Panpsychism: Can Quantum Indeterminacy Give Rise to Consciousness in Inanimate Objects?

[Malintent]

"all dressed"... I'm assuming that's the Canadian method of ordering a Pizza "with everything on it", which is how we say it in the capital city of Pizza - NYC.. I love learning about those differences in idioms.

I just got back from Amsterdam two weeks ago... something with nothing on it (a joint with no tobacco added, a scotch - neat), they call, "pure". "I'll a have a whisky, pure"... I'll take a gram of your Purple Haze, pure".

Funny, though, was ordering coffee... They see an American and assume we want our coffee watered down with a full cup of hot water... I learned from my travels in the southern hemisphere years ago that a proper coffee is called a "Long Black".. but in the Netherlands, they never heard of a "long black"... it's just called "coffee". It took a few days for me to catch on that when I described a long black for them, they were just preparing the usual. It was nice to just say, "coffee, black", and get a great coffee served.... which is a double shot of espresso brewed directly over 6 ounces of hot water (sorry, that's 2 Deciliters.. lol).

Oh, and there is NO SUCH THING as a "Royal with Cheese". I went into both a McDonnalds and a burger King to check the menu (I wanted a picture - not the "food"). I even asked someone working there if it was ever a real thing... they said there used to be a place called Mr. Burger that had that, but they were copying the movie, not the other way around.

In my neighborhood, you order your po-boy "dressed," or "nutin' on it." Coffee is assumed to be black, but southern hospitality requires we offer cream and sugar. Cafe au Lait, made with coffee and milk, was originally a drink for ladies who might have nervous conditions.

I've never developed a taste for espresso. On an average day, I might drink 15 to 20 cups of coffee, so I'm not worried a caffeine deficiency.

If you're ordering po boys, you must be in Nawlins Great town. Great food. I preferred Bourbon in its pre-Katrina state, though. It's too much like Times Square now.

I am not a big fan of straight espresso either. The Long Black, to me, is the perfect combination of the "lightness" of an Americano / drip but with the "richness" of an espresso.
It's worth your time to try 6 ounces of hot water with a double espresso pulled directly on top (not poured over from another container). It comes out a light tan color due to the frothy oils from the coffee beans... which is like the best part.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/universe-conscious-ncna772956

I'd post this in pseudoscience but apparently this is being proposed by serious scientists who are looking to show that maybe the universe as a whole is a conscious being. The story explains how maybe stars can guide themselves around the galaxy.

How would that even be possible. Physics requires stars to act in specific ways. In order for them to act against those ways, they'd need self derived forms of propulsion.

 

[sharon45]

Imagine a golf ball which wants to land in the hole. This would be a great boon to golfers, if the golf ball can remember anything after being slammed by a club that's moving over 100 mph.

Or a golfer could just drop the ball in the hole by hand. Ta-da, science.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Oh DEFINATELY

but "OF COURSE" cognition is found outside of brains.. for example... um... gimme a quick example so I can help ya out....

the GENIUS of this idea is all in the INTEGRATION... cross-functionality... cloud supported... CAPABILITIES.... totally OPex'ed and outsourced.

???

Are you medications or something, Sir?
EB

It is possible that the poster is suggesting that before one tries to explain 'cognition found outside of brains', one should perhaps consider whether or not any such 'cognition found outside of brains' exists to need explaining.

Peez

Sure, and then you can express this legitimate thought in the way you just did without being needlessly aggressive or pompous.

Now, I didn't try to "explain 'cognition found outside of brains'". I merely suggested that if cognition could be found outside of brains this would explain something else. So the value of my explanation could be straightforwardly assigned by each reader as the value they themselves assigned to my hypothesis that cognition might be found outside of brains.

No brainer. Except for irate people obviously.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Malintent:
"all dressed"... I'm assuming that's the Canadian method of ordering a Pizza "with everything on it"...

Yup, or "touts garnie" en francais.



Peez

Ah, I can chip in within my area of expertise. It would be "toute garnie", not "touts garnie". Une pizza toute garnie.

