ID and Consciousness

The fascinating discussions from this thread deserve a new home. Enjoy.

This entry was posted on Monday, May 28th, 2007 at 9:07 am and is filed under Brain, Intelligent Design, Philosophy of Mind. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

66 Responses to “ID and Consciousness”

Thought Provoker Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Thank You Mike! I take back all the bad things I said about you.

This may be old news to Joy and MikeGene. There are even a couple of categories with past posts on the topics of Brain and Philosophy of Mind.

Please excuse my excitement and provocative ways but this has huge potential. Why worry about building Big Tents and arguing about what will be taught in school? We aren't talking about the "Best" solution here, we are talking about the ONLY proposed solution that can explain nonalgorithic consciousness without direct involvement of the Ultimate Engineer. If this is right, "E=h/T" will become the new "E=mc^2" with teachers and administrators scrambling to understand what that means. Everyone will be scrambling on both sides of the Culture War. Total chaos. Everyone thinking for themselves. It will be GREAT! (but, understand, it is only a modest scientific hypothesis at this point with HUGH, PARADIGM-SETTING POTENTIAL)

Let's do science!

Quantum mechanics experiments provide mind numbing evidence of the "impossible" (e.g. nondeterminstic retrocausality) The tubulin dimers that make up microtubules are small enough to be influenced by quantum level effects. And microtubules everywhere! (at least in everything we would call a living organism). Quantum mechanics is the engine and microtubules are the transmission mechanism that drives the consciousness of all life on earth.

Here is a link where I summarize Penrose's logic.

Here is a link where I expound more on the "weak" points of Penrose's logic.

And this is the link that brings in the tantalizing idea that the Cambrian Evolutionary Explosion marked the dawning of life's consciousness.

Be warned. All of this has the potential of generating headaches and turning predictable ID critics into raving, excited lunatics.

Provoking Thought

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 28, 2007 @ 10:47 am

bFast Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 10:53 am
magna:

Life in general does not seem to contain specialized neural structures at all (unicellular life) or of sufficient complexity (metazoans other than higher mammals and some birds).

I remember years ago seeing a very small spider on a window. As I approached it with my hand, it reared up and held out its two front legs "ready to take me on". As my hand came closer, it decided to do a beeline out of there. Now, behavioral psychologists will say that I have just seen a classic "fight or flight response." I have a fight or flight response, and as I am sure you understand, my fight or flight response is a very conscious thing. Therefore, the only example of a fight or flight response that I have intimate understanding of is conscious. I believe that it is pure assumption to conclude that the spider has no conscious awareness when it exhibits its fight or flight responose. I therefore contend that any living organism that is capable of demonstrating a fight or flight response is likely to have at least rudimentary conscious awareness.

Comment by bFast — May 28, 2007 @ 10:53 am

bFast Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 11:08 am
MikeGene, thanks for bringing this thread forward. It is an intriguing discussion that got lost to me because I wasn't following the previous thread.

TP, could you please put some meat on the bones of E= h/T? I purused throught the previous thread, even searching for E= h/T to see if I could gather an understanding of it, but I failed. What is E, what is h, what is T, so what?

Comment by bFast — May 28, 2007 @ 11:08 am

Thought Provoker Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Hi bfast,

You wrote…

TP, could you please put some meat on the bones of E= h/T? I purused throught the previous thread, even searching for E= h/T to see if I could gather an understanding of it, but I failed. What is E, what is h, what is T, so what?

Did I forget to mention this stuff is HARD? It is where the headaches come from. Not to worry. Rodger Penrose has a new book out that explains everything. Its title is The Road to Reality. I understand it has 1100 pages of complicated equations that eventually explains what E= h/T means and why it is important.

I will give it a try, but please understand I am struggling with this myself. You see there is this imaginary cat named "SchrÃ¶dinger's cat" whose very life is directly linked to quantum level effects which includes the "impossible" pardox of two opposing quantum states being both true. Logically, this means this imaginary cat is both alive and dead at the same time.

Please, if you think the answer is easy, THINK AGAIN. This problem has stumped the greatest minds for decades. IT IS HARD.

Penrose, feels the problem can't just be ignored. There has to be a solution that translates into reality. So somehow, someway reality has to "collapse" the pardox of many states into a single, specific state. The cat is either alive or dead, not both.

Penrose (and others) suggest this has to do with Planck's constant (h). The time (T) it takes to collapse the paradoxical multistate into a single reality is equal to h divided by E (gravitational self-energy of a separated mass). The larger the mass, the faster the collapse (T = h/E). Experiments are being conducted to test this. It has yet to be falsified.

Traditionally, it is shown as E = h/T.

Please click this link for more "meat" on microtubules and Cambrian Evolutionary Explosion. It includes…
In Penrose's OR the size of an isolated superposed system (gravitational self-energy E of a separated mass) is inversely related to the coherence time T according to the uncertainty principle E=h /T, where h (actually "hbar") is Planck's constant over 2 pi. T is the duration of time for which the mass must be superposed to reach quantum gravity threshold for self-collapse. Large systems (e.g. Schrodinger's 1 kg cat) would self-collapse (OR) very quickly, in only 10-37 seconds. An isolated superposed single atom would not OR for 106 years. Somewhere between those extremes are brain events in the range of tens to hundreds of milliseconds. A 25 millisecond brain event (i.e. occurring in coherent 40 Hz oscillations) would require nanogram (10-9 gram) amounts of superposed neural mass.

Regards,
TP

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 28, 2007 @ 11:39 am

Rock Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Consciousness? Way overrated. Useless, as near as I can tell. I think people should use the word they really mean when they use the word "consciousness": Ghost. Spirit, soul, demon, genius, etc.

I think that's the real reason for recourse into the supermundane quantum realm. There's just no room in the real world anymore for ghosts and sprites and all the mythological menagerie of the mind. People think quantum physics is "weird" (literally) therefore it's the natural place for such imaginary entities. A sort of quantum mechanical fairy kingdom.

