"are there possibly other levels?" Not certain.

Single celled organism do not have a neuronal structure (No CNS). They DO participate in "life" and react to the external environment. That ability is much less complex than our own. When studying neuroscience it is best to start with the simplest known living things, and work one's understanding upward to more complex life forms (and thus more complex nervous systems). At least this has been the trend in the discipline.

Back to your question, any living thing will fall under the science of the biological. A living thing exempt from biology is most unlikely. Yet there are "structure complexities" that permit for higher levels interacting with each other, as in the case of man using telescopes compared to amoeba reacting to some environmental stimuli.

Both are biological, but when presented to a neuroscientist will not meet criteria or the stats necessary to be considered a sample of study for the neuroscientist. They are incommensurable in such a respect.

I am leaning towards the much-maligned concept of spirit. Energy presents a dizzying array of forms. And evolution has been going on for an extremely long time. Who knows what shape a very, very long-lived type of spiritual entity might take? I

The study of "spiritual entities" is part of a pseudo-science, like parapsychology.

From my take there are possibly
1) Spiritual entities, or "other realm beings" that have not existed in a mortal vassal.
2) Spiritual entities that have existed in the mortal world.

The science behind it doesn't offer a lot to go on, (as far as I am aware) and so such a level is has been left out of what is known as "THE HEIRARCHY OF THE SCIENCES." If such beings do exist, evidently there will be evidence based edits to the Hierarchical model. Meaning, as far as I am concerned much more investigation, experimentation, and reporting are due.

I've just presented a premise to the effect that it isn't pseudo-science. I hear what you're saying though, it is often abused. But then, so is science nowadays. I'm suggesting that there may be systems involving energy patterns that we can now conceptualize (using tools like systems theory) possibly taking place at very large scales of space and time. Even in our world we can see hints of such patterns. Who knows exactly what is being transmitted through culture? It's more than just a simple blueprint.

It most likely isn't something that we can "study," any more than an amoeba can study human society. However perhaps it represents a direction in which our understanding can evolve....

Intelligence, it seems, doesn't require a brain. Proof? The universe is acting in ways that we would ascribe to a genius (re mathematical precision and sense) and we know the universe doesn't have a brain. That is to say, intelligence can exist sans a brain. Intelligence is nonphysical or thereabouts.

The content of the physical can be non-physical? — Raymond

Empty objects: they contain nothing! OK, this is self-defeating (language deficiency). But what about a "written page containing ideas, information, etc."? OK, this is a figure of speach.
So, I guess not. :smile:

That was fun, but I can't see how does this question fit in the discussion ...

Intelligence, it seems, doesn't require a brain. Proof? The universe is acting in ways that we would ascribe to a genius (re mathematical precision and sense) and we know the universe doesn't have a brain. That is to say, intelligence can exist sans a brain. Intelligence is nonphysical or thereabouts. — Agent Smith

Yes. Individual humans consistently exhibit self-centric cognitive biases in interpretation, which results in biases in perception. Humans as a species likewise exhibit anthropo-centric biases. In another thread the fact that human culture and tools can be viewed as "natural" was raised. That's true. Equivalently, if human beings are alive (or conscious), then so is the universe....

Hm."...anymore than an amoeba can study humans." Great use of analogy.

"...who knows what is being transferred through culture?" I think Jung really went at it. Now we have more modern culture studies. I kind of grasp what you are saying, though.

Is science evolving? To what end? Does it to have some kind of shape, structure? I'd answer, yes to all. But I too am an amoeba in the larger scheme of things. Its hard enough to conceptualize all that goes into a single organism, let alone the whole system. It's partially due to the limited sensory apprehension an individual has. I do think there is plenty more to discover, we just need new tools that upgrade human or non-human (AI) senses as well as cognitive capacities. That sounds like a thematic for a sci-fi. How many works are there are the supernatural mixed with artificial intelligence? Lol. Definitely gets those cogs turning.

we just need new tools that upgrade human or non-human (AI) senses as well as cognitive capacities — Josh Alfred

Yes, this overlaps with the theme of the other thread I mentioned - what are the effects of the integration of tools into human culture, for society, and for the mind? Our whole existence is inextricable from our instrumentalities (perhaps even describable in terms of them).