Although I have to suspect it was just an honest typo.
EB

 

[Peez]

Oh DEFINATELY

but "OF COURSE" cognition is found outside of brains.. for example... um... gimme a quick example so I can help ya out....

the GENIUS of this idea is all in the INTEGRATION... cross-functionality... cloud supported... CAPABILITIES.... totally OPex'ed and outsourced.

???

Are you medications or something, Sir?
EB

It is possible that the poster is suggesting that before one tries to explain 'cognition found outside of brains', one should perhaps consider whether or not any such 'cognition found outside of brains' exists to need explaining.

Peez

Sure, and then you can express this legitimate thought in the way you just did without being needlessly aggressive or pompous.

Now, I didn't try to "explain 'cognition found outside of brains'". I merely suggested that if cognition could be found outside of brains this would explain something else. So the value of my explanation could be straightforwardly assigned by each reader as the value they themselves assigned to my hypothesis that cognition might be found outside of brains.

No brainer. Except for irate people obviously.
EB

I was not trying so sound irate, I was just trying to be cautious and not put words in someone else's mouth. Speaking for myself I think that speculating on "...if cognition could be found outside of brains this would explain..." makes about as much sense as speculating "...if gravity is caused by angels pushing matter together this would explain..."

Peez

- - - Updated - - -

Yup, or "touts garnie" en francais.



Peez

Ah, I can chip in within my area of expertise. It would be "toute garnie", not "touts garnie". Une pizza toute garnie.

Although I have to suspect it was just an honest typo.
EB

Sadly, no: I noticed my error after I thought about it, but it was an error and not a typo. Merci!

Peez

 

[Speakpigeon]

I was not trying so sound irate

I wasn't suggesting you sounded irate and you didn't. I was talking about Malintent.

My bad, I should have been more explicit.

Speaking for myself I think that speculating on "...if cognition could be found outside of brains this would explain..." makes about as much sense as speculating "...if gravity is caused by angels pushing matter together this would explain..."

Maybe that's how you feel about it but it's clear to me that although my suggestion is indeed highly speculative, no doubt about that, it still can't be put on a par with speculations involving angels.

I also fail to see how it would be the clever thing to do to treat them as if they were on a par.
EB

 

[Malintent]

I wasn't suggesting you sounded irate and you didn't. I was talking about Malintent.

My bad, I should have been more explicit.

Speaking for myself I think that speculating on "...if cognition could be found outside of brains this would explain..." makes about as much sense as speculating "...if gravity is caused by angels pushing matter together this would explain..."

Maybe that's how you feel about it but it's clear to me that although my suggestion is indeed highly speculative, no doubt about that, it still can't be put on a par with speculations involving angels.

I also fail to see how it would be the clever thing to do to treat them as if they were on a par.
EB

I didn't feel irate when I posted that. I felt sarcastic. Maybe it made you feel irate.
Actually, inline with the topic of the thread, maybe it made my can of soda sitting next to me irate, and the soda transmirored it's feelings to the stapler on your desk (they are like brothers from another mother, you know). Your highly in tune and sensitive neropsygoticts may then have picked up the stapler's conscious emanations, and voila! Irritation of your central multi-foci brain!

Science is fucking EASY. Just say, "maybe it's..."... and then SCIENCE!

 

[Bronzeage]

Imagine a golf ball which wants to land in the hole. This would be a great boon to golfers, if the golf ball can remember anything after being slammed by a club that's moving over 100 mph.

Or a golfer could just drop the ball in the hole by hand. Ta-da, science.

Not under the strict rules of golf. That's the difference between golf and basketball.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I didn't feel irate when I posted that. I felt sarcastic. Maybe it made you feel irate.
Actually, inline with the topic of the thread, maybe it made my can of soda sitting next to me irate, and the soda transmirored it's feelings to the stapler on your desk (they are like brothers from another mother, you know). Your highly in tune and sensitive neropsygoticts may then have picked up the stapler's conscious emanations, and voila! Irritation of your central multi-foci brain!

Science is fucking EASY. Just say, "maybe it's..."... and then SCIENCE!

Whatever, you do sound irate to me, then and now you do again.

Maybe you're not really irate but our only channel of communication is through this forum using posts and it's a fact that you sound irate to me and even as you deny it here you still sound irate to me.

Maybe you should look at how you express your sarcasms and perhaps also why to begin with.

