Consciousness & Space-Time

[FallentoReason]

I'd like to begin by making a few observations about space and time that give us, what I think to be, pretty fascinating conclusions:

Firstly, the things that we see around us are in fact things that happened in the past. This is because the photons (light particles) that entered your eye and gave you the image of what you see had to travel from the object to your eyes, meaning that time passed (however small it was -- doesn't matter) as the photons were on their journey. This means that the world we percieve around us isn't "the present", because when "the present" occurred, it was impossible for you to visually experience it as the photons hadn't begun their journey yet.

Secondly, if we keep the above in mind, we can then come to the conclusion that "the present" doesn't actually exist, physically speaking. If we imagine a cube of length x floating in front of us, we could say we define the space within it as "the present", but if we place ourselves at the very centre of it and look out towards the walls of this cube, we can conclude (from the above) that the walls of the cube aren't in "the present". For our cube to truly represent "the present", we must then make it smaller so that we are excluding anything that is in fact in the past from our perspective in the centre. The logical conclusion here will be that our cube will in fact shrink to the point that x -> 0 which means that we end up with a singularity -- a point in space which doesn't occupy any volume, therefore "the present" doesn't occur anywhere in space i.e. it doesn't occur at all.

Now, from here, this is where we bring in ideas about consciousness. If we think of our consciousness as being the same thing as the brain, then because the brain has a volume, it implies that we are in fact in the past from ourselves at any given time. The sorts of questions I personally have about this conclusion are: is this even possible?! Can I exist in the past from myself relative to a certain point in my brain from the other part of my brain? If the answer to these questions is "no" and therefore our consciousness can only be in one place at any given time, then I propose that the consciousness must therefore be like our notion of "the present" i.e. the volume where our consciousness is located -> 0 i.e. it exists at a singularity i.e. it isn't located anywhere in physical space. I know I exist though, which means I must have consciousness, so therefore it must be an independent entity from the brain.

Is it reasonable to assume that the brain is the consciousness' "vessel" that it utilises to exist in this universe/space-time/reality? Is it then also reasonable to assume that our consciousness doesn't end when our tool for peeking into this universe/space-time/reality stops functioning?

[Mystic]

Nice thoughts.

[FallentoReason]

Nice thoughts.

Thank you sir glad to have you back with us!

[Mystic]

Thank you. Feels good to be back.

[Angrboda]

Now, from here, this is where we bring in ideas about consciousness. If we think of our consciousness as being the same thing as the brain, then because the brain has a volume, it implies that we are in fact in the past from ourselves at any given time. The sorts of questions I personally have about this conclusion are: is this even possible?! Can I exist in the past from myself relative to a certain point in my brain from the other part of my brain? If the answer to these questions is "no" and therefore our consciousness can only be in one place at any given time, then I propose that the consciousness must therefore be like our notion of "the present" i.e. the volume where our consciousness is located -> 0 i.e. it exists at a singularity i.e. it isn't located anywhere in physical space. I know I exist though, which means I must have consciousness, so therefore it must be an independent entity from the brain.

You've done a wonderful job of confusing me, particularly with the trailing part.


This recalls a conversation I had with ChadWooters recently. My question to you would be, why not simply turn this around and suggest that, a) because we have evidence that the brain causes consciousness, and b) consciousness appears to itself as a zero dimensional point, then c) consciousness is mistaken about its own nature. I asked ChadWooters if he thought that there was anything about consciousness itself about which consciousness itself could not be wrong. I pointed out that the evidence for this infallible dimension of consciousness could not come from consciousness' own opinion of itself, but he ignored that objection and suggested that consciousness could not be mistake about, say, the brute fact that it is "experiencing" pain. For my part, I think the bulk of difficulties in unraveling the nature of consciousness stem from a category error; specifically placing it in the wrong ontological category. Consciousness, on my view, is not a "thing" or existent such that its properties have to correspond to some objective property or properties somewhere. Since it's not a thing, but more a "mere idea" that the brain has, the brain can assign it whatever properties it feels like, as all properties it has are simply the consequence of the brain's imagining. The brain, essentially, lies to itself about "what it is."

In practice, the properties tend to be tightly constrained by evolution, as, on this view, consciousness is just a cognitive model for organizing and developing behaviors in relation to the body; the "self" or consciousness is just a model of an imaginary pilot at the helm of the body, used to create a coherent and adaptive set of behaviors for the body. This is why you have out of body experiences, dissociation, the Alice effect, NDEs, changes in the perception of time and so forth; these are all simple effects of a "parameter" of the model which is normally held stable in a certain range (where the self is, size of the body, etc.) for one reason or another taking on an unusual value outside its normal range (my 'self' is six feet above my head, for example).

[Whateverist]

... we can then come to the conclusion that "the present" doesn't actually exist, physically speaking. If we imagine a cube of length x floating in front of us, we could say we define the space within it as "the present", but if we place ourselves at the very centre of it and look out towards the walls of this cube, we can conclude (from the above) that the walls of the cube aren't in "the present". For our cube to truly represent "the present", we must then make it smaller so that we are excluding anything that is in fact in the past from our perspective in the centre. The logical conclusion here will be that our cube will in fact shrink to the point that x -> 0 which means that we end up with a singularity -- a point in space which doesn't occupy any volume, therefore "the present" doesn't occur anywhere in space i.e. it doesn't occur at all.

