codings, requiring precise timing of individual spikes - if global EM field activity could affect depolarization, it would potentially disrupt these neurons.

3. If CEMI was true, we might expect evolution to have optimised the EM generating capability of neurons to facilitate it, i.e. we might expect that the greater the depth & complexity of consciousness, the more effective the EM field activity in modulating neuron activity. This doesn't seem to be the case; neurons are similar across the living world, producing just the same low EM levels associated with basic membrane depolarization, and no great variation in sensitivity to EM fields.

4. There's growing evidence to suggest that the binding problem is not as serious as had been thought; for example, the brain is known to time-delay sensory inputs and processing in various areas so that they are perceived as appropriately synchronized. It's not a great stretch to see this applied beyond sensory processing, and the waves of synchronised firing that accompany conscious focus of attention are thought to be part of the binding mechanism.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If God created a container for organic life EM fields that defeats death, he would do so in a more permanent material/device not so subject to decay and destruction.

That's a very big 'if'. As my mother used to say, "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride".

 

[Davidz777]

Not misleading but rather an incomplete statement for the sake of brevity avoiding a technical discussion. In fact I don't describe what goes on at the neuronal level at all in order to not drag the discussion into technical areas it doesn't need to go. Those interested can go to the provided link or other links for these theories. I don't describe the chemical synaptic process because when enabled in transmission some of the field does then in fact cross the gap and effect the next neurons as that is an absolute certain requirement to eliminate the binding problem per the CEMI theory.

I also disagree with your small human-centric assessment of what an ancient race of ultimate intelligent entities might be able to discover below our current understanding of matter including structures smaller than any we've yet encountered or those produced that change basic physical parameters if such is possible. Indeed from our perspective scifi but definitely not something to readily reject like time travel. When considering what an ultimate intelligent race might be capable of, one is going to need to think creatively on what might be ultimately possible while considering what will always be impossible.

Your comments on magnetic fields are missing his points. If what you state were the certain case, those theories would have not been credible over decades of peer reviews. Instead they are still very much open to discussion. I welcome your input but won't comment further at all on your technical debate as it is off topic.

My main intent of the post is that the concept of spirit and soul and that relation to organic mortal death, is not so inconceivable as seen through the lens of future science as to be only of the realm of an omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, entity performing a simulation like reality.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I welcome your input but won't comment further at all on your technical debate as it is off topic.

This is the Physical & Life Sciences forum; technical discussion is always on topic.

Of course, it's always entertaining to hear interesting science-fiction ideas.

 

[Michael]

Spirit may be an EM/quantum field phenomenon within a non-organic container God creates.

FYI, I don't know if you've checked out Orch-OR theory, but it's essentially along the same lines as what you're describing. Hammeroff even believes that consciousness might exist outside of the body. I know FB isn't impressed with his model, but it's got some observational support now.

Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I know FB isn't impressed with his model, but it's got some observational support now.

Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness

Unfortunately, my criticisms are technical

But if you know any cell biology, I suggest checking out the research paper on which that article was based - it's a hoot.

 

[Resha Caner]

Debunking of the OP aside, I'll ask: Is there anything unique about human consciousness (whatever that may be) that deserves scientific inquiry? If so, the second question would be: Do you think this phenomena has been adequately defined, such that it can be studied? A third question would be: Do you think such things might face some sort of Godelian dilemma?

 

[Davidz777]

Are you wondering human versus other animal species? Per my speculative input above, outside complexity I would lean towards all chordate animals at least having the similar simultaneous awareness phenomenon. In other words the same EM wave phenomenon is present even in nearly invisible tiny worms though the term "conscious" is sometimes used to include brain activity that is distinctly human. However consider the intelligence of higher mammals like dogs that have similar overall brain structures and obvious awareness and mental processes. What separate us from them are advanced frontal cortex functions that may be matters of degree higher or with speech at a uniquely higher level.

I will speculate that if a far advanced race of aliens did visit our planet recently as higher primates arose, they may have engineered and bred some of those capabilities into our ancestral lineage although I also see no reason it may not have arisen by known natural evolutionary processes. It may be there is a structural reason why lower Earth mammals may never be able to rise above the level of say great apes unless helped by higher intelligent entities. It is off topic though I will expand here what would better fit in its own thread.

When one reads Christian dogma that God created man, it may be all he and his angels did was create DNA, spread such to myriad water planets around stars via directed panspermia, and then waited billions of years for time to evolve compatible worlds with intelligent creatures. Then they may have engineered creatures from that level to that of speech and language that vastly increases capability and for the first time allows speech communication to creatures one can readily argue would be a goal.