We are wayyy too far from understanding the brain to be able to say that we have an explanation for consciousness.

If the behavior of a particle is giving us serious trouble in physics, I don't think the human brain is likely to be "solved" any time soon.

What else besides brains are conscious/can become conscious? — RogueAI

I think the nonlocal, perhaps nonelectromagnetic field that is probably responsible for effects such as remote entanglement has close correlation with consciousness. This might be responsible for phenomena such as the collective unconscious in all kinds of lifeforms, just as EM fields seem to coordinate percepts within individual brains and bodies. Nonlocal fields might induce perceptual superpositions in addition to entanglement, and could be the source of what humans have historically regarded as spiritual awareness.

Quantum science might actually be able to tease apart the way in which these substance properties work, beginning with how percepts arise in brains. This trajectory would be similar to how electricity was discovered in organisms during procedures such as dissections before it was attributed to the environment generally and applied technologically.

I think the nonlocal, perhaps nonelectromagnetic field that is probably responsible — Enrique

You think it's perhaps probably responsible? What is a nonelectromagnetic field? A hidden variables field?

You think it's perhaps probably responsible? What is a nonelectromagnetic field? A hidden variables field? — Raymond

Yeah, a hidden variables field of some kind that interacts with electromagnetic and possibly nuclear fields. An interdisciplinary quantum neuroscience might be able to figure out how it works.

It really is a new physical phenomenon, but so obvious that one wonders why it was neglected: how is EM radiation contained in or infused into atoms such that an emergent photonic/atomic field results, and does a hidden variables field with still more remote effects impact the way these electromagnetic fields manifest? What are the qualitative properties, mechanistic parameters and probably biological roles of photonic/atomic blending? I suspect this type of process is closely associated with consciousness.

The issue becomes how to develop instrumentation that can scientifically observe this phenomenon, allowing us to model it and harness it for technological and medical purposes.

I think it's easier to ditch all the talk of fields and assume mind is primary. That seems to require less assumptions.

I think it's easier to ditch all the talk of fields and assume mind is primary. That seems to require less assumptions. — RogueAI

But what if the mind is a field?

Are fields rational? Are fields meaningful? Does the sunset I'm imagining exist in a field in my skull? When I think of my favorite song, is there music playing in a field somewhere in my brain? The mind is definitely not a field. You could say it's caused by fields, but that is also a tricky claim. The simplest thing is to stop assuming there's any mind-independent stuff.

My main idea is, that if nature evolves to produce these discontinuous realms, who is to say there isn't another beyond whatever is our current apex? — Pantagruel

I think quantum physics will be key for modeling this realm beyond physiology, probably by uniting ideas such as coherence and the collective unconscious.

I agree, there's a case to be made for conflating consciousness and self-consciousness. My main idea is, that if nature evolves to produce these discontinuous realms, who is to say there isn't another beyond whatever is our current apex? — Pantagruel

You mean consciousness and self consciousness or classical and quantum mechanics?

In terms of a physical explanation for consciousness, I ascribe to panpsychic and animistic frames of mind. In other words, everything physical is conscious, and is consciousness.

Indeed. How else can it be? We are what we eat.

That's my opinion as well. Animism makes sense.

Sounds plausible. I'm just reading Michio Kaku's The Future of the Mind and he touches on the issue of thought and the quantum realm. I'm a pantheistic neutral monist; I think thought is ubiquitous.

Are not the EM fields generated by electric charges? I don't think the non-local character of these charges gives an explanation. The charges themselves are the mystery.

What are the brain mechanisms that contribute to the substance of percepts and perception? — Enrique

Well, if I could stimulate you to a response to your own question, I might ask what are the evolutionary pressures and conditions that would needs be present t give rise to that will, and what does will look like to our animal relatives, whom also not only share a brain with almost identical processes of operation, but are made of almost identical elements and materials? With that in mind, how would you anwer your own question? Because to me, it seems like will emerges as a method by which to ensure longevity of the individual entity, either in form, or in posterity. What say you?

