| Home Blogs | Copyright 2016, Randy Strauss |
There are strings. (String theory)
Quarks don’t really exist, they’re patterns of strings. (Quantum theory)
Particles don’t really exist, they’re patterns of quarks, patterns of patterns of strings. (Particle physics)
Atoms don’t really exist, they’re patterns^3 of strings (Atomic theory)
Molecules don’t really exist, they’re patterns^4 of strings. (Chemistry)
We say there are DNA and RNA, but these are mostly repeating patterns of amino acids, patterns^5 of strings. (Biochemistry)
Cells are something because we name them, but they’re really patterns of various molecules and DNA and RNA. (Cellular biology)
Organs don’t really exist, they’re patterns of cells, patterns^6 of strings. (Medicine, anatomy)
Similarly,
0. A neuron is something like a pattern^6 of strings
1. A neural connection is a pattern of neurons
Then neuroscience. My sense is that there are several layers to disentangle here. This is the study of the neural system, the chemistry, the clusters of nerves, plus the neural sub-patterns that influence behavior, such as sensing.
2. A neural firing is a stimulation pattern of connections, a pattern^2 of neurons
3. A brain pattern is a pattern of neural firings, a pattern^3 of neurons. Perhaps ideas arise at this level.
4. Thoughts are sequences of ideas, pattern^4s of neurons.
5. If you’re thinking about something, there are patterns of these ideas, pattern^4 of neurons
Awareness is another set of ideas in this pattern^5 space- maybe within a different area of the brain, or maybe a different sort of pattern of ideas, pattern^5?
At every level is a different world- a different kind of "thing" made up of patterns of the things it’s comprised of. At every level we create a different science and find different rules and behaviors- new "things" exist.
We seem to be at the very early stages of this science. Nerve function is part of medicine, neurology. I don't think there's yet a science of nerve patterns, or patterns of them, or even brain patterns. (Are people taking apart dead brains yet, analyzing them with microscopes to map out their connections, and then analyzing it with computers? We're getting pretty good at network analysis...) It seems like we’re going to need a number of brain sciences developed...
I think I read somewhere that an action potential lasts a millisecond or two, and that's a similar time between stimulation and the stimulation of the next one. If a thought takes 1/10 of a second, there's a factor of a hundred. Strings and quarks and particles seem to have sizes of 2-10 between them (but I don't know), so there could be one to maybe 5 levels between them.
So maybe 2-5 sets of temporal patterns or levels?
Plus the branching can be so large, a thousand to a million nerves can be involved in a thought- maybe there's a new pattern for every factor of 10? So maybe 3-6 levels?
So maybe 6-30 levels between neurons and thoughts? Let's be conservative and hope it's 6...
7a. Then cognitive science- patterns of thought, reasoning, logic.
7b. And another for emotional thinking- no real science yet.
8. Then patterns of them mixing.
9. Then somewhere arises get cohesive animal systems. Ethology?
10. Then somewhere "people" and consciousness arise and we're in psychology, which is still formulating as a science. If the levels below it were better mapped out, might psychology become a rigorous science? I don't mean to insult it. Maybe "rigorous" is the wrong word- a science more of knowledge rather than rough, not-very-measurable ideas.
I'm not even a student of this- there are different types of memory. And maybe some of the "idea" is in the message- I heard if the memory part of the brain is damaged, other parts of the brain will start storing things?
People are different- ethics, IQ, dominance, pride, defensiveness, sensitivity- how do all these patterns result in these?
My point is that consciousness isn’t a physical thing or even an energy thing, though it’s patterns of patterns... of patterns of neurons which are certainly made of matter and energy.
The real questions of science isn’t "What is X?", but "What is X made of?" and "What are the rules governing the interaction of those things?" and "How do they give rise to the patterns we see in psychology?"
What are the sub-patterns? How does consciousness interact with various "forces", like surprise and anger and sudden approach and sudden departure? What are the properties of ego and identity? Why does proximity give rise to possession?
What's the difference in the various "layers" of a person who's okay with the thought of death vs someone who's afraid to even talk about it?
Clearly my fingernails aren’t me- I cut pieces off with no feeling of loss. And hair. But if there’s feeling, I feel it as a loss. Cut off a finger, and I miss it. How does sensation extend the sense of "me"? Do animals have this? Does a 3-legged dog miss its leg?
There’s no meaning in science, just cataloging behaviors and the patterns of interactions. But we, especially non-scientists, fasten ourselves onto the words of this new science and add meaning to it. We ask dumb questions like, "Does an atom have consciousness?" We experience awe or wonder or majesty or vastness, and we add meaning- the prospect for a decent analysis is delayed...
We seem to do this especially with consciousness. Many people seem to think it's some kind of basic "thing", when it really only arises out of huge layers of complexity.
There are clearly mechanical-"reasoning" systems at work in plants. I doubt we should we call it consciousness. Sure, we can't rule it out, but there's no point in speculating until we understand it better. Unless, of course, the speculation results in a new kind of test.
In the time-lapse photography of starfish, they're pursuing each other and fleeing. Is that a basic sensing and attracing vs repelling, or must we insist that it's some kind of consciousness?
As humans, we're deeply programmed to recognize other humans. We see the "man in the moon" and feel the "fury of a storm." The majority of humans anthropomorphize the organization of the universe and "see" and "feel" the presence of an imagined god. To me, it seems right and natural that we should indulge in those thoughts.
Some call consciousness an illusion. It is. But so are quarks, atoms, molecules, crystals, couches and people. These illusions are patterns of patterns of patterns of real things- at least, as real as it gets, for us.
What's important, to have decent science, is not to mix layers, not to mix metaphors. We need to employ analysis, rigorous categorization and experimentation and above all, pattern recognition.
Until then, if you have trouble, the only kind of therapy that's scientifically proven is CBT, Cognitive Behavior Therapy. You can get CBT for free, online. So if you're feeling depressed, anxious, or troubled (or you're certain about something), spend some time with it daily.
Much love,
Rand Strauss
The visionary at PeopleCount.org,
fixing American politics and government.