Consider Adam's lineage until Noah's era. For a long time they had very long lifetimes, some over 900 years. Consider these sections of Genesis that I've long thought have been misinterpreted pointing to Nephilim as bad angels, nothing of which further supports such in the Bible:

Gen 6:1 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,
Gen 6:2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
Gen 6:3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those (as in Nephillim) were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

First one needs to doubt that angel spirit entities can mate with organic humans. Instead that section may be referring to Nephilim as Adam's descendants as though 6:2 and 6:4 are just repeats that as the Bible tends to do throughout. Gen 6:4 certainly can be interpreted as Nephilum being men thus not angels. It also relates there was a difference between "sons of God" and the "daughters of men". How could that be? Where did "men" suddenly come from since to that point all we know of is Adam's progeny? Well actually Gen 4:16 tends to relate there were already other humans though Christian scholars have since earliest days been so determined to interpret Adam and Eve as the very first human beings that they refuse to consider else. Well consider now in this technological era with known geological and evolutionary history, how it looks like they were very wrong. Gen 6:3 further shows how the possible special breeding in Adam's lineage would eventually through genetic dominant gene dilution disappear.

So what's with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? Well God didn't like behaviors of ordinary humans nor their short fleshly lives of those he came to love. Thus improved what nature may not have been able to do on its own. The Tree of Life may represent a source of special nutrients that may have had the potential of sustaining the organic Adam and Eve to lifetimes far longer than 900 years. In our own human future given advances in DNA engineering, it is likely we may produce many medicines and nutrients, not within chemical test tubes etc but instead by engineered plants that produce such directly. The original intent of having Adam in God's Garden of Eden may truly have been to tend it versus say angels that may have been a limited resource...well if even they could be trusted.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is there anything unique about human consciousness (whatever that may be) that deserves scientific inquiry?

Human consciousness is unique in that only humans have it, but I can't think of any characteristic that doesn't appear in other creatures in some form and to some extent.

The use of abstraction and symbolic representation to make language allows humans an explicit internal dialogue (as in Kahnemann's 'System 2' thinking), which would, presumably, be extremely rudimentary in pre-linguistic minds. But the characteristic of conscious experience is subjectivity; it is what it is like to be some particular creature, so only that particular creature has direct access. Consequently, we can only infer consciousness from behaviour.

I'd say the most interesting aspect of consciousness to study is precisely how brains have subjective experience.

If so, the second question would be: Do you think this phenomena has been adequately defined, such that it can be studied?

It's not a well-defined term in itself, but researchers define particular aspects of consciousness that they want to study.

A third question would be: Do you think such things might face some sort of Godelian dilemma?

I don't think so; as I understand it, the Godelian argument involves formal axiomatic systems, or, at least, well-defined consistent algorithmic systems, and I don't think the brain works like that at the level of thought - although it can emulate such systems to a limited extent, and can probably be emulated with a computational substrate configured like a neural network.

So the GA seems to me to be a category error. But my understanding may well be incorrect - I haven't looked at it in any depth.

 

[Resha Caner]

Consequently, we can only infer consciousness from behaviour.

I agree, and I always appreciate your openness on such points. It's too bad then, that we always seem to end in starkly different places.

Human consciousness is unique in that only humans have it, but I can't think of any characteristic that doesn't appear in other creatures in some form and to some extent.

Based on what I quoted above, I think it improper to conclude other animals share our expressions of consciousness. Those observed behaviors could just as easily be explained by mechanistic mimicry, as you indicate when mentioning the way GAs mimic some human behaviors. Personally, I think humans are unique in possessing consciousness, but I can't prove it, so it remains an opinion.

For that matter, I suppose I can't expect anyone other than myself has consciousness. Maybe you're all just mechanical mimics. Or maybe the Matrix, blah, blah, blah. Hopefully we can leave that aside.

I'd say the most interesting aspect of consciousness to study is precisely how brains have subjective experience ... I don't think so; as I understand it, the Godelian argument involves formal axiomatic systems, or, at least, well-defined consistent algorithmic systems, and I don't think the brain works like that at the level of thought -

Interesting. You are correct the Godelian argument only applies to axiomatic systems. That you think our brains are not organized that way is interesting. Most material I've read on human thought defines us as pattern seekers. We, by our very nature, seek to systematize. That we ourselves are not organized that way makes the claim a very interesting paradox.

But I assume you think us (and our brains) only material. Nothing spiritual. The chemistry of the brain can be systematized can it not? Or at least it seems most scientists working in the area believe it can.

