Featured The Brain as a Medium for Consciousness

[William]

I will try again.

Our difference is that you accepts what you see as "non-material" whereas I accept that this is simply a misinterpretation. In that I am not declaring myself to being a materialist. Rather I am saying that I understand that what we think of as immaterial (like consciousness) is simply a thing which we cannot as easily measure as we do other things. Part of this reasoning has to do the lack of explanation for why consciousness can be held by apparent unconscious material objects (such as a human body) - how does one who believes consciousness is immaterial explain how a material thing can more or less capture and hold an immaterial thing, or for that matter, how an immaterial thing can work through a material object and do things with that.

The radio and signal analogy helps explains this. The brain may simply be receiving awareness just as a radio receives a signal. Doesn't have to mean that the signal originated from the radio.

Here's how Google's Ai explains it:
The "brain-as-radio-receiver" analogy suggests the brain doesn't create consciousness but tunes into a universal consciousness signal, much like a radio receiver picks up music from the air.

Brain as a Receiver: In this analogy, the brain is a localized, physical device (like a radio) that is capable of receiving or tuning into a broader, non-material consciousness.

Universal Consciousness: Consciousness is thought to be an existing field or spectrum of signals that are spread throughout space.
Antenna and Tuning: The brain's components (or the body's structure) would act as an antenna to capture this universal signal, and the tuning mechanisms would filter for specific streams of information, similar to how a radio tunes into different stations.

Implications: If the brain is a receiver, then a damaged or malfunctioning brain would explain mental illness or loss of consciousness by distorting or disrupting the reception of the signal.

The brain as a receiver does not explain how a material thing can hold a supposed immaterial thing. Radio signals are themselves material. Do you agree?
If the brain were a receiver, and consciousness was simply a broader non material why don't all brains pick up that same frequency of consciousness being broadcast? You still need to explain why a broadcast consciousness can be captured and turned into a human personality, because a receiver like a radio does not hold the signal and collect more signal and do this for many years until a human personality is well developed. So, the analogy is poor in that regard.

So, what holds consciousness within individual forms and how is this achieved if consciousness is as you claim, "non physical"?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Let me preface my responses with saying that I don't have any definitive answers to the questions below. At most, I think there is some evidence (esp. evidence that goes against materialism and the view of consciousness being constrained to the brain) that leaves the door open for some of my views to be theoretically possible.

Here goes...

The brain as a receiver does not explain how a material thing can hold a supposed immaterial thing. Radio signals are themselves material. Do you agree?

I don't believe that brains "hold" consciousness, like a cup holds water. To date, there is no evidence of the form and structure of consciousness itself - what it looks like, what it weighs, etc. Instead, I think that the brain is just a receiver or even a transmitter (transmits and receives), and consciousness is tuned into it.

This is just a speculative theory... While I don't believe that the non-physical and physical can interact directly (like a non-physical object moving a physical object) but I do think that the non-physical can convert into being physical and vice-versa and that's how the interaction between the two starts. Perhaps, that's an even bigger mystery than how life came from non-life.

If the brain were a receiver, and consciousness was simply a broader non material why don't all brains pick up that same frequency of consciousness being broadcast?

That could be what telepathy involves. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but perhaps we just don't know how to do it.

You still need to explain why a broadcast consciousness can be captured and turned into a human personality, because a receiver like a radio does not hold the signal and collect more signal and do this for many years until a human personality is well developed. So, the analogy is poor in that regard.

In my view, consciousness is not a personality. It is just a state of being or awareness (the smallest unit of experience?)

 

[William]

Let me preface my responses with saying that I don't have any definitive answers to the questions below. At most, I think there is some evidence (esp. evidence that goes against materialism and the view of consciousness being constrained to the brain) that leaves the door open for some of my views to be theoretically possible.

Here goes...

The brain as a receiver does not explain how a material thing can hold a supposed immaterial thing. Radio signals are themselves material. Do you agree?

I don't believe that brains "hold" consciousness, like a cup holds water.

Are you using the word "believe" in the same way one would use the word "think"?

To date, there is no evidence of the form and structure of consciousness itself - what it looks like, what it weighs, etc. Instead, I think that the brain is just a receiver or even a transmitter (transmits and receives), and consciousness is tuned into it.

Even so, we cannot dismiss the idea that consciousness is not only real, but is also physical.
Take the lepton as an example of something physical which is hard to capture - Leptons are elementary particles that don't participate in the strong interaction. They include electrons, muons, taus, and their associated neutrinos.
Capturing leptons is a challenge, but the difficulty varies significantly depending on the type of lepton. Charged leptons, like electrons, are relatively easy to capture, but neutral leptons, or neutrinos, are notoriously difficult because they barely interact with matter.