This is exactly what I should expect from ID.

You'll find the real cutting edge ID research here

http://www.ghostresearch.org/

Comment by Rock — May 28, 2007 @ 1:06 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Hi Rock,

LOL

I thought Joy was exaggerating when she implied there were walking, talking zombies out there.

Yes, this is the weakest part of the logic chain. Are we anything more than complicated algorithmic Turing machines?

Big Blue is an algorithmic Turing machine that can beat just about everyone on the planet in a game of chess, yet most humans can figure this chess problem out with only a minor understanding of the game and Big Blue couldn't.

Humans can recognize the pattern the pawns make and "know" the king is safe as long and the wall of pawns remains intact.

Could Big Blue be improved to solve this problem without Quantum Mechanics? Maybe. But we may never know since AI is already studying the use of Quantum Mechanics to "non-monotonic reasoning (NMR), or organizational decision-making." link

Provoking Thought

P.S. Mike posted this gem a couple of months ago. Try wrapping your algorithmic Turing machine around why this works"¦

I cduol not blveiee that I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid It deosn't mttaer inwaht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? Yaeh and yuo awlyas thghout slpeling was ipmorantt.

P.P.S. I need to go do family things for a while. Will be back later

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 28, 2007 @ 1:31 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
"Yaeh and yuo awlyas thghout slpeling was ipmorantt."

Sleeping IS important. I feel the need to do it every nite.

Comment by kornbelt888 — May 28, 2007 @ 4:59 pm

bFast Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
TP: "Yaeh and yuo awlyas thghout slpeling was ipmorantt."

I remember being in college during the transition between typewriter generated term papers and computer generated term papers. I remember having great debates with my professors who were terribly conserned that my computer offered spellchecking. (They were happy enough if the computer pointed out misspellings, but really hated that the computer offered suggested alternatives.) As computers and spell checkers became more common, so the professor's zeal for perfect spelling diminished. That was refreshing. However, my need for quality spelling has been on the increase with the advent of search engines. I know that google has a "did you mean" feature, but still computers have not grasped slpelnig.

TP, as schrodignger's cat is both dead and not dead at the same time, does E = h/T imply that there may actually be life after death?

Rock:

Consciousness? Way overrated. Useless, as near as I can tell. I think people should use the word they really mean when they use the word "consciousness": Ghost. Spirit, soul, demon, genius, etc.

When I think of consciousness, I think of the dialog and pictures that go on in my mind's eye. I don't seen this as necessarily Ghost. Spirit, soul, demon, genius, etc., yet it is the the most obvious tool that I use in organizing my decision making process.

Comment by bFast — May 28, 2007 @ 6:40 pm

Rock Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
A tool for organizing decision-making processes!

I don't want to sound patronizing, bfast, but I think you're on to something.

Maybe "consciousness" could be grounded somewhere other than the "Other-World." Maybe there is a perfectly legitimate (even design-theoretic!) reason for grounding consciousness materially. One obvious reason could be that "we live and move and have our being" here. In the real, material world. (Well, at least some of us do. LOL)

But the dialogue is so often couched in terms of idiotic "ethocentrisms." And I don't mind saying so. If you believe consciousness has a material (and not "mythological") ground then you are a zombie, automaton, robot, machine, some sorta materialist, etc. Even a GD'd Darwinist!

Sorry, but its no shame to be a robot. It is not a moral failing to be material. (Christians adopted that nonsense from the ancient pagans. As someone once said, God must love matter because he made so much of it. He should have gone on to say, that God made so much of it.)

And its not even a question, because you aren't a robot, zombie, or machine. But that doesn't mean you'r a ghost, fairy, or sprite either. Those are silly philosophical stereotypes.

You'd think that IDers would be especially sensitive to such stereotyping.

Understanding the consciousness isn't going to be understood in those terms.

Comment by Rock — May 28, 2007 @ 8:53 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Hi bFast,

You wrote…

I remember being in college during the transition between typewriter generated term papers and computer generated term papers.

This makes me feel quite old.

I don't know if the younger crowd understands just how far we have come in just one generation. I won't bore you with stories about mechanical adding machines and mechanical typewriters. I will point out that the Apple II was introduced at the West Coast Computer Faire in 1977 (only 30 years ago). link

Trust me, it didn't have a spell checker in its 0.05 megabytes of Ram Memory.

TP, as schrodignger's cat is both dead and not dead at the same time, does E = h/T imply that there may actually be life after death?

The point Penrose is trying to make is that the cat ISN'T both dead and alive at the same time for longer than 10-37 seconds (time of self-collapse). Large objects self-collapse quickly, that is why we don't see evidence of quantum weirdness (Joy's description) in everyday life with the possible exception of consciousness.

I consider questions about life after death to probably be in the unknowable magisterium (NOMA). I don't see how Penrose's hypothesis provides any support to the standard life after death belief.

Provoking Thought

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 28, 2007 @ 9:27 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Hi Rock,

You wrote…

A tool for organizing decision-making processes!

I don't want to sound patronizing, bfast, but I think you're on to something.

I think you do sound patronising and I was the one that posted the part about the tool, not bfast.

Edited: I now see that bfast did post the tool part. My mistake.

Sorry, but its no shame to be a robot. It is not a moral failing to be material…

And its not even a question, because you aren't a robot, zombie, or machine. But that doesn't mean you'r a ghost, fairy, or sprite either. Those are silly philosophical stereotypes.

You'd think that IDers would be especially sensitive to such stereotyping.

Understanding the consciousness isn't going to be understood in those terms.

Ok Rock, what "terms" is consciousness going to be understood in?

Do you know who Rodger Penrose is?

Try googling his name.

