What you are putting forth is a modern mix of traditional modes of beliefs.
There is really nothing new, just renaming and recombining. You are arguing and rationalizing as to the theists on the forum.
As a generalization an anthropomorphism is attributing human qualities to the aspects of reality. The bain cres mind, the brain is physcal, therefore physical realty is censorious.
Pre science it was natural logical progression, explain reality as a reflection of us humans. I believe Aristotle was an animist. Gods are reflections of humans.
No, no spirits. No emotions, no intentions. I'm I'll side with Roger Penroses theory, which I think is the best formulated one, then just a little proto consciousness for every collapse of the wave function.
Consciousness is built when enough of these are quantumly entangled. Like billions-trillions, as in the microtubulars of the brain.
So as you probably understand, a mountain wouldn't be quantumly entangled with itself in this way. That's a huge difference between this and some animism religion, where spirits possess every rock. Brains creates consciousness, but using proto conscious building blocks that are fundamental to physics...
The consciousness of an individual is like a fingerprint.
It is an individual unique consciousness created by unique experiences using a unique set of genetic capacities.
Our consciousness is created by our experiences. Without the experience of language we would not have language.
There is no such thing as a general consciousness.
No such thing exists.
Only individual unique consciousnesses.
And these arise only because of genetic information utilized within a living organism and experience.
I wouldn't be so sure if I was you. Did you ever conduct an experiment where you quantum entangled half of your brain with someone elses?
What would that feel from the subjective point of view to one or the other?
Until someone starts doing experiments with brains and quantum entanglements to see what happens with consciousness, don't claim you know anything like it was a fact. No one knows yet.
No, no spirits. No emotions, no intentions. I'm I'll side with Roger Penroses theory, which I think is the best formulated one, then just a little proto consciousness for every collapse of the wave function.
Consciousness is built when enough of these are quantumly entangled. Like billions-trillions, as in the microtubulars of the brain.
So as you probably understand, a mountain wouldn't be quantumly entangled with itself in this way. That's a huge difference between this and some animism religion, where spirits possess every rock. Brains creates consciousness, but using proto conscious building blocks that are fundamental to physics...
I wouldn't be so sure if I was you. Did you ever conduct an experiment where you quantum entangled half of your brain with someone elses?
What would that feel from the subjective point of view to one or the other?
Until someone starts doing experiments with brains and quantum entanglements to see what happens with consciousness, don't claim you know anything like it was a fact. No one knows yet.
What do you think you would be if you were deprived of all experience?
Your mind was created by experience.
It did not exist at birth.
There is no universal consciousness.
There is your consciousness that is not my consciousness.
As far as we can observe there are only evolved animals that have consciousnesses.
The rocks have not somehow developed a consciousness. They have nothing they could do with one.
Do you ever listen to George Nory on the radio show Coast To Coast AM? They talk about this kind of pseudo science all tye time.
Google coast to coast am and go to their web site. You will find plenty of support for your ideas. You can even call in and talk to George when he is on the air.
I don't watch any of these kinds of videos, there is no point.
For me pseudo science is a prerceptionn based on knowledge of sceince and applying science for 30 yeras.
If nothing else true science is skeptical. Initially Einstein had a hard time selling Relativity, now it is mainstream.
On Coast To Coast AM I listened to a wman claim that putting mushrooms in sunlight absorbed vitamin D from the radiation. Clearly pseudo science.
String Theory at first was considered pretty far out, some scientists called it philosophy, but not pseudo science. String Therry is based on sound math and principles.
QM is well established and is used every day in technology. There is a lot of pseudoscience based on interpretation of QM.
Without a grounding in science you are at the mercy of others peddling pseudoscience.
For me sometimes it is clearly pseudoscience, sometimes I can not tell, once and a while I have been fooled until I did reseach on a topic.
People with a scince dgree who identify as a scientist can and do peddle pseudoscience based on the credential of a dehree. Authority from credentials, I have a PHD in science so what I say is true. Not all scientists are 'scientists'.
I'm sorry, you're just repeating yourself. You didn't adress what I asked you about that hypothetical experiment.
Scince means different things to different people.
Academic science sits back and works out new ideas mathematically and experimentally. Particle physics and Astronomy.
Commercial applied science figures out how to make use of theory.
Popular science extrapolates on science, often presenting outlandish extrapolations like time travel. Not considered pseudo science, entertainment.
And lastly the ;new age'; science-mysticism that mixes modern science with traditional mysticism. Depak Chopra is a leading figure. A man with valid medical credentials who spins QM with mysticism and consciousness. He once claimed an earthquake was caused by his meditating. He has appeared in PBS shows. And of course Scientology, based on pseudo science and the E Meter. which just measures galvanic skin response.
I grew up in the 60s-70s and saw most of mystical mumbo jumbo. Books began appearing the 60s blending mystical and science. Mystical con scams le Divine Light Mission. Ekmkar.