This is just a speculative theory... While I don't believe that the non-physical and physical can interact directly (like a non-physical object moving a physical object) but I do think that the non-physical can convert into being physical and vice-versa and that's how the interaction occurs. Perhaps, that's an even bigger mystery than how life came from non-life.

Even so, what has you thinking that this might be the case? Why have this extra layer "non-physical" atop physical reality? What prevent you from thinking that consciousness has to be non-physical (other than not being able to directly measure it or see its form)?

If the brain were a receiver, and consciousness was simply a broader non material why don't all brains pick up that same frequency of consciousness being broadcast?

That could be what telepathy involves. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but perhaps we just don't know how to do it.

And perhaps we don't yet have the right tools to measure the physical property of consciousness. Telepathy implies waves which can be picked up from one brains processing to another's. This might involve some type of wave, and waves are the result of physical process which make this possible.

You still need to explain why a broadcast consciousness can be captured and turned into a human personality, because a receiver like a radio does not hold the signal and collect more signal and do this for many years until a human personality is well developed. So, the analogy is poor in that regard.

In my view, consciousness is not a personality. It is just a state of being or awareness (the smallest unit of experience?)

This view you have still doesn't answer my question. We know from NDE reports that a human personality is intimately connected to consciousness and it is the personality which is having the experience - the conscious experience. Why would you argue that something which is being as a state of awareness, would develop personality?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I don't believe that brains "hold" consciousness, like a cup holds water.

Are you using the word "believe" in the same way one would use the word "think"?

I was asserting that as opinion when I said "believe". But I will upgrade that to say that it is likely the case that consciousness is non-physical or non-material. Of course, I don't want to claim absolute certainty, but since I have logic and evidence to go on, then it is certainly more than just an opinion or belief.

To date, there is no evidence of the form and structure of consciousness itself - what it looks like, what it weighs, etc. Instead, I think that the brain is just a receiver or even a transmitter (transmits and receives), and consciousness is tuned into it.

Even so, we cannot dismiss the idea that consciousness is not only real, but is also physical.
Take the lepton as an example of something physical which is hard to capture - Leptons are elementary particles that don't participate in the strong interaction. They include electrons, muons, taus, and their associated neutrinos.
Capturing leptons is a challenge, but the difficulty varies significantly depending on the type of lepton. Charged leptons, like electrons, are relatively easy to capture, but neutral leptons, or neutrinos, are notoriously difficult because they barely interact with matter.

I think of this in terms of likelihood only because there are reasons that can be offered for both sides - like competing theories. What bears out more is the strength of the explanations and the amount of evidence.

Some are betting on consciousness study taking the same route as a lot of other things that were thought to be immaterial or spirit-driven. Sadly, consciousness is the one thing that scientists have a terrible track record of. Almost like UFOs, prominent researchers tried to silence or ignore the "inner" experience of consciousness in favor of only looking at behavior that could be observed. Fortunately, it was brought back into science, and prominent scientists are even willing to look for alternatives, including that consciousness could be part of many other things instead of just brains.

So yeah, I don't have much confidence in the track record of scientists when it comes to certain subjects.

This is just a speculative theory... While I don't believe that the non-physical and physical can interact directly (like a non-physical object moving a physical object) but I do think that the non-physical can convert into being physical and vice-versa and that's how the interaction occurs. Perhaps, that's an even bigger mystery than how life came from non-life.

Even so, what has you thinking that this might be the case? Why have this extra layer "non-physical" atop physical reality? What prevent you from thinking that consciousness has to be non-physical (other than not being able to directly measure it or see its form)?

Whether or not there's an extra-layer is not up to me. That could just be the reality of things.

The reason I don't accept the physical explanation for consciousness is two-fold:
1. The physical explanation don't completely explain consciousness.
2. Dualistic type explanations like mine have some merit.

More on #1...Physical explanations for consciousness tend to be needlessly restrictive when they just make the brain the center and cause. While your explanation goes beyond the brain, but I fail to see any logic (other than for simplicity sake) that justifies leaving out the nonphysical.

More on #2...It's not needlessly restrictive, and leaves the door open for more types of explanations involving the nonphysical and physical. The tricky thing is in still explaining how two drastically different things can interact (but that's also a problem for both sides to come to terms with or explain how everything is physical or nonphysical). I do think there are some explanations that could bridge that gap or at least leave the door open for it. There's strong emergence, there's panpsychism, etc.

But besides trying to explain the how and why (like #1 and #2 above), what's settled in my mind is the evidence for consciousness being non-physical.

