Pantheism and panpsychism

[veclock]

Following from the idea of proto consciousness...
Even if we figure out how physics gives rise to consciousness, is there still a why question remaining, or is everything satisfied by the how question?
Is the proto conscious element needed for physics to work the way it does?
Roger Penrose mentioned briefly in the beginning of his talk (in the lecture I posted) that the theory they are putting forward is not only to explain consciousness but also to explain other stuff within physics.

 

[untermensche]

I see no need to expand conscious experience into anything more than something that enables organisms to better survive.

Is there a "proto-wing" that gives rise to all wings?

A "proto-leg" that gives rise to legs?

Why is consciousness more incredible than a leg?

A leg is pretty incredible.

 

[fromderinside]

What I don't understand is how genetic mutated variation arrived at nanotube quantum selection. A theory so robust it defines most every beneficial change that's taken place in living things since the beginning of cellular organization. Never once has quanta pattern ever been identified as causal through mutation. What's more the actors in mutation don't appear to capable of driving such coding.

I'm siding with Penrose woo woo.

I'm pretty comfortable with existing explanations of consciousness being the capability to make sense of what one senses and how it acts to provide a bit presentation of what the being believes is going on. I'm pretty sure on can even explain how such mechanisms would evolve in one who had evolved the capability to recognize oneself. Surely one who chews one's own foot would be selected against.

I'm very comfortable with bilby's analysis.

There are so many really important things that need be resolved before we wander off into subjective self analysis trying to defend the idea we are special examples of subjective mentality. We are not examples of new physical properties.

 

[veclock]

I see no need to expand conscious experience into anything more than something that enables organisms to better survive.

Is there a "proto-wing" that gives rise to all wings?

A "proto-leg" that gives rise to legs?

Why is consciousness more incredible than a leg?

A leg is pretty incredible.

Following from Penroses theory, then yes, consciousness is a tool for enabling organisms to survive.
But, following from Penroses theory there's also proto consciousness for every collapse of a wave function. Going on everywhere basically.
If I understood correctly from their lecture, our consciousness seem to be these building blocks stitched together with quantum entanglement to a larger scale consciousness.

There are building blocks giving rise to wings and legs. They are called atoms, or rather the subatomical particles within them, and they are a fundamental part of physics yes.

 

[untermensche]

Mutations arise RANDOMLY.

Nothing drives them in any specific direction.

The evolving organism stumbles upon structures that make use of quantum effects randomly.

Like plants stumbled upon the use of quantum effects for photosynthesis randomly.

Conscious experience is not understood in the least looking at electromagnetic effects.

There is no accepted theory of consciousness creation to move away from.

There is only the search for a hypothesis that actually would lead to consciousness.

Those that say experience does not exist will never find or understand anything about consciousness. They are lost in some dark man-made delusion.

 

[untermensche]

I see no need to expand conscious experience into anything more than something that enables organisms to better survive.

Is there a "proto-wing" that gives rise to all wings?

A "proto-leg" that gives rise to legs?

Why is consciousness more incredible than a leg?

A leg is pretty incredible.

Following from Penroses theory, then yes, consciousness is a tool for enabling organisms to survive.
But, following from Penroses theory there's also proto consciousness for every collapse of a wave function. Going on everywhere basically.
If I understood correctly from their lecture, our consciousness seem to be these building blocks stitched together with quantum entanglement to a larger scale consciousness.

There are building blocks giving rise to wings and legs. They are called atoms, or rather the subatomical particles within them, and they are a fundamental part of physics yes.

The connection between observation and the so-called wave collapse is not something I comprehend.

Why should our observation cause anything?

Does an observation have energy contained within it that spreads wave-like out into the world?

Where do observations take place?

Does our mind spread outward and observe objects where they are?

Until there is an actual science of consciousness, until it is understood, all kinds of wild speculations can be made.

One can be conservative in one's speculations about consciousness or be more radical.

But neither has more answers.

 

[veclock]

The connection between observation and the so-called wave collapse is not something I comprehend.

Why should our observation cause anything?