Provoking Thought

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 28, 2007 @ 9:35 pm

chunkdz Says:
May 29th, 2007 at 1:42 am
I love the topic.
My reading of Penrose/Hammeroff is that they consider the tubulin proteins to be the quantum substrate of consciousness. But Jibu and Yasue seem to think that it is the water inside the microtubules that mediates the quantum collapse function. (Something about the fact that the water inside the tubes exists in a semi-crystalline state.) Is there any evidence for one or the other that you guys have come across? Is this possibly a way to get around Tegmark's objections?

Comment by chunkdz — May 29, 2007 @ 1:42 am

Thought Provoker Says:
May 29th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Hi All,

This is good.

I found it when researching the Quantum Consciousness.

It walks the reader through the science in an understandable fashion while bluntly provoking thought about the implications of it.

I think the author has probably managed to say things that assaults anyone's sensibilities, including mine. Stunney might be an exception.

bfast and anyone else interested in understanding quantum weirdness should jump to chapter 4.0 and read it. It is a good, understandable explanation.

Here are other parts I liked that are on topic…

Every cell has a cytoskeletal structure consisting of microtobules. Some scientists (e.g., Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind (1994), Chapter 7) have speculated that these microtobules might support coherent quantum states, i.e., an entire microtubule might exist in a single quantum state instead of in the individual quantum states of its molecules. This coherence would be similar to that exhibited in the Bell-Aspect experiments (see Section 4.3). If so, the microtubules in the neurons of the brain might comprise the quantum part of the brain, whereas the classical part of the brain might consist of the classically functioning neural synapses. The quantum states of the microtubules would interact with the classical states of the neural synapses to form the coupling between the quantum and classical parts. The microtubules in other types of cells in the body might contribute to a lower level of cellular intelligence.

All of the past and future may exist objectively now, and it may be only a limitation of our perception that prevents us from seeing more than the perceived present (note the distinction between the objective present and the perceived present as discussed in Section 5.9). This possibility is discussed more in Sections 12.1 and 12.5.
We must be clear that any concept of a future that is determined, or of a causality that operates in reverse time, is a purely metaphysical concept, and there may be no experiments or observations that could ever distinguish between them. These are different from the concepts of physics, which, even though admittedly based on a metaphysical concept (see Section 1.1), can be either validated (although not proved) or invalidated by experiment and observation.

Retrocausality

Here are the parts I felt were on the other side of the NOMA divide…

…concepts in quantum theory are usually conceived within the context of time and space, so it is in principle impossible to use such quantum concepts in a realm in which space-time is absent.
Thus, the concepts of wavefunctions and wavefunction collapse in the transcendental realm are meaningless.

..and this was just the start. If I have to struggle to understand this, I don't want to do it alone. Stunney?

Provoking Thought

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 29, 2007 @ 11:02 am

Thought Provoker Says:
May 29th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Hi chunkdz,

You wrote…

I love the topic….
Is there any evidence for one or the other that you guys have come across?

In my web search I have been finding lots to things related to the Penrose/Hammeroff model of consciousness. There are multiple papers and symposiums. You know a model is getting traction when people start arguing the nuances instead of questioning the main theme.

Here is a paper that talks about the another way to look at the "biophysics of neuronal microtubules". I like its reference to Robert Frost…

WE DANCE ROUND IN A RING AND SUPPOSE,
BUT THE SECRET SITS IN THE MIDDLE AND KNOWS.

Poetic and possibly ironic.

I will look into "Tegmark's objections" later.

Regards,
TP

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 29, 2007 @ 11:55 am

Thought Provoker Says:
May 29th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Hi Chunkdz,

You asked…

Is this possibly a way to get around Tegmark's objections?

You act like I should know the answer. Heck, I didn't even know who Tegmark was until you mentioned him. Links man, we need links. Like this one.

I assume this is the Tegmark objection you are talking about. I found a Hameroff response (apparently he addressed this in a book he wrote)…

Following from a chapter
"Biological feasibility of quantum approaches to consciousness – the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model" in Quantum approaches to consciousness, edited by Philip van Loocke, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 2000 Stuart Hameroff

Max Tegmark
In an attempt to refute quantum models of consciousness, physicist Max Tegmark at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton has written a paper "The quantum brain" which is posted on the Los Alamos Archives under quant-ph/9907009 5 July 1999 and forthcoming in Physical Review Letters E.

Tegmark's main point may be summarized:
"The make or break issue for all these quantum models is whether the relevant degrees of freedom of the brain can be sufficiently isolated to retain their quantum coherence, and opinions are divided. For instance Stapp has argued that interaction with the environment is probably small enough to be unimportant for neural processes whereas Hawking and Scott have conjectured that environment-induced coherence will rapidly destroy macrosuperpositions in the brain. It is therefore timely to try and settle the issue with detailed calculations of the relevant decoherence rates. This is the purpose of the present work."

But what are the relevant degrees of freedom?

Tegmark gives two treatments of quantum proposals: 1) superpositions of neurons firing and not firing, 2) superpositions of the location of a soliton on a microtubule. He calculates decoherence times due to interaction with environmental ions as 10-20 sec for superpositions of neurons firing/not firing, and 10-13 seconds for superpositions of solitons on microtubules.