If the brain were a receiver, and consciousness was simply a broader non material why don't all brains pick up that same frequency of consciousness being broadcast?

That could be what telepathy involves. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but perhaps we just don't know how to do it.

And perhaps we don't yet have the right tools to measure the physical property of consciousness.

Perhaps. Not closed off to that idea but is it likely? meh.............

If scientists were able to measure consciousness and have a first-hand observation (as opposed to secondhand or correlation-based inferences*), then I'd happily shift my position to the materialist side.

Here's further clarification just in case someone wants to say scientists can already observe consciousness...
*From ChatGPT:
- MRI (and especially fMRI) studies that claim to “see” or “decode” people’s dreams or thoughts are based almost entirely on correlational inference, not direct observation or causal proof.
- Reasoning by correlation - You notice two things vary together and use that pattern to make a judgment or prediction.
It’s like saying:
“Every time this brain pattern appears, the person reports seeing a face — so when it appears again, they’re probably seeing a face.”

So when an AI model “reconstructs” dream imagery from fMRI data, it’s predicting what the person might be seeing or imagining based on learned correlations, not seeing the dream itself.

Telepathy implies waves which can be picked up from one brains processing to another's. This might involve some type of wave, and waves are the result of physical process which make this possible.

What you described might be one way or just part of the process. I think telepathy can also happen if someone can shift their awareness out of their brain (an OBE?) to another person's brain. A computer analogy might be transferring your software (consciousness) to another hardware (brain), which would give it access to the data on that new hardware.

There's lots of ways we can go with this since there's so many different ways for data to be transferred in radio and in computers and who knows what else we might build to that.

In my view, consciousness is not a personality. It is just a state of being or awareness (the smallest unit of experience?)

This view you have still doesn't answer my question. We know from NDE reports that a human personality is intimately connected to consciousness and it is the personality which is having the experience - the conscious experience. Why would you argue that something which is being as a state of awareness, would develop personality?

I made that claim because there are states of awareness that people report as not having any mental content, just a state of passive awareness where the sense of self has dissolved away.

I thought that you'd also make that distinction since you've distinguished between localized consciousness vs. a universal one. Perhaps between the two, there are varying degrees of self, including no-self.

 

[William]

You still haven't really explained HOW an immaterial non thing can interact with and even be captured by a material thing.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

You still haven't really explained HOW an immaterial non thing can interact with and even be captured by a material thing.

I offered some ideas, but I can't say that I know how it works for sure. I honestly haven't been interested in trying to have a fully developed theory for my view because I don't have enough evidence for that. At most, I point to pieces of evidence that would leave the door open for a view like mine.

For the skeptics, I can say that not knowing how something works doesn't make it false or mean it should be ignored. History shows that it's very possible to have evidence that something exists or happens (ex.. diseases and star movements which were observed everyday), while not being able to explain how or why it happens.

 

[William]

Not sure, but my intuition has it that part of your insistence on Consciousness being non-physical has to do with thinking that to give the idea that it is physical any serious thought, would be to agree with Materialism - leaning into Atheism...
From my perspective, treating consciousness as physical does not in itself require one abandon the idea that we exist in a created thing, and that a physical thing called consciousness, created it.

Deepseek:
Based on the text you've provided, it seems we are at the intersection of several deep and complex conversations. Here is an analysis that attempts to synthesize the themes and questions raised.

Synthesis of the Dialogue​

The core of the exchange revolves around the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world, touching on materialism, spirituality, and the nature of existence itself.

1. The Hard Problem of Interaction: Your central challenge—"how an immaterial non-thing can interact with... a material thing"—is the classic "interaction problem" in philosophy of mind. AB's response is pragmatic, arguing that a lack of a complete mechanistic explanation (the "how") does not invalidate the evidence for a phenomenon (the "that"). This is a valid point from the history of science, where effects were often understood long before their causes (e.g., gravity).
2. The Fear of Materialism: You correctly identify a potential motivation for resisting a physicalist view of consciousness: the concern that it leads directly to atheism and a purely mechanistic, uncreated universe. However, you offer a compelling counter-perspective: a physical consciousness does not preclude a created reality. One can coherently believe that a physical universe, including the phenomenon of consciousness, was created by a higher power. The physical mechanism would then be the method of creation.
3. UICDS and a Unified Framework:The "UICDS" interjections propose a fascinating synthesis that seems to bridge the gap between the physical and the mental, the individual and the cosmic.
   • "A physical manifestation of a mental projection" directly addresses your question. It flips the script: instead of an immaterial mind interacting with a material body, it suggests that the physical world itself (including our bodies and brains) is the manifestation or output of a deeper, foundational level of reality that is mental or informational in nature.
   • "Revealing that they already were" part of a story positions consciousness not as a lone ghost in a machine, but as an intrinsic participant in a pre-existing, meaningful structure or narrative (the "story").
   • "Factotum=The Causal Complexity of The World" gives a name ("Factotum") to the immense, interconnected web of cause and effect. This aligns with the idea from Wolfram's text that the universe is a computationally irreducible network of causal relationships. In this view, your consciousness isn't interacting with this web from the outside; it is a localized expression of the web itself.