Does an observation have energy contained within it that spreads wave-like out into the world?

Where do observations take place?

Does our mind spread outward and observe objects where they are?

Until there is an actual science of consciousness, until it is understood, all kinds of wild speculations can be made.

One can be conservative in one's speculations about consciousness or be more radical.

But neither has more answers.

You're thinking backwards.
The quantum experiments, like the double slit, where the observer causes it to collapse has nothing to do with consciousness, it's our measuring devices that causes it to collapse. Because measuring it changes the quantum system.
That's not part of the discussion though. It's the other way around, if I understood Pennrose correctly. It's the collapse of a wave function that causes the proto element of consciousness.

 

[fromderinside]

Ok. So what about  Quantum mind where the matter of time scale and the problem of speculation, no experimental evidence, are raised.

The main theoretical argument against the quantum-mind hypothesis is the assertion that quantum states in the brain would lose coherency before they reached a scale where they could be useful for neural processing. This supposition was elaborated by Max Tegmark. His calculations indicate that quantum systems in the brain decohere at sub-picosecond timescales.^[71][72] No response by a brain has shown computational results or reactions on this fast of a timescale. Typical reactions are on the order of milliseconds, trillions of times longer than sub-picosecond timescales.^[7

These hypotheses of the quantum mind remain hypothetical speculation, as Penrose and Pearce admit in their discussions. Until they make a prediction that is tested by experiment, the hypotheses aren't based on empirical evidence. According to Krauss, "It is true that quantum mechanics is extremely strange, and on extremely small scales for short times, all sorts of weird things happen. And in fact we can make weird quantum phenomena happen. But what quantum mechanics doesn't change about the universe is, if you want to change things, you still have to do something. You can't change the world by thinking about it."^[2 The process of testing the hypotheses with experiments is fraught with conceptual/theoretical, practical, and ethical problems.

Following the blast above those problems are expanded and filled out in the article.

It's quite literally an open season shooting gallery on the notions proposed. Defenses against which are mainly shoulder shrugs and hand waves.

So not only are bilby's comments on target but those of all the critics here are supported while the defenders are left whiffing with empty promises.

 

[untermensche]

The connection between observation and the so-called wave collapse is not something I comprehend.

Why should our observation cause anything?

Does an observation have energy contained within it that spreads wave-like out into the world?

Where do observations take place?

Does our mind spread outward and observe objects where they are?

Until there is an actual science of consciousness, until it is understood, all kinds of wild speculations can be made.

One can be conservative in one's speculations about consciousness or be more radical.

But neither has more answers.

You're thinking backwards.
The quantum experiments, like the double slit, where the observer causes it to collapse has nothing to do with consciousness, it's our measuring devices that causes it to collapse. Because measuring it changes the quantum system.
That's not part of the discussion though. It's the other way around, if I understood Pennrose correctly. It's the collapse of a wave function that causes the proto element of consciousness.

It's a theory of the universe based around this thing humans have, consciousness.

I am not drawn to those kinds of ideas.

I see consciousness as a biological phenomena with a biological purpose for existing.

I think Penrose and his partner go too far.

But nobody else has anything that explains consciousness or even begins to explain it.

So bad mouthing their ideas is meaningless chatter.

 

[veclock]

Ok. So what about  Quantum mind where the matter of time scale and the problem of speculation, no experimental evidence, are raised.

The main theoretical argument against the quantum-mind hypothesis is the assertion that quantum states in the brain would lose coherency before they reached a scale where they could be useful for neural processing. This supposition was elaborated by Max Tegmark. His calculations indicate that quantum systems in the brain decohere at sub-picosecond timescales.^[71][72] No response by a brain has shown computational results or reactions on this fast of a timescale. Typical reactions are on the order of milliseconds, trillions of times longer than sub-picosecond timescales.^[7

These hypotheses of the quantum mind remain hypothetical speculation, as Penrose and Pearce admit in their discussions. Until they make a prediction that is tested by experiment, the hypotheses aren't based on empirical evidence. According to Krauss, "It is true that quantum mechanics is extremely strange, and on extremely small scales for short times, all sorts of weird things happen. And in fact we can make weird quantum phenomena happen. But what quantum mechanics doesn't change about the universe is, if you want to change things, you still have to do something. You can't change the world by thinking about it."^[2 The process of testing the hypotheses with experiments is fraught with conceptual/theoretical, practical, and ethical problems.