For me I go by the science philopsosopher Popper who defined science as that which can be demonstrated. Anf by Kelvin who said centuries back if you can't quantify what you are saying with numbers you're knowledge is of a 'meager and unsatisfactory kind'.
That pretty much excludes the paranormal, at least so for. For example if someone could demonstrate telekinesis the exerted force could be measured.
If you are looking for some kind of validation from me it is not going to happen. Make up your own mind one way or the other.
Try Buddhism or any of the Indian traditions that teach reincarnation. I read several books on Tibetan Buddhism, heavy on the paranormal. Telepathy. A Tibetan saint Milarepa was said to have 'flown through the air with the speed of an arrow'. Like Jesus walking on water.
As t all the internet videos, thay all take the same form and formula. Your OP is typical. A common theme is trying to present a scientific bais for life after death and mind independent of brain.
I occupy myself learning new science and math,
I'm sorry, you're just repeating yourself. You didn't adress what I asked you about that hypothetical experiment.
You have not proposed any kind of real experiment. Not even a thought experiment.
Quantum entanglement is not consciousness and nobody can imagine what it would mean for something as large as a brain.
You might as well ask what it would feel like to flap your arms real fast and fly.
I repeat points that are logically valid.
We know why we as humans have consciousness.
We are evolved animals with billions of years of evolution in the past.
We use consciousness to survive.
It is a survival mechanism for animals.
Plants don't need it.
You have no valid reason anything else should have it.
Ok well, you're way out of topic.
This isn't about the supernatural. This is about trying to understand how the laws of physics can lead to consciousness. What objective physical process or processes that leads to subjective experience.
So really this comes from naturalistic materialism.
Ok well, you're way out of topic.
This isn't about the supernatural. This is about trying to understand how the laws of physics can lead to consciousness. What objective physical process or processes that leads to subjective experience.
So really this comes from naturalistic materialism.
And you are unable to grasp the chronic point people make on the form, consciousnesses is biological. It is a function of our physical neuro-net brain, period. The only alternative to date is the supernatural.
The problem with metaphysics as a tool to describe physicals reality and perceptions is that it is hopelessly self referential and imprecise. It is like a dog chasing its tail.
Metaphor is better than metaphysics. Imagine an AI that becomes self aware and tries to deduce the nature of its consciousness, electronic circuits.
The AI asks other AIs, is this it? Am I just a collection of circuits and wires? Does consciousness exist indecent of the computer?
Physics oes not lead to consiouness, it describes and models the physical process of te brain. To date neuro science has not developed a compressive model of the brain, someday it will happen.
What you're still getting wrong is that I'm not talking about consciousness, I'm talking about proto consciousness.
What you're still getting wrong is that I'm not talking about consciousness, I'm talking about proto consciousness.
It's not a real biological idea. It is just a word.
Consciousness arrives after a certain level of complexity in nervous systems arrives.
Evolution was the process that created the complexity.
And when there is consciousness there is a biological use for it.
Ok well, you're way out of topic.
This isn't about the supernatural. This is about trying to understand how the laws of physics can lead to consciousness. What objective physical process or processes that leads to subjective experience.
So really this comes from naturalistic materialism.
And you are unable to grasp the chronic point people make on the form, consciousnesses is biological. It is a function of our physical neuro-net brain, period. The only alternative to date is the supernatural.
The problem with metaphysics as a tool to describe physicals reality and perceptions is that it is hopelessly self referential and imprecise. It is like a dog chasing its tail.
Metaphor is better than metaphysics. Imagine an AI that becomes self aware and tries to deduce the nature of its consciousness, electronic circuits.
The AI asks other AIs, is this it? Am I just a collection of circuits and wires? Does consciousness exist indecent of the computer?
Physics oes not lead to consiouness, it describes and models the physical process of te brain. To date neuro science has not developed a compressive model of the brain, someday it will happen.
Of course I am able to grasp that. That's been my view all my life. That consciousness is created in the brain, and that without a brain, no consciousness exists.
Until now when I'm playing with the idea that there might be proto-consciousness outside of the brain. But remember that. I'm playing with the idea, it's not a belief or anything, it's not claiming it's the answer, it's asking the question. I think it's a necessary question.
One has to be able to ask, from a materialistic naturalistic point of view, what is the smallest physical system that has subjective experience?
Is there a proto-conscious building block for consciousness or not? That's a question that I arrive at from a materialistic naturalistic point of view.
I've been opposing supernaturalism and religion all my life, that's why I registered here.
But unfortunately many of the people here reminds me about "if you're a hammer everything looks like a nail".
If you're spending lots of time arguing against religious and supernatural believers, everything looks like supernatural beliefs.
You can't seem to grasp that it's possible to ask these questions from a materialistic naturalistic point of view.