So how do you think the brain works such that it is not systematic?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Based on what I quoted above, I think it improper to conclude other animals share our expressions of consciousness. Those observed behaviors could just as easily be explained by mechanistic mimicry, as you indicate when mentioning the way GAs mimic some human behaviors. Personally, I think humans are unique in possessing consciousness, but I can't prove it, so it remains an opinion.

For that matter, I suppose I can't expect anyone other than myself has consciousness. Maybe you're all just mechanical mimics. Or maybe the Matrix, blah, blah, blah. Hopefully we can leave that aside.

Exactly. Just as we assume that other humans have consciousness similar to ours because they are like us, behave in recognisably similar ways, and can communicate with us, so it seems to me that other mammals that have the same overall brain architecture and structures, behave in ways we broadly associate with consciousness in humans, and can communicate with us to some extent, are likely to have their own forms of consciousness, that are different and vary in complexity and richness according to their relatedness to us.

Of course, we define the quality, richness, and complexity of consciousness by the cognitive characteristics we specialize in, so the more different to us, the less like ours the consciousness is likely to be; we have no idea what the consciousness of, say, a sperm whale might be like, other than very different.

Most material I've read on human thought defines us as pattern seekers. We, by our very nature, seek to systematize. That we ourselves are not organized that way makes the claim a very interesting paradox.

I don't think it's paradoxical - our pattern matching is, for the most part, approximate, fuzzy - that's what gives it its powers of abstraction and categorisation. We can do precision pattern matching in certain contexts (e.g. face recognition), but it's generally in trained contexts (e.g. it's harder to recognise faces of different ethnicities). This is just what you'd expect from neural networks that learn to discriminate rather than having explicit algorithms to do so.

But I assume you think us (and our brains) only material. Nothing spiritual. The chemistry of the brain can be systematized can it not? Or at least it seems most scientists working in the area believe it can.

So how do you think the brain works such that it is not systematic?

I don't see any evidence of, need for, or possible mechanism for, the 'spiritual', if you mean some additional unseen functional component. If not, what do you mean?

Brains are systems in many ways and on many levels, but systematic doesn't mean algorithmic.

 

[Resha Caner]

Exactly. Just as we assume that other humans have consciousness similar to ours because they are like us, behave in recognisably similar ways, and can communicate with us, so it seems to me that other mammals that have the same overall brain architecture and structures, behave in ways we broadly associate with consciousness in humans, and can communicate with us to some extent, are likely to have their own forms of consciousness, that are different and vary in complexity and richness according to their relatedness to us.

Fair enough. We could each argue our personal preference further, but I don't think that will be productive with respect to my interest here. I'm not completely opposed to the idea that other animals have some sense of self-awareness, nor am I opposed to the idea that some animals may have superior faculties in specific areas. But I do think human consciousness is unique and offers a unique advantage. It's the unique facet I am asking about, though if you don't think humans unique, that will make the conversation difficult.

I don't see any evidence of, need for, or possible mechanism for, the 'spiritual', if you mean some additional unseen functional component. If not, what do you mean?

Aye, there's the rub. Have we not had this conversation before? Maybe not. I'm not doing this because I have some agenda I want to force on you. I'm more curious about your thoughts on the topic. But if you're curious about mine, I suppose we can try to have 2 parallel conversations.

First off, I don't see spirit as "unseen" or "additional" in the sense of some ethereal thing that affects us but we can't interact with it. I don't think our brain is one material thing and our spirit is another immaterial thing with each acting independently of the other. I see them as parts of an integrated whole. I do expect, though, you wouldn't approve of my thoughts on the matter. I'm not interested in someone telling me why I'm wrong, so I'm OK with leaving it alone. If you are curious about my thoughts on the matter, I guess I'd like to know what you hope to gain.

Brains are systems in many ways and on many levels, but systematic doesn't mean algorithmic.

Fine. Use whatever terms you like to distinguish your view. It only means I'll kick the can (i.e. the question) down the road. I'll add that if it's not algorithmic (not quantitative?), I think it is very difficult to say one has a predictive system. I make the same criticism of all the soft sciences, which to me seem more like the wisdom of experience than a science. I know the soft sciences try to overcome that with statistics, and it works to some extent, but the measured elements of those statistical studies often remain so qualitative as to make the resulting statistical model very questionable.

In the end, though maybe I can't put my finger on it yet, it just feels like a hopeless enterprise for a being to explain itself in full. It seems only something larger than that being could explain it.