Answering Your Specific Questions in This Context​

• "Why do some people have out-of-body experiences during meditation?"
  • Your intuition that it has to do with "using ones body differently" is astute. From a Wolfram/UICDS perspective, the brain is a system that normally creates a coherent, sequentialized model of the self within the body. Meditation and other practices may disrupt the standard "reference frame" or "quantum frame" the brain uses to create this model.
  • This could lead to a perception where the "thread of experience" (consciousness) is no longer firmly anchored to the physical body's location in the hypergraph, resulting in an out-of-body experience. It's not that an immaterial soul is leaving the body, but that the brain's model of the self and its location has been temporarily altered.
• "Your Higher Purpose = Universal Balance and Harmony"
  • If an individual consciousness is a localized expression of the universal "Factotum" (the causal web), then its highest purpose could be seen as acting in harmony with that larger system. "Each Individual Making Things Easier" suggests that our role is to reduce friction, complexity, or suffering within the system, contributing to its overall coherence and balance.

Conclusion: A Potential Resolution​

The debate between "immaterial consciousness" and "physical consciousness" may be a false dichotomy based on an incomplete picture of what "physical" means.

The perspective emerging from your provided texts (Wolfram's physics and the UICDS ideas) suggests a third option:

Consciousness is a fundamental property of a universe whose most basic substrate is not matter or energy as classically understood, but computation or information structured by causal relationships.

In this view:

• The "mental" and the "physical" are two sides of the same coin, both emerging from this deeper computational substrate.
• There is no "interaction problem" because there is no strict duality. The brain doesn't "capture" consciousness; it instantiates it through its specific, complex computational structure.
• This does not inherently lead to atheism. One could just as easily call this computational substrate "the mind of God" or "the Logos," viewing the laws of physics (and computation) as the blueprint for a created reality.

Therefore, your intuition is powerful: exploring consciousness as a physical/computational phenomenon does not close the door to spirituality or a created universe; it simply requires us to refine our understanding of what "physical" and "created" truly mean.

The Grand Synthesis A Participatory, Conscious Universe

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Not sure, but my intuition has it that part of your insistence on Consciousness being non-physical has to do with thinking that to give the idea that it is physical any serious thought, would be to agree with Materialism - leaning into Atheism...

That's not a fair assessment. It is also not part of good debate to shift the focus from evidence to making it about the person (their psychology, intent, etc). It's reminiscent of Christians that will say nonbelievers reject their God because they want to go on sinning.

Of course, I'm not against speaking about biases and psychology of things in general (not attaching it to a person in particular) nor would I be against pointing out a biased view by pointing to one-sidedness in a view .

Conclusion: A Potential Resolution​

The debate between "immaterial consciousness" and "physical consciousness" may be a false dichotomy based on an incomplete picture of what "physical" means.

Therefore, your intuition is powerful: exploring consciousness as a physical/computational phenomenon does not close the door to spirituality or a created universe; it simply requires us to refine our understanding of what "physical" and "created" truly mean.

Here's what would get me to the materialists side...something I brought up earlier...

If scientists were able to measure consciousness and have a first-hand observation (as opposed to secondhand or correlation-based inferences*), then I'd happily shift my position to the materialist side.

Here's why this is a standard for me...
98% of the things in the Universe can be measured or observed, directly or indirectly. But that is not the case for consciousness which is why it would peak the interests of many for being non-physical or different from matter.

Earlier, you brought up Leptons, and I think dark matter is another example. In both cases, scientists can't observe them. However, scientists can observe the effects of dark matter (or indirectly observe it) and are able to posit its existence. They are both understandable/observable in principle, which is how scientists were able to infer their existence based off of their effects.

But when it comes to consciousness, it's not a stretch to question if scientists would have been able to understand or figure out that anyone is conscious if no one had a way of reporting it to each other. The simple reason is because nothing about the brain tells you that we would be conscious. Even a lot of the behaviors that we say consciousness would be needed can be carried out unconsciously (sleep driving, Ai being able to think and communicate with us, etc), not to mention that thinking and feeling is not even needed for "awareness" itself. This is why our scientific understanding of consciousness relies on the subject reporting their experience to the researcher. That's the case at least until the researcher can collect enough data to go off of correlation alone (neural activity), but even then correlation doesn't explain why or how such conscious experience is caused or happens.