I think if AI built from circuits and wires could have consciousness, it would be reasonable for it to ask, what is it about these circuits and wires that leads to consciousness?
That's also like saying, there's nothing physical about a leg, only biological. Sure, the leg is biological, they consist of cells. But ultimately, it consists of atoms.
I'm asking the same about consciousness. Sure, it has a biological function, but fundamentally, it's all physics. So what is it about the physics in the brain that leads to consciousness?
What you're still getting wrong is that I'm not talking about consciousness, I'm talking about proto consciousness.
It's not a real biological idea. It is just a word.
Consciousness arrives after a certain level of complexity in nervous systems arrives.
Evolution was the process that created the complexity.
And when there is consciousness there is a biological use for it.
I know. It's quite a philosophical word at this point
I've heard it from David Chalmers, Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff.
"Consciousness arrives after a certain level of complexity"
How do you know that? What is this certain level of complexity?
So you say there's like a threshold of complexity? Is that a network of a certain number of neurons, or a single neuron?
I mean, if there needs to be a certain number of neurons, then there's some mathematical property of that network that would correspond to consciousness.
You seem to be going around in cicles. Again the analogy to a computer.
What we know.
1. The sigmals in te brain are electrical.
2. The wirng of the brain forms a netwrk of logic.
3. Differt areas of the brain serve differt functions like speech.
Commerical neiral nets based on the bran have been around for a while. They are used for pattern recognition like video.
What consciousness 'is' in the way you frame it to me is not a valid question, especially considering that oiu invoke physics.
Consciousness is the logic of the brain analogous to an AI being the physical logic of the computer. Beyond that IMO is semantics and metaphysical gymnastics.
If you want to talk the physical basis of consciousness start with how neurons form logic functions and how they are interconnected. Plenty on the net.
It's a word with no meaning and nothing in the world it has a correlation to.
I've heard it from David Chalmers, Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff.
And if those guys can't make anything from it I have my doubts others will.
Consciousness results from discrete physical events; such events have always existed in the universe as non-cognitive, proto-conscious events, these acting as part of precise physical laws not yet fully understood. Biology evolved a mechanism to orchestrate such events and to couple them to neuronal activity, resulting in meaningful, cognitive, conscious moments and thence also to causal control of behavior. These events are proposed specifically to be moments of quantum state reduction (intrinsic quantum “self-measurement”). Such events need not necessarily be taken as part of current theories of the laws of the universe, but should ultimately be scientifically describable. This is basically the type of view put forward, in very general terms, by the philosopher A.N. Whitehead [9,10] and also fleshed out in a scientific framework in the Penrose–Hameroff theory of ‘orchestrated objective reduction’ (‘Orch OR’ [11–16]). In the Orch OR theory, these conscious events are terminations of quantum computations in brain microtubules reducing by Diósi–Penrose ‘objective reduction’ (‘OR’), and having experiential qualities. In this view consciousness is an intrinsic feature of the action of the universe.
The Orch-OR scheme adopts DP as a physical proposal, but it goes further than this by attempting to relate this particular version of OR to the phenomenon of consciousness. Accordingly, the ‘choice’ involved in any quantum state-reduction process would be accompanied by a (miniscule) proto-element of experience, which we refer to as a moment of proto-consciousness, but we do not necessarily refer to this as actual consciousness for reasons to be described.
The idea is that consciousness is associated with this (gravitational) OR process, but (see Section 4.5)occurs significantly only when (1) the alternatives are part of some highly organized cognitive structure capable of information processing, so that OR occurs in an extremely orchestrated form, with vast numbers of microtubule acting coherently, in order that there is sufficient mass displacement overall, for the τ ≈¯h/EGcriterion to be satisfied. (2) Interaction with environment must be avoided long enough during the U process evolution so strictly orchestrated components of the superposition reach OR threshold without too much randomness, and reflect a significant non-computable influence. Only then does a recognizably conscious Orch OR event take place. On the other hand, we may consider that any individual occurrence of OR without orchestration would be a moment of random proto-consciousness lacking cognition and meaningful content. We shall be seeing orchestrated OR in more detail shortly, together with its particular relevance to microtubules. In any case, we recognize that the experiential elements of proto-consciousness would be intimately tied in with the most primitive Planck-level ingredients of space–time geometry, these presumed ‘ingredients’ being taken to be at the absurdly tiny level of 10−35m and 10−43s, a distance and a time some 20 orders of magnitude smaller than those of normal particle-physics scales and their most rapid processes, and they are smaller by far than biological scales and processes. These scales refer only to the normally extremely tiny differences in space–time geometry between different states in superposition, the separated states themselves being enormously larger. OR is deemed to take place when such tiny space–time differences reach the Planck level (roughly speaking). Owing to the extreme weakness of gravitational forces as compared with those of the chemical and electric forces of biology, the energy EG is liable to be far smaller than any energy that arises directly from biological processes.