By the by, I'm a philosopher, not neuroscience, so work with me on jargon if you decide to respond.

I might ask what are the evolutionary pressures and conditions that would needs be present t give rise to that will, and what does will look like to our animal relatives, whom also not only share a brain with almost identical processes of operation, but are made of almost identical elements and materials? — Garrett Travers

If this theory I outlined in the OP proves accurate, the implications for how physiology, perception and thought evolved will certainly be interesting to investigate. I've got my own speculation but no definitive conclusions besides the fact that I think free will, within constraints of variable and conditional stringency of course, does exist in thousands upon thousands of species.

I find it intriguing that EM radiation moves rapidly enough to at least in principle circle the planet multiple times per second, while gravitational lensing of long-range radio waves has been observed near extremely massive celestial bodies. So does a correlation exist between mass and frequency that determines the EM radiation which is most substantially "lensed", with shorter wavelengths lensed by smaller masses, and how does this correspond to radiation on Earth in general or produced by brains?

If this theory I outlined in the OP proves accurate, the implications for how physiology, perception and thought evolved will certainly be interesting to investigate. I've got my own speculation but no definitive conclusions besides the fact that I think free will, within constraints of variable and conditional stringency of course, does exist in thousands upon thousands of species. — Enrique

On that point, as it is being discussed in a separate forum I'm involved in, have a look at this and tell me what you think:

Definitions of Will: the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action/ control deliberately exerted to do something or to restrain one's own impulses/ the thing that one desires or ordains/ make or try to make (someone) do something or (something) happen by the exercise of mental powers/ intend, desire, or wish (something) to happen.

Now check out my reformulated definition of will, from a philosophical perspective: The sum total of all individual human action or thought, the emergent expression of all functions of the brain and all of the processes therein that contribute to them.

Tell me from the perspective of your studies, as I also have mine and maybe we'll swap if there are discrepancies, is there any issue you take with either the current working definitions of 'will,' or my reformulated one. If so, what are they?

Tell me from the perspective of your studies, as I also have mine and maybe we'll swap if there are discrepancies, is there any issue you take with either the current working definitions of 'will,' or my reformulated one. — Garrett Travers

I think substance in general as we presently comprehend it must be its own impetus. In this respect, every facet of the brain, at least that we can currently identify, partially determines itself and has degrees of freedom. In the context of biology, when it was advantageous to evolve degrees of freedom, organisms trajected towards less constraint on whatever level of emergence, and the opposite is probably true also.

Degrees of freedom can be conscious, subconscious and unconscious, but I associate "free will" with premeditated motive, so organisms display this when they reflect, make plans as humans do. Humans can increase or decrease their capacity and opportunity to reflect by the way we organize society, either selecting for or against deliberate freedom.

I think your definition of free will corresponds to physiological degrees of freedom in general, and the standard definition of free will you reference aligns with reflective purpose. Both are accurate in context, but most wouldn't correlate degrees of freedom in general with will.

I think your definition of free will corresponds to physiological degrees of freedom in general, and the standard definition of free will you reference aligns with reflective purpose. Both are accurate in context, but most wouldn't correlate degrees of freedom in general with will. — Enrique

I am in accord with everything you've said. However, on this point I have to ask. Given the definitions I provided, what you know of the science; doesn't my describing it as "the sum total of all human action and thought," cover the varying degrees aspect?

Given the definitions I provided, what you know of the science; doesn't my describing it as "the sum total of all human action and thought," cover the varying degrees aspect? — Garrett Travers

Some components of human cognition are voluntary and some involuntary. The visual cortex registering the border of a shape is involuntary. An internal monologue is involuntary but can be deliberately modified. Reasoning through a philosophical problem is quite voluntary but involves involuntary aspects as well. Many cognitive processes have conventionally free elements, but moreso unfree elements which subjugate our self-identified wills. So human will is not the sum total of all brain processes, and many involuntary features of cognition that reside beyond our wills aren't what common sense labels as thought or action. I think common sense terms are essentially being redefined, which could lead to confusion. Basically, some elaboration will be necessary for your approach to work.