I'm often sarcastic on this forum and I'm absolutely certain I never sound irate for it. So, it's certainly doable.

Good luck.
EB

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I wasn't suggesting you sounded irate and you didn't. I was talking about Malintent.

My bad, I should have been more explicit.

Speaking for myself I think that speculating on "...if cognition could be found outside of brains this would explain..." makes about as much sense as speculating "...if gravity is caused by angels pushing matter together this would explain..."

Maybe that's how you feel about it but it's clear to me that although my suggestion is indeed highly speculative, no doubt about that, it still can't be put on a par with speculations involving angels.

No... it is about on par as being completely baseless. Rating it "highly speculative" is giving it way too much credit as having a single reasonable basis for being taken remotely seriously. If things have a natural order and occur within that order, there is no suggestion at all that any thinking is occurring.

 

[4321lynx]

You seem a little short on imaginative power. The idea is of course that integrated cognitive capabilities outside brains could be obtained in various ways and definitely outside evolution.
EB

Oh DEFINATELY

but "OF COURSE" cognition is found outside of brains.. for example... um... gimme a quick example so I can help ya out....

Try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_cognition

Plant cognition is the study of the mental capacities of plants.[1] It explores the idea that plants are capable of responding to and learning from stimuli in their surroundings in order to choose and make decisions that are most appropriate to ensure survival. Over recent years, experimental evidence for the cognitive nature of plants has grown rapidly and has revealed the extent to which plant perceptual awareness of environmental information directs many behavioural feats and associated cognitive abilities.[2] Some research claims that plants have physical structures functioning in the same way as the nervous systems of animals.

BTW I know plants ain't planets or stars or universes. Nor believe the last three are guided by superbrains to perform what they perform, not even NoGods' superbrains. But Malintent's tone here grated on my nervous system, even though not directed at me, so I thought I would reply. This does not mean that I agree with all or any of the stuff in the article quoted.

 

[Peez]

Speakpigeon:
Maybe that's how you feel about it but it's clear to me that although my suggestion is indeed highly speculative, no doubt about that, it still can't be put on a par with speculations involving angels.

I also fail to see how it would be the clever thing to do to treat them as if they were on a par.
EB[

I don't know about "the clever thing to do", but it is clear to me that your speculation is "on a par with speculations regarding angels." There is absolutely no basis for either, and everything science has discovered about how the universe functions indicates that neither is worth considering.

Peez

 

[Peez]

Oh DEFINATELY

but "OF COURSE" cognition is found outside of brains.. for example... um... gimme a quick example so I can help ya out....

Try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_cognition

Plant cognition is the study of the mental capacities of plants.[1] It explores the idea that plants are capable of responding to and learning from stimuli in their surroundings in order to choose and make decisions that are most appropriate to ensure survival. Over recent years, experimental evidence for the cognitive nature of plants has grown rapidly and has revealed the extent to which plant perceptual awareness of environmental information directs many behavioural feats and associated cognitive abilities.[2] Some research claims that plants have physical structures functioning in the same way as the nervous systems of animals.

BTW I know plants ain't planets or stars or universes. Nor believe the last three are guided by superbrains to perform what they perform, not even NoGods' superbrains. But Malintent's tone here grated on my nervous system, even though not directed at me, so I thought I would reply. This does not mean that I agree with all or any of the stuff in the article quoted.

This is likely to come down to a definition of "cognition". This term has a number of different interpretations, perhaps all the way from responding to the environment (bacteria do that) up to the most complex abstract thoughts.

Peez

 

[ryan]

It would be so strange if only certain processes (brain processes) produced consciousness. That would go against one of the strongest foundations of science, reducibility.

 

[Peez]

It would be so strange if only certain processes (brain processes) produced consciousness. That would go against one of the strongest foundations of science, reducibility.

I have never heard of this "foundation of science". Would it be fair to say 'It would be so strange if only certain particles (atoms) produced molecules. That would go against one of the strongest foundations of science, reducibility.'? For the record I don't have a problem with things other than brains producing consciousness, what I see no reason to treat seriously is the idea that a lump of rock that does not reproduce itself somehow spontaneously becomes conscious.