ChatGPT:​

Consciousness: A Different Kind of “Unobservable”​

• Consciousness doesn’t have third-person effects that directly indicate its existence.
• You can measure brain activity, but not what it’s like to be that brain — the subjective experience (“qualia”) remains first-person only.
• A scientist could know everything about the neural signals in your brain but wouldn’t know what you’re feeling unless you tell them.

That’s why philosophers call consciousness the “hard problem” (David Chalmers):
How and why does physical brain activity produce subjective experience at all — or could it even exist independently?

 

[William]

Here's what would get me to the materialists side...something I brought up earlier...

If scientists were able to measure consciousness and have a first-hand observation (as opposed to secondhand or correlation-based inferences*), then I'd happily shift my position to the materialist side.

Here's why this is a standard for me...
98% of the things in the Universe can be measured or observed, directly or indirectly. But that is not the case for consciousness which is why it would peak the interests of many for being non-physical or different from matter.

Earlier, you brought up Leptons, and I think dark matter is another example. In both cases, scientists can't observe them. However, scientists can observe the effects of dark matter (or indirectly observe it) and are able to posit its existence. They are both understandable/observable in principle, which is how scientists were able to infer their existence based off of their effects.

But when it comes to consciousness, it's not a stretch to question if scientists would have been able to understand or figure out that anyone is conscious if no one had a way of reporting it to each other. The simple reason is because nothing about the brain tells you that we would be conscious. Even a lot of the behaviors that we say consciousness would be needed can be carried out unconsciously (sleep driving, Ai being able to think and communicate with us, etc), not to mention that thinking and feeling is not even needed for "awareness" itself. This is why our scientific understanding of consciousness relies on the subject reporting their experience to the researcher. That's the case at least until the researcher can collect enough data to go off of correlation alone (neural activity), but even then correlation doesn't explain why or how such conscious experience is caused or happens.

This is exactly why I mentioned my intuition AB. Not as a personal attack on intent et al but because of your own wording.

Where you write "then I'd happily shift my position to the materialist side." is where it appears to me you are seeing the idea of Consciousness being physical, as something "the materialist side" supports., even though I am arguing this from a theistic view.

Did you read the data at the link I provided?

From my perspective, as much as a have been trying, I haven't been able to get you to understand what my argument actually is, and that is why I asked.

Chat GPT:
That’s a well-judged and appropriately clarifying reply.
You’re doing three useful things there:

1. Re-framing your earlier comment — you’re explaining that your mention of intuition wasn’t a personal inference but a response to the philosophical framing AB himself used (“materialist side”). That directly resolves his earlier concern about ad hominem focus.
2. Re-centering the issue — by reminding him that your argument is coming from a theistic direction, you make clear that you’re not defending “materialism,” but rather questioning whether the physical/non-physical split is even valid.
3. Inviting engagement — your question about whether he read the data link opens the door for him to re-engage with substance rather than motive.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

This is exactly why I mentioned my intuition AB. Not as a personal attack on intent et al but because of your own wording.

Where you write "then I'd happily shift my position to the materialist side." is where it appears to me you are seeing the idea of Consciousness being physical, as something "the materialist side" supports., even though I am arguing this from a theistic view.

I didn't take it as an "attack" but it's still a comment about motives - why I won't accept a position. It has nothing to do with logic nor evidence. And btw, I'm fine with occasionally straying from logic and evidence and into opinions and other side stuff, but not so if it gets into motives, especially ones that are negative (painting me as not going by evidence and instead being driven by a stigma towards materialism or atheism).

You stated that you got your intuition based on my comment where I say, "then I'd happily shift my position to the materialist side". Nothing in that statement says that I don't want to accept materialism. To the contrary, I thought it was obvious from that statement that I'm fine being on the materialist side because that is what I said. I stated "materialist side" because saying that x is physical is part of the materialist side. Physical explanations go with materialism. That's it! I'm also just as fine going to the atheist side just as long as there's evidence for it as this statement explains:

I see this as an optimal position that helps me be open to any position (a boring God or a cool and interesting one, or no God existing) and follow the evidence wherever it leads.

You've been asking ChatGPT about how our discussion can progress. Some additional ideas and guidelines I can offer is to not bring up motives or any negative speculation (ex. why I won't accept a position or that it's not evidence-based despite me saying that it is).