I agree with his assessment that superpositions of neurons firing and not firing is unlikely. However regarding microtubules, Tegmark considers a model of classical kinks/solitons traveling along microtubules published by Sataric et al (based on our classical microtubule automaton model). Though he targets Penrose, Tegmark ignores the specifics of the Penrose Hameroff Orch OR proposal. Incorrectly attributing the idea to Penrose, Tegmark considers a kink/soliton in superposition of two different locations along the microtubule and then calculates interactions between the soliton displacement and calcium ions associated with the microtubule. So the degrees of freedom he is using in "refuting Penrose" is from a quantum model he himself has invented! Interestingly, Tegmark ignores interactions between proposed quantum states and surrounding water, taking the suggestion that surrounding water is "ordered" (though he attributes this notion to Nanopoulos and Mavromatos, who got the idea from Penrose-Hameroff). As far as ions inducing decoherence, this is a bit puzzling if Tegmark is assuming the water is ordered. Because if the water is ordered then the ions in the water (depending on their size relative to water) are also ordered. Ions whose radius is smaller than the H20 radius (1.38 angstroms) do not disturb the ordering (Ergin, 1983; Uedaira and Osaka,1989; Jibu et al, 1995). Sodium ions (radius 0.98 angstroms), calcium ions (1.0 angstroms) and magnesium ions (0.72 angstroms) can all embed in ordered water without disturbance. Ions whose radius is close to that of water (e.g. potassium 1.38 angstroms) can replace water molecules without disturbance, whereas larger ions will disturb ordering. Chloride (1.81 angstroms) is in the latter category and should disrupt water ordering. Chloride intra-cellular concentration is extremely low except for terminal phase of an action potential.

In any case Tegmark calculates a decoherence time for his superpositioned kink/solitons of 10-13 seconds based on an equation with the following characteristics (eqs 19 and 22 in his paper). The decoherence lifetime is related to an expression which has in it's numerator the distance a3 . a is the distance from the superposition to the nearest decohering ion. Since ions may be embedded ion ordered water, or separated from the superposition by a gel state, a in the Orch OR context at least may be some distance away. As a3 cubed is in the numerator, a 100 fold increase in effective a (e.g. from 0.1 nanometers to 10 nanometers due to ordered water, actin gelation, plasma sleeves etc) would be 6 orders of magnitude lengthening of the coherence time.

The denominator in Tegmark's equation includes the separation distance between superpositioned kink/solitons which he takes to be several tubulin lengths, or roughly 24 nanometers. However in the Orch OR model the separation of tubulin proteins from themselves only requires the diameter of one atomic nucleus, or fermi length (~10-6 nanometers). This is 7 orders of magnitude smaller in the denominator, combined with 6 orders of magnitude larger in the numerator . Compared to Tegmark's 10-13 seconds, this gives us on the order of roughly 1 second, good enough for Orch OR requiring 25 msec or longer.

link

It is always easier to challenge an existing theory rather than trying to create and defend your own. Tegmark is challenging, not offering alternatives. Answering challenges strengthens, rather than weakens, scientific theories.

Does Hameroff answer the challenge? Do suggestions from Jibu, Yasue and others "get around Tegmark's objections?"

I wish I was knowledgable enough to know the answer.

Joy, where are you?!?!?

Regards,
TP

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 29, 2007 @ 2:32 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
May 29th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
JOY, WHERE ARE YOU!?!?!?

How dare you go off and do real world stuff like memorial day activities and work?

The blogsphere needs you. I NEED YOU!

Ok, maybe that isn't the best way to start out asking for help, but…

I am beginning to suspect you know more than I thought you knew but I didn't know it. And when all these people find out you knew what you knew and let them ignore your attempts to explain it to them, they are going to be MAD.

To the audience listening to these rantings….

Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, introduced a thought experiment to demonstrate a nonlocality paradox to argue that the quantum mechanics was not a complete physical theory. It is known as the EPR paradox. In Quantum Mechanics, "nonlocality" means instantaneous effects at a distance.

In 1964 Bell developed a theorem to mathematically confirm the nonlocality of Quantum Mechanics. No big deal. After all, a little "quantum weirdness" at quantum levels doesn't mean much to our everyday classic physics lives. SchrÃ¶dinger's cat? That is just a silly thought puzzle that probably will never get solved.

Bringing us up to the present. Penrose thinks he may have an answer to the SchrÃ¶dinger's cat paradox. Penrose teams up with neurologist, Hameroff, and combines quantum weirdness with the weirdness of consciousness. It sounds like a plausible fit.

What do you mean non-local means NON-LOCAL?

Do you mean universal instantaneous consciousness?!?!?

Of course you do.

JOY, WHERE ARE YOU?!?!?

Fighting off a huge headache,
TP

P.S. I'm on my second read of Sobottka's ideas, I don't like what he is saying but I am having difficulties poking holes in it.

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 29, 2007 @ 5:32 pm

Rock Says:
May 30th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Apparently its a little difficult to relate "ID and Consciousness."

In answer to your question, Thought Provoker, I know who Penrose is and have little regard for his "theory." Dead end.

If a computer program makes a mistaken chess move I should conclude its not conscious or sentinient. Likewise, everytime I beat the paints off you in chess (Which would be everytime, btw LOL)–I should conclude (on Penrose's logic) your'e just some sort of… what? Brainless automaton? Witless machine? Zombie?

No. I conclude you made a mistake.

Only intelligent beings are even capable of making mistakes.

Penrose's "theory" is not an ID theory. It is (a really awful) reduction of "consciousness" (Which Penrose somehow identifies with Godel's theorems!) to QT. Purely physicalist, materialist, and all that other stuff IDers object to. (Maybe even "Darwinist"!).

I like bfast's (?) dialogue and "mind's eye" thoughts. It's not that I completely trust peoples' reports of their own "conscious" experiences. (Because as a scientists i can't.)

People report that they are consciously aware of an inner-dialogue. I find that fascinating and also at odds with common statements about what "consciousness" is. It is often stated that consciousness is a fully-integrated, immediate, and unforced, spontaneous, apprehension of what is. (Or at least what it is to experience consciousness.) That's not a dialogue! Am I wrong about that, bfast? Is that what a dialogue is?
To be conscious is not to have a dialogue with oneself! If one were even capable of, even if it was physically possible, to have a "dialogue" with oneself (a contradiction in terms) no one would consider you to be conscious. Consciousness is shared experience. Not private experience. By definition there is no science of personal or private experiences. Science is shared experiences. And we are (more or less) capable of sharing experiences. The "Hard Problem" is not a problem for science! The real "Hard Problem" is not personal experience"”The "Hard Problem" is entailed in our ability to share experiences.