Following the blast above those problems are expanded and filled out in the article.

It's quite literally an open season shooting gallery on the notions proposed. Defenses against which are mainly shoulder shrugs and hand waves.

So not only are bilby's comments on target but those of all the critics here are supported while the defenders are left whiffing with empty promises.

They also responded to Tegmark:

In response to Tegmark's claims, Hagan, Tuszynski and Hameroff claimed that Tegmark did not address the Orch OR model, but instead a model of his own construction. This involved superpositions of quanta separated by 24 nm rather than the much smaller separations stipulated for Orch OR. As a result, Hameroff's group claimed a decoherence time seven orders of magnitude greater than Tegmark's, although still far below 25 ms. Hameroff's group also suggested that the Debye layer of counterions could screen thermal fluctuations, and that the surrounding actin gel might enhance the ordering of water, further screening noise. They also suggested that incoherent metabolic energy could further order water, and finally that the configuration of the microtubule lattice might be suitable for quantum error correction, a means of resisting quantum decoherence.[44][45]

I don't know if Tegmark or anyone else responded back, however I found this debate between Tegmark and Hameroff that I will listen to now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXBfXNW6Bxo

It's a theory of the universe based around this thing humans have, consciousness.

I am not drawn to those kinds of ideas.

I see consciousness as a biological phenomena with a biological purpose for existing.

I think Penrose and his partner go too far.

But nobody else has anything that explains consciousness or even begins to explain it.

So bad mouthing their ideas is meaningless chatter.

No. That's like saying physics is based around biology because biology consists of matter. They are not revolving it around conscoiusness, but proto-consciousness.
It still takes a complex structure like a brain to create a consciousness.

Why would a proto conscious property of physics be too far?

 

[untermensche]

Why would a proto conscious property of physics be too far?

Because it makes no sense.

A consciousness has a purpose (If free will exists).

It helps with survival.

A proto conscious helps with nothing.

It has no reason to exist.

No reason to think it exists.

Consciousness is the end result of a specific complexity, a brain.

No need to have more than a specific complexity to theorize a consciousness could arise out of it.

Proto consciousness, whatever that might be, is not needed.

 

[veclock]

Why would a proto conscious property of physics be too far?

Because it makes no sense.

A consciousness has a purpose (If free will exists).

It helps with survival.

A proto conscious helps with nothing.

It has no reason to exist.

No reason to think it exists.

Consciousness is the end result of a specific complexity, a brain.

No need to have more than a specific complexity to theorize a consciousness could arise out of it.

Proto consciousness, whatever that might be, is not needed.

Oh yes, that's a very good point.
Since we're in the metaphysics and the philosophy part of the forum... I can think of one philosophical/metaphysical argument why proto consciousness is needed.
I mentioned it briefly before. Maybe a subjective property is needs for existence to make sense at all. Imagine our universe sprung into existence and slowly faded away without any subjective experience of it.
After it's death, no trace of it.. Wouldn't that be almost as real as any fictional universe...? I guess it's similar to the classic "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
Not saying it's a good argument or anything, but if proto consciousness is real it might be a metaphysical necessity in this way.

I also think Max Tegmarks theory is interesting, that it's more a case of a state of matter / information process. But then that leads to some other wacky consequences that we were discussing earlier...
Tegmark is revolving his idea around that consciousness is an emergent phenomena that is greater than its parts. Comparing it to different fluid properties like viscosity etc. My only problem with that is that everything he listed is governed by fundamental physics, namely movement of particles. The hard problem of consciousness is not solved by that. However I think that his theory about the mathematical universe, that math gives rise to physics, helps with his argument, because then both physics and consciousness is fundamentally mathematics/information processing.