Peez

 

[ryan]

It would be so strange if only certain processes (brain processes) produced consciousness. That would go against one of the strongest foundations of science, reducibility.

I have never heard of this "foundation of science". Would it be fair to say 'It would be so strange if only certain particles (atoms) produced molecules. That would go against one of the strongest foundations of science, reducibility.'? For the record I don't have a problem with things other than brains producing consciousness, what I see no reason to treat seriously is the idea that a lump of rock that does not reproduce itself somehow spontaneously becomes conscious.

Peez

A very important part of science is that there are some very fundamental particles (elementary particles) and their physical properties, and they have to be conserved if we are going to successfully make any predictions (except for strangeness in the weak interactions). No matter how these particles are positioned in space or when they decay from one elementary particle to another, the properties must stay conserved.

The only thing that changes are their mathematical values. For example, ten electrons will equal a total charge of 10-, or 7 electrons and 4 protons will equal a total charge of 3-. It's that simple.

But with the brain, if we were to add up all of the charges, spins, masses, etc. and apply the net scalar values we would get something like q charge, p spin, m mass, etc.

The processes, functions, mechanisms are all reducible to the particles/properties and only these particles/properties - nothing new should emerge. But the consciousness emerges, something that is not reducible to spin, charge, etc. for any particular brain.

If science is going to explain the consciousness, they must figure out which particle, could be all, add together to give a net total time of consciousness. Of course the nature of the consciousness makes this ridiculously hard (thus the "hard problem") if not impossible.

For all we know a rock could be constantly conscious of a spec of green, and that's it. If functionalism tells us anything, the rock most likely wouldn't have a memory, intellect, or anything else that requires more complex processes. But since it has all of the fundamental properties of particles that we have, it has to be conscious of something if science is going to apply its necessary tool of reducibility.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I wasn't suggesting you sounded irate and you didn't. I was talking about Malintent.

My bad, I should have been more explicit.



Maybe that's how you feel about it but it's clear to me that although my suggestion is indeed highly speculative, no doubt about that, it still can't be put on a par with speculations involving angels.

No... it is about on par as being completely baseless. Rating it "highly speculative" is giving it way too much credit as having a single reasonable basis for being taken remotely seriously. If things have a natural order and occur within that order, there is no suggestion at all that any thinking is occurring.

Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.

Me, I entirely believe that everything that a human does has a "natural order" and "occurs within that order", and I will guess that's also what you believe. Me, I still think that not only do I think on a routine basis but I also believe that nearly all people around me do a bit of thinking here and there in between what they're more interested in doing.

So are you saying that I'm somehow deluding myself? Do you yourself actually believe that human beings don't think? Or that they're somehow escaping the natural order of the universe?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Speakpigeon:
Maybe that's how you feel about it but it's clear to me that although my suggestion is indeed highly speculative, no doubt about that, it still can't be put on a par with speculations involving angels.

I also fail to see how it would be the clever thing to do to treat them as if they were on a par.
EB[

I don't know about "the clever thing to do", but it is clear to me that your speculation is "on a par with speculations regarding angels." There is absolutely no basis for either, and everything science has discovered about how the universe functions indicates that neither is worth considering.

Peez

Yeah, sure... Ah, the beauty of being carried away with one's opinions.

Only we surely all know ourselves and so we all actually know one thing in the universe that is effectively a thinking thing. So, you, too, must know yourself as a thinking thing. Now, could you also say you similarly know any angel-like thing? No, probably not. Do you think anybody does? Hmm, probably you don't. If so, you shouldn't claim that the two speculations are on a par.

Presumably, if you didn't know that humans existed you would be one to claim they would be as unlikely as angels to exist. And how wrong would that be, do you think?

So, yes, my speculation is very, very unlikely to be correct but that's only as far as we know so it doesn't mean we know it's wrong.
EB

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's a question of scope isn't it? Maybe the universe is part of a mechanism contained in a larger organism. What we call consciousness would simply be the natural path some part of that larger organism takes, not unlike a cell doing its thing among millions of other cells. Humans are conscious, we say, but aren't we really just saying that our brains are conscious? Is my foot conscious? Is my eye conscious? If the cells in my feet are not conscious then what are they? They seem to operate as if they are.