And what does the "mind's eye" see? It certainly sees things that I cannot have possibly seen through my eyes. "Mind's Eye" means imagination.

Imagination has something very definite to do with intelligent design.

As even Einstien wrote…

Comment by Rock — May 30, 2007 @ 4:27 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
May 30th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Hi Rock,

You appear to be drawing the line at the A1 assumption. As I indicated that is the weak link of Penrose's chain of logic.

Do you know about Dr. Seuss's North-Going Zax?

Well, AI researchers are already looking into Quantum Mechanics to solve problems of non-monotonic reasoning and organizational decision-making. Scientists are arguing over whether the quantum level effects are coupled in via the dimers that make up the microtubules or the water molecules trapped inside the microtubules. Whether it is called "consciousness" or "non-algorithmic processing", it looks like a mechanism is possible. And in this universe if something is possible, it happens.

Excuse me while I refrain from being a South-Going Zax.

Provoking Thought

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 30, 2007 @ 5:18 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
May 30th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Hi All,

What's the matter with you guys?

I am having a lively debate over at P.Z.Myer's pharyngula.
(Get this Doug, they think I am arrogant )

A lot of comments are like Rock's but some of them are even more thought provoking.

Ok, I will be generating a longer comment (it should take about an hour).

So get your comments in now before I totally change the focus to stir things up.

Provoking Thought

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 30, 2007 @ 8:51 pm

CJYman Says:
May 30th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Hello TP,

I'm back for a bit. Hopefully we can continue our discussion from where we left off (although it was a while back). I've been on the road with work … thus extremely busy lately.

I am having a lively debate over at P.Z.Myer's pharyngula.
(Get this Doug, they think I am arrogant)

What a coincidence … I've been labelled that exact same adjective (among others) recently by someone commenting on my blog.

On topic now, if consciousness may be caused by sufficiently organized (complex specified informative) quantum occurences, has it ever occured to you that the universe MAY be both intelligent (information processor with ability to generate, store and use information) AND conscious, since it is founded on quantum occurrences?

Comment by CJYman — May 30, 2007 @ 9:14 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
May 30th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Hi CJYman,

Thank you for responding.

You asked…

if consciousness may be caused by sufficiently organized (complex specified informative) quantum occurences, has it ever occured to you that the universe MAY be both intelligent (information processor with ability to generate, store and use information) AND conscious, since it is founded on quantum occurrences?

You mean something like Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis?

Excuse me for a second [yells JOY, WHERE ARE YOU?!?!?]

Yes, my earliest explorations of ID was trying to find out what Dr. Dembski meant by "telic properties in nature" other that using it as a smoke screen in an attempt to hide his God agenda.

I have been exploring this possibility ever since I started posting to Telic Thoughts. Unfortunately, this kind of thinking gets treated like a Red Headed stepchild by just about everybody except Joy.

Now it looks like things are coming together and this "ID alternative" may have some real science behind it.

MikeGene and Chunkdz have been supportive and bfast has been curious, but that has been it (Until you just showed up).

Excuse me again [yells JOY, WHERE ARE YOU?!?!?]

Thank you again for stopping in. Please check back later. I am trying to shake things up by recapping and tying things together.

One of the things I will be talking about is how this could relate to EAM.

Regards,
TP

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 30, 2007 @ 9:36 pm

Bradford Says:
May 30th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
What's the matter with you guys?

I am having a lively debate over at P.Z.Myer's pharyngula.
(Get this Doug, they think I am arrogant )

Hi TP. I think a lot of us have gotten used to you. If you need a character reference I'll support you. That should go far with the Pandas.:mrgreen:

Comment by Bradford — May 30, 2007 @ 9:41 pm

CJYman Says:
May 30th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Hey TP,

This is definitely going to get exciting!!

Unfortunately it is "past my bedtime." I'll have to check in again later.

BTW: I originally thought that "intelligent design" was an inacurate title for the theory, since I haven't seen any evidence that intelligence is necessarily conscious (which for now I presume to be the only causal phenomenon for purposiveness). I came to this conclusion when I read about the chinese room experiment as an attempt at a thought experiment on consciousness. However, it merely represents an intelligent system — it has no subjective awareness. Thus intelligent design, as a scientific theory, is plausible since we know enough about intelligence to form "intelligence models" — ie: artificial intelligent programs — and see what IS intelligence, what causes intelligence (type of information processing) and what is caused by intelligence (information). However, "conscious design" is not QUITE YET scientific, since we do not QUITE YET understand consciousness. However, these ideas that you are "channeling" are I think the closest yet at proposing a scientific model of consciousness.

Yes, my earliest explorations of ID was trying to find out what Dr. Dembski meant by "telic properties in nature" other that using it as a smoke screen in an attempt to hide his God agenda.

Well, I have yet to see your definition of "God." The intelligent designer definitely can't be God, since God is eternal. Eternity doesn't merely increase in information (learn). However, as to consciousness, well that may be a different story. If the universe is conscious, who's to say, since the universe began to exist, it isn't just an extension of pre-existing eternal consciousness — but this is where we enter metaphysics.

I will soon be posting a little essay on my blog showing that the atheist must logically accept all attributes of God except one. That one attribute is omniscience. But, if the universe itself is conscious … …

may the eternal consciousness bless you …

I'm out for the night.

later …

Comment by CJYman — May 30, 2007 @ 9:58 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
May 30th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Hi All,

PART 1 – Introduction

Here is what I have found out starting with the stuff that is 99% accurate scientifically, IMO (we will leave metaphysics out for this section).

Quantum Weirdness is real and experimentally validated. It includes…
1. All possible quantum states exist simultaneously (super position).
2. Observation "chooses" which state is realized
3. All observations, no matter how far apart, agree instantaneously (nonlocality)

There are different schools of thought on the reality of #1 that are generally describes by the different responses to the SchrÃ¶dinger's cat paradox.