In conventional views, the experiential qualities of conscious awareness are assumed to have emerged from com-plex neuronal computation at some point in evolution, whether recently in human brains, or at some earlier, but unspecified level of development. In these views, consciousness is an emergent property of complex computational activity. On the other hand, Orch OR follows the notion that OR events with primitive ‘experiential’ qualities have been occurring in the universe all along, in the reduction R of quantum superpositions to classical reality. Small super-positions lacking isolation would entangle directly with the random environment, rapidly reaching OR threshold byτ ≈¯h/EG, resulting in non-orchestrated OR events. Each such event would lack cognition or any non-computational influence, but would be associated with an undifferentiated ‘proto-conscious’ experience, one without information or meaning. Such undifferentiated experiences are taken, in the Orch OR scheme, to be irreducible, fundamental features of ‘Planck scale geometry’, perhaps ultimately having a physical role as important to basic physics as those of mass, spin or charge.
Section 1 described three possibilities regarding the origin and place of consciousness in the universe: (A) as an emergent property of complex brain neuronal computation, (B) as spiritual quality of the universe, distinct from purely physical actions, and (C) as composed of discrete ‘proto-conscious’ events acting in accordance with physical laws not yet fully understood. The Orch OR theory follows (C), and includes aspects of (A) and (B). Orch OR suggests consciousness consists of discrete moments, each an ‘orchestrated’ quantum-computational process terminated by the DP version of OR, an action rooted in quantum aspects of the fine structure of space–time geometry, this being coupled to brain neuronal processes via microtubules.
[...]
So far, this is just the original DP proposal. However Orch OR goes further than this, and puts forward the suggestion that each action of OR (taken to be in accordance with DP) is accompanied be a moment of proto-consciousness. These events would be thought of as the elemental constituents of ‘subjective experience’, or qualia, but the vast majority of such OR events act without being part of some coherent organized structure, so that the relevant material is normally totally dominated by random behavior in the entangled environment. Accordingly, there would normally be no significant experience associated with these ubiquitous proto-conscious events. Yet, these moments of proto-consciousness are taken to be the primitive ingredients of actual full-blown consciousness, when they are appropriately orchestrated together into a coherent whole.
I know because consciousness is a biological phenomena.
That is a real question about real things.
There might be a way to find an answer.
No.
There are no mathematical properties in anything in the world.
There is human mathematics and abstractions of the world using it.
Does this look like nothing?
In conventional views, the experiential qualities of conscious awareness are assumed to have emerged from com-plex neuronal computation at some point in evolution...
Does this look like nothing?
It looks like an undefined word.
You have given me places where the word is mentioned.
Nowhere is the concept made into something real or something that might be studied. It is not even something that can be discussed. It is found nowhere.
It is all a bunch of hand waving.
I don't buy it.
Protoconsciousness = Imaginary nothingness
In conventional views, the experiential qualities of conscious awareness are assumed to have emerged from com-plex neuronal computation at some point in evolution...
Also the conventional view is that consciousness arises randomly, like all biological traits, and only remains and evolves if it does something helpful for survival.
You have a mind for the same reason you have a spleen or a leg. Because it does something related to survival. Biological entities don't waste energy on things with no use.
As an a engineer I look at all things as systems through the window of thermodynamics.
The brain is a newtwrk of logc nodes, this is known.
The open mind mind argument is often used to make a case for pseudo science and wild speculations.
Theists make a claim for existnce of god with sopustcated reasoning and theolgy, and it can not be disporved.=, ay least by science.
From a science perspective ir t is ok to say I or we do not know, Today it is nt known how the consciousness 'works' in terms of a detailed model. To me the analogy is hardware and software. Hardware is our genetic programming, software is leared experience.
Theists and others try to make our biological functioning into something mysterious or mystical.
So, that is it for me.
Trying to describe physical reality in words is metaphysics and philosophy. Both always fall short because words are contextual.
What scnce trys to do is crete models. Artifical Intellegence is emulating aspects of human reasoning and perception in hardware and software. Artificial Consciousness would be emulating a functional human equivalent.
'What something 'is' is an impossible question. What has mening is a quntified decription of something.
What is a rock? A rock is a collection of atoms modeled in physics. What is consciousness? The result of chemical processes in the brain modeled by physics.
Consciousness is an ill defined contextual word impossible to nail down. To define it you have to use subjective perceptions of your 'consciousness' to define consciousness, self referential.
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?24619-NOVA-Secret-Mind-Of-Slime&p=931411#post931411
This is the kind of video I watch, ones that increase my knowledge and understanding.
bi
Research into slime mold that exhibits cognition ad learning, a precursor to the animal brain. An objective scientific look at the possible origins of 'mind' and 'consciousness' that go back to early organisms.