So while Penrose and Hameroff tries to solve the hard problem by combining physics and consciousness in the realm of physics,
Tegmark is trying to solve it by combining them both in the realm of mathematics.

 

[untermensche]

I don't think the universe cares if anything notices it.

You are not showing how proto-consciousness in itself has a use.

It is not a consciousness. So what is it doing?

I think proto-consciousness is an easy answer that doesn't really answer anything.

 

[veclock]

I don't think the universe cares if anything notices it.

You are not showing how proto-consciousness in itself has a use.

It is not a consciousness. So what is it doing?

I think proto-consciousness is an easy answer that doesn't really answer anything.

If there are no metaphysical laws, then you're right, the universe does not care if anything notices it.
I think it's possible to propose the idea because I don't think the problem of proto-consciousness is as hard as the "hard problem" of consciousness.
Anyway, speaking from pure physics you're right, it needs to have a purpose. But from what I heard from Penrose, he had reasons to draw this conclusions not only to solve the problem of consciousness but for other reasons as well.
If those reasons were coming from physics I haven't found yet because just started to scratch the surface of their theory. I'll try to dig it out, or maybe someone else knows?

But ok. So you say "A consciousness has a purpose (If free will exists). It helps with survival."
If the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, the universe splits for every collapse of the wave function, if I understand correctly.
So everything is happening essentially in different time lines / parallel universes.

If an organism wants to survive, it has to navigate this higher dimensional maze of parallel universes to find itself in the one where it survives.
In other words
If an organism wants to survive, it has to make conscious decisions that leads to its survival.

Do you see the connection there?

Basically,

consciousness is what is navigating the organism towards survival in this sea of different time lines.
consciousness is a complex system of proto consciousness, which in turn are collapses of the wave function.
Where wave functions collapse, the time line splits.
So... where proto consciousness takes place, time line splits.
So coming back to, consciousness is a tool for the organism to use to guide itself to the time line where it survives.

It doesn't answer the question why proto consciousness would be needed in physics,
but I think if the many worlds interpretation is right then consciousness as a tool for survival and proto consciousness as the collapse of the wave function goes quite well hand in hand.

 

[untermensche]

What is needed is a definition.

What specifically is proto-consciousness?

When do we know when we see it?

What is it made of?

 

[veclock]

What is needed is a definition.

What specifically is proto-consciousness?

When do we know when we see it?

What is it made of?

They are all very good questions. Last one, would be collapse of the wave function, but I assume you take a more hard-problem approach to the question?
But let me ask you, since you argue for consciousness as a survival tool, do you think that my last reply made sense at all, that there might be something to it?
Because that's something I've been thinking about a lot, would be interesting to hear someone elses thoughts on it.

 

[untermensche]

I am here with my one consciousness.

I know of no other universes and cannot observe a wave collapse.

It seems straight forward on one level.

The apple is there. The energy is there.

The energy bounces off the colorless apple and the brain creates the experience of a red apple.

No need for any other universe in that.

All that is not known is how the brain creates a consciousness and how it creates a representation of the apple for a consciousness to experience.

 

[veclock]

I am here with my one consciousness.

I know of no other universes and cannot observe a wave collapse.

It seems straight forward on one level.

The apple is there. The energy is there.

The energy bounces off the colorless apple and the brain creates the experience of a red apple.

No need for any other universe in that.

All that is not known is how the brain creates a consciousness and how it creates a representation of the apple for a consciousness to experience.

I interpret that reply as you reject the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

 

[untermensche]

I am here with my one consciousness.

I know of no other universes and cannot observe a wave collapse.

It seems straight forward on one level.

The apple is there. The energy is there.

The energy bounces off the colorless apple and the brain creates the experience of a red apple.

No need for any other universe in that.

All that is not known is how the brain creates a consciousness and how it creates a representation of the apple for a consciousness to experience.

I interpret that reply as you reject the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

What I think won't matter in that. This woman is a physicist.

 

[veclock]

Well, people who argues for the many worlds interpretation are also physicists.
But interesting non the less.