I know of three schools of thoughts…
1. It doesn't matter what reality is as long as we have a working model.
(ignores SchrÃ¶dinger's cat paradox)

2. All possible realities exist with multiple universes being constantly created.
(multiplies the SchrÃ¶dinger's cat paradox)

3. Observation creates reality.
(allows for a cat that is simultaneously alive and dead until observed)

An example of Quantum Weirdness is experimentally show in the dual slit experiment. With only one slit electrons will make an even distibution pattern. A second slit some distance away will make a pattern that is significantly inconsistent with the one-slit pattern (takes away parts of the even distribution). Weirdness.

There is something I can't overly stress. In Quantum Mechanics, time is just another dimension inseparable from space-time. With nonlocality, retrocausality is a trivial given. More weirdness.

Hopefully, Joy will show up and confirm this is all essentially correct.

Part 2 will be in the next comment.

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 30, 2007 @ 10:52 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
May 30th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
PART 2 – Penrose's Interpretation

In part 1, I made the bold statement that I would leave metaphysics out of the scientific discussion. That is very hard to do with Quantum Weirdness. "Observation creates reality" is a pretty metaphysical concept. Penrose expounds further on this metaphysical concept but he is claiming to be doing science. I reluctantly agree.

Penrose suggests that observation does, in fact, create reality (at least as real as "reality" gets). Observation forces a random selection of the possible quantum states. The randomization may not be uniform (as in the dual-slit experiment) but it will not be deterministic. This is called waveform collapse.

Penrose goes on to suggest that a waveform collapse will happen even without observation. The object's own gravity causes the collapse. The stronger the gravity the faster the collapse. Massive objects like SchrÃ¶dinger's cat collapse faster than less massive objects like electrons.

Penrose suggest that an unobserved waveform collapse is both nonrandom and nondeterministic. [Twilight Zone music begins to play]

Unfortunately, I have to cut this short. Hopefully Joy will stop by and help confirm or deny all of this. Good Night.

Regards,
TP

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 30, 2007 @ 11:35 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
May 31st, 2007 at 11:02 am
PART 2 – Penrose's Interpretation (continued)

Penrose suggests that an unobserved waveform collapse is both nonrandom and nondeterministic. [Twilight Zone music begins to play]

"You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind… That's the signpost up ahead – your next stop, the Twilight Zone!"

But it isn't a TV show; it's a well known physicist talking about real world science.

How can something be both nondeterministic and nonrandom?

Here is a link to my comment on the PZ Myers' blog where I think I have followed Joy's breadcrumbs to the ghosts of the machine.

Excuse me for a moment [Yells, "JOY, WHERE ARE YOU?!?!?"]

Pardon the interruption. Where was I? Oh yes, nondeterministic/nonalgorithmic thoughts of Penrose.

Penrose claims that his ability, as a mathematician, to conceptualize non-algorithmic things is inconsistent with a computer only capable of algorithmic processing.

Penrose feels, and Kurt GÃ¶del's incompleteness theorems supports, that real world truths exist that can't be expressed algorithmically. In other words, there are explanations that can't be explained.

Randomness is not an explanation of the unexplainable. Randomness can be simulated algorithmically (e.g. pseudorandom number generator). It would be very ironic if ID proponents started arguing for a chance hypothesis explaination to counter Penrose's proposal.

Therefore, we are still left with the existence of scientific explanations that can't be explained.

Oh great, now what are we supposed to do? We do what the detective in I, Robot did and what scientists like MikeGene are doing. We look for breadcrumbs (i.e. clues).

Penrose presents aperiodic tiling as a possible clue. Mathematically, it was shown that it is possible to completely cover a two dimensional plane with a distinct set of shapes ("tiles") and not end up with a repeating pattern ("aperiodic"). Penrose figured out two shapes that solved this puzzle. A solution that Penrose claims couldn't have been accomplished without the aid of a non-algorithmic process (pseudorandomness isn't sufficient).

It might be tempting to dismiss this as just a mathematical exercise and, therefore, not "reality". However, a decade after Penrose demonstrated his Penrose Tilings mineralogists discovered quasicrystals. Naturally occurring aperiodic crystals that matched Penrose Tilings.

[Twilight Zone music resumes playing]

Are Penrose's instincts correct that he solved the aperiodic tiling problem instinctually instead of algorithmically?

"That, detective, is the right question."

And we will return to that question and PART 3 right after this break for station identification and fluid exchange.

Provoking Thought

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 31, 2007 @ 11:02 am

Rock Says:
May 31st, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Excuse me, Thought Provoker, but what you recognize as the "weak link of Penrose's chain of logic" is the very premise of his argument. I admire your "sticktoitiveness," but unlike yourself I see no reason to pursue the "chain of logic" any further than the (incorrect) premise. Now, even if your logic is wrong, you're facts may be right, but unfortunately for Penrose he has no facts either.

I don't mean to distract you, Thought Provoker, but I just love this paper (I've held onto it for nearly thirty years); glance through it and tell me what you think of this as maybe an alternative approach to the whole subject.

Reprinted from: "The Mind: Biological Approaches to its Functions"
Editors: William C. Corning, Martin Balaban, 1968, pp 233-258.
CHAPTER 7
WHAT THE FROG'S EYE TELLS
THE FROG'S BRAIN * "
J. Y. LETTVIN,"¡ H. R. MATURANA,Â§
W. S. McCULLOCH,"¡ AND W. H. PITTS"¡
http://jerome.lettvin.info/lettvin/Jerome/WhatTheFrogsEyeTellsTheFrogsBrain.pdf

Comment by Rock — May 31, 2007 @ 12:32 pm

mcromer Says:
May 31st, 2007 at 12:38 pm
TP, I agree with you that the P-H theory is the right direction, that ID is best seen from an EAM perspective, and that all of this is quite fascinating indeed.