Now, from here, this is where we bring in ideas about consciousness. If we think of our consciousness as being the same thing as the brain, then because the brain has a volume, it implies that we are in fact in the past from ourselves at any given time. The sorts of questions I personally have about this conclusion are: is this even possible?! Can I exist in the past from myself relative to a certain point in my brain from the other part of my brain? If the answer to these questions is "no" and therefore our consciousness can only be in one place at any given time, then I propose that the consciousness must therefore be like our notion of "the present" i.e. the volume where our consciousness is located -> 0 i.e. it exists at a singularity i.e. it isn't located anywhere in physical space. I know I exist though, which means I must have consciousness, so therefore it must be an independent entity from the brain.

Is it reasonable to assume that the brain is the consciousness' "vessel" that it utilises to exist in this universe/space-time/reality? Is it then also reasonable to assume that our consciousness doesn't end when our tool for peeking into this universe/space-time/reality stops functioning?

I don't have a problem with there being a delay between changes in my environment and my awareness of them. Understanding what we do about organisms generally it would seem odd for awareness to be instantaneous. What I mean is, that what you describe more or less conforms to my experience and expectations.

I don't see any rationale for thinking that consciousness is anything apart from the body that produces it. I seriously doubt that consciousness has any alternative to being embodied. So I don't see how the consciousness which has arisen as a function of my body can possibly continue on anywhere else.

Did I miss something?

[Angrboda]

Did I miss something?

Lincoln is assassinated in the third act.

[FallentoReason]

---

... we can then come to the conclusion that "the present" doesn't actually exist, physically speaking. If we imagine a cube of length x floating in front of us, we could say we define the space within it as "the present", but if we place ourselves at the very centre of it and look out towards the walls of this cube, we can conclude (from the above) that the walls of the cube aren't in "the present". For our cube to truly represent "the present", we must then make it smaller so that we are excluding anything that is in fact in the past from our perspective in the centre. The logical conclusion here will be that our cube will in fact shrink to the point that x -> 0 which means that we end up with a singularity -- a point in space which doesn't occupy any volume, therefore "the present" doesn't occur anywhere in space i.e. it doesn't occur at all.

Now, from here, this is where we bring in ideas about consciousness. If we think of our consciousness as being the same thing as the brain, then because the brain has a volume, it implies that we are in fact in the past from ourselves at any given time. The sorts of questions I personally have about this conclusion are: is this even possible?! Can I exist in the past from myself relative to a certain point in my brain from the other part of my brain? If the answer to these questions is "no" and therefore our consciousness can only be in one place at any given time, then I propose that the consciousness must therefore be like our notion of "the present" i.e. the volume where our consciousness is located -> 0 i.e. it exists at a singularity i.e. it isn't located anywhere in physical space. I know I exist though, which means I must have consciousness, so therefore it must be an independent entity from the brain.

Is it reasonable to assume that the brain is the consciousness' "vessel" that it utilises to exist in this universe/space-time/reality? Is it then also reasonable to assume that our consciousness doesn't end when our tool for peeking into this universe/space-time/reality stops functioning?

---

I don't have a problem with there being a delay between changes in my environment and my awareness of them. Understanding what we do about organisms generally it would seem odd for awareness to be instantaneous. What I mean is, that what you describe more or less conforms to my experience and expectations.

Is it possible for your conscience to be in two places at once and separated in the time dimension?

I don't see any rationale for thinking that consciousness is anything apart from the body that produces it. I seriously doubt that consciousness has any alternative to being embodied. So I don't see how the consciousness which has arisen as a function of my body can possibly continue on anywhere else.

If you answered "no" to my question above, then where does the conscience reside if it can't exist in a place that occupies a volume?

Did I miss something?

Not sure. We'll find out...

---

@apophenia

Thanks for your response. What's the evidence that shows the brain causes consciousness? It might seem like a pretty dumb question, but I've never really been interested in the philosophy of the mind until now, so I'm most likely lacking a lot of understanding in this area...

I have to disagree with your conclusion given premise "a" and "b". It depends on the nature of the evidence, which I'm hoping you could kindly provide for me.

[Angrboda]

I don't have a problem with there being a delay between changes in my environment and my awareness of them. Understanding what we do about organisms generally it would seem odd for awareness to be instantaneous. What I mean is, that what you describe more or less conforms to my experience and expectations.

Is it possible for your conscience to be in two places at once and separated in the time dimension?

(bolding added)

Why don't you start with the preliminary of demonstrating that consciousness is something to which the verb "to be" even applies. Consciousness neither is nor isn't in two places because it has no such "being" that it requires "a place" to be (aside from in the cognitions of the machine).

[FallentoReason]

Is it possible for your conscience to be in two places at once and separated in the time dimension?

(bolding added)

Why don't you start with the preliminary of demonstrating that consciousness is something to which the verb "to be" even applies. Consciousness neither is nor isn't in two places because it has no such "being" that it requires "a place" to be (aside from in the cognitions of the machine).

Maybe there'sa subtlety that went right over my head here... but aren't you answering your own speculation by what you said in brackets? You believe that our conscience/awareness arises from the material brain. Correct? If so, then where is the place within it where everything comes together to produce the awareness I experience? It comes from material things, so naturally I'd be able to spot the materials that are the conscience, no? If so, then it is true to say that the "I" can simultaneously be in two places at once, since "I" occupy a volume in space?