One quibble:

1. All possible quantum states exist simultaneously (super position).

I am more partial to the Pondicherry interpretation, which states that only the measurements are real. So there is no actual "superposition" in physical reality, only the measurements are physically actual (and the results of these measurements are probabalistic, and the probabilities can be calculated by the wave function).

Comment by mcromer — May 31, 2007 @ 12:38 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
May 31st, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Hi Mcromer,

You wrote…

One quibble:

"1. All possible quantum states exist simultaneously (super position)."

It is not a quibble. I completely failed to keep metaphysics out of PART 1. I rewrote that (and the other 2 declarations) multiple times in an attempt to state it neutrally. I couldn't do it. So I just put Prenrose's spin on it anticipating that someone would point it out.

You did that.

Thank You.

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 31, 2007 @ 1:15 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
May 31st, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Hi Rock,

You wrote…

I don't mean to distract you, Thought Provoker, but I just love this paper (I've held onto it for nearly thirty years); glance through it and tell me what you think of this as maybe an alternative approach to the whole subject.

I skimmed the paper. I will read it more thoroughly later and will comment. However, please note that I understand there are uncountable examples and explanations that are algorithmic. What Penrose (and "we") are looking for is worse than the proverbial needle in the haystack. The needle we are looking for is indistinguishable from a piece of straw, by definition.

And, while I am taking my time getting there, I will be suggesting something more modest than an explanation for human-like and/or frog-like behavior. If Penrose is correct, this nonalgorithmic process applies to all matter, including quasicrystals. It isn't a panacea to explain all actions of things living or not. Quasicrystals don't attempt to eat small, moving objects and jump to dark places.

I need to go do family things so this and PART 3 will have to wait until later.

Provoking Thought

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 31, 2007 @ 1:38 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
May 31st, 2007 at 9:05 pm
PART 3 – Penrose/Hameroff Model

In Parts 1 and 2, I tried to describe things I thought were a given. The facts are agreed to. Even aperiodic tiling is a proven fact. The only disagreement would be over the connotation of the words used. For example "superposition" verses "uncertainty". Of course, the interpretation of those facts will probably always be in question.

Part 3 deals with subjects that even Penrose indicates could be totally wrong but, in his opinion, are more likely correct than not.

As an engineer, I like models. There was a scene in the movie The Race for the Double Helix that I particularly enjoyed. I understand it is fairly representative of true events. Crick and Watson had a hunch that DNA was the answer to how genetic information was stored in cells. They were pushing to figure out a model for DNA. They "borrowed" information from other scientists working in the same area and slapped a model together. It was wrong, as in not even closely possible. Of course, by the end of the movie they got it right and it was beautiful.

I can relate to the urge to build models. Building a working prototype makes a lot of sense to me. Even if it doesn't fly, you can learn a lot from the failure. I find it refreshing that someone like Penrose would be willing to risk the embarrassment of being clearly in error for the sake of advancing knowledge. I don't know that much about Hameroff other than he "…is an anesthesiologist and professor at the University of Arizona known for his promotion of the scientific study of consciousness". link He also appears to be going to a lot of conferences these days.

The first part on the Penrose/Hameroff model depends on Penrose's theories concerning waveform collapse. I think this is still basic science. Planck's law, E= hf, is old news. I don't fully understand why Penrose feels so strongly that this leads to E = h * 2 * PI / T which becomes E = Ä¥/T which provides the timing for the waveform collapse. However, it makes dimensional sense and "feels" right to me. Timing for a waveform collapse, T = Ä¥/E, is something that can be tested and, undoubtedly, will be tested. Penrose has proposed an experiment FELIX in an attempt to test this hypothesis.

Even if Penrose is wrong about the details (and I don't think he is) there is a threshold where quantum effects appear to give way to Newtonian physics. We don't see the same quantum weirdness with throwing baseballs around as we do with throwing electrons around.

While this simplifies the situation for SchrÃ¶dinger's cat it has the potential of complicating things for smaller objects like Tubular Dimers. I expended some effort in trying to find Penrose's words on this, but I couldn't. It is at this point and beyond that Hameroff takes over and, therefore, I am not as confident that this anesthesiologist is presenting the quantum theory correctly. However, Penrose is obviously backing it and Hameroff has indicated where he is going beyond what Penrose is supporting.

If I understand correctly, Penrose is supporting the concept that microtubules are probably subjected to quantum level effects that allow them to act as a non-algorithmic processors assisting/creating living consciousness.

Hameroff goes further and suggests that the Cambrian Evolutionary Explosion marked the dawning of life's consciousness as a direct result of advantages of microtubule processing. Here is a link that provides a nice summary of the Penrose/Hameroff Model. I suggest anyone interested in understanding this to follow the link.

Hameroff goes even further into philosophical arguments that I will touch on in PART 5 with other philosophical arguments based on all of this.

This ends Part 3. In Part 4, I will be talking about my new model based on all of this.

Provoking Thought

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 31, 2007 @ 9:05 pm

Joy Says:
May 31st, 2007 at 10:54 pm
TP:
Hi, TP. Been at a good ol' Road Dog convention (complete with wedding, sails and swap meet). On the road again now, at a motel that's got wireless (haven't checked in for the last week). Don't have time to respond to much, don't have the material on the shelf next to me either…

But I'm glad you're open to the ideas. One of the profs for the UA course died a little while back, Alwin Scott. Hard core reductionist, utterly brilliant man in imp's clothing, and I was sure sorry to get that news. In direct interactions, he was a lot harder on me than Stu or any of the rest of 'em, but he did give me breaks on dumb questions… which, when answered with good humor as Al did, taught me a great deal.

When you start to get into this level of theoretics, things are not so cut and dried as they are so often presented by biologists on what are still very much OPEN questions about life and evolution. So it doesn't even matter – and is not a significant work-around issue – what any individual theorist's metaphysics are. Al was a staunch atheist. Hameroff is kinda New Agey/Eastern religion-ish. Penrose is a Platonist. But just as there are philosophers funded to be involved in the consciousness quest, so are theologians. Any answers the quest presents will affect everyone, even if the firm definition takes a couple of centuries.

Also glad you're trying so hard to grasp the time factor (T) in all this. Paul Davies has an interview upcoming on NPR (don't recall the date, but soon because I heard it advertised today) dealing with some of the implications. The come-on is "Did human beings have something to do with the creation of the universe?"

As I have maintained steadily for the past few decades (but understood even before), it all boils down to Time. I went searching after witnessing a serious miracle of consciousness, for what science had learned in the decades since I'd walked away from it (on purpose). They haven't learned a darned thing.

…but they ARE starting to think about it. That's a good first step!

Will try to catch up on details once home.

Comment by Joy — May 31, 2007 @ 10:54 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
May 31st, 2007 at 11:07 pm
PART 4 – Thought Provoker's Model

In an earlier post I was arguing with Joy about whether or not God played dice. Joy responded with… "God does not play dice with the universe. He plays a particularly mean game of billiards." She has now convinced me that she is right without saying a thing and letting me struggle through this all by myself. ~~Right now, I could be convinced she is a very sadistic woman!~~ I look forward to hearing Joy's beautiful reasoning once again and hope she will explain how I got this all wrong.

God doesn't play dice because there are no dice.

Imaging playing a dice game on an algorithmic computer that uses a pseudorandom number generator to decide which numbers come up. Even though this game could still be enjoyed by humans incapable of calculating the next number, it is not really random. Pseudorandomness could be used to simulate anything from a dice game to an evolutionary process occurring over billions of years. It wouldn't be actually random, just a simulation of randomness.

Is there such a thing as "natural" randomness?

Leaving living things out of the picture for the moment, any inorganic randomness can be traced to quantum mechanics.

Well quantum mechanics is random isn't it?

"HA!", I say. "Double HA!"

Quantum weirdness defies algorithmic explanation. Quantum effects are clearly interconnected in space-time to all other quantum effects.

The game is rigged at the quantum level. I was so busy being fascinated with a universe where if something can happen it does that I failed to appreciate the universe was rigged to prevent the impossible.

It is impossible for one observer to see SchrÃ¶dinger's cat dead while another one sees it alive so the paradox is prevented from happening in the first place. How? Through non-deterministic NON-RANDOM quantum weirdness.

Don't living things act randomly?

That pool shooting hustler pulled a fast one there. When life needed a randomizer, where do you think it got one? Via quantum mechanics of course. Quantum mechanics has been sewn into the very fabric of what make living things appear to be acting randomly.

Observation doesn't cause a "random" waveform collapse. It is just quantum weirdness being consistent with itself. The observer isn't acting random.

God plays a particularly mean game of billiards. He uses an invisible cue stick inscribed with the words "quantum weirdness". Not only can't we verify the existence of either her or the cue stick, we aren't even allowed to see the balls until they "poof" into existence right before our eyes.

On top of that. any possible miscues are fixed with retrocausality.

Dr. Dembski can talk about Universal Probability Bounds all he wants, but unless it is absolutely impossible, God can not only make the shot, she can do it in such a way you won't be able to tell she did it much less how.

In Part 5, I will be discussing the philosophical ramblings of Hameroff, Sobottka and others based on the Penrose/Hameroff model. I am only doing that for completeness.

I will try to get to Part 5 tomorrow. Please don't wait.

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW ALL OF THIS IS WRONG!

I DON'T WANT TO BE RIGHT ON THIS ONE.

Provoking Thought (unfortunately)

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 31, 2007 @ 11:07 pm

Joy Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 1:18 am
TP:

We don't see the same quantum weirdness with throwing baseballs around as we do with throwing electrons around.

Just a note on this one…

…it's mostly habit. If all your pieces-parts were cat-like in that "last life" of yester-moment, you're still likely to be cat-like "now." Baba Ram Das had a whole book about that a long time ago. I think I might have read it once, but I was probably following Carlos' adventures in Central Mexico at the same time so I could definitely be confused.

Sowing Confusion,
Me

Comment by Joy — June 1, 2007 @ 1:18 am

Joy Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 1:47 am
One last note, since the competition for broadband is on the phone…

TP, I'm a little surprised the nastiness from the Pharyngula gang hasn't been worse. The goon squad must be as on-the-road as me. But I just loved it when Blake Stacey responded to you…

She does know that (to pick one example from many) the structure of DNA could not have been discovered without X-ray diffraction and Fourier transforms? And that bioinformatics relies upon and benefits greatly from calculational tools invented in statistical physics?

The reason I got to take that genetics course Asimov lectured is that I was current in crystallography. Please don't automatically buy dismissals ignorant and frightened people offer to rebut. They often have no idea how deep the water gets out here in the middle of the river.

Comment by Joy — June 1, 2007 @ 1:47 am

Thought Provoker Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 9:01 am
Hi Joy,

It's nice to hear from you.

You wrote…

TP, I'm a little surprised the nastiness from the Pharyngula gang hasn't been worse.

Well, you see us atheists have this secret handshake….

Actually, I was more surprised I wasn't ignored. This isn't an easy problem for either side of the Culture War. I just posted a comment there that ended with…

Quantum mechanics IS reality, not a metaphysical construct. Quantum mechanics is non-deterministic and non-algorithmic. Reality is non-deterministic and non-algorithmic.

This is a hard problem that won't go away no matter how tightly you squeeze your eyes and repeat "it's only a metaphysical problem…it's only a metaphysical problem"

Provoking Thought

link

Some at Telic Thoughts might be surprised at just how provocative I can be to the other side.

Regards,
TP

Comment by Thought Provoker — June 1, 2007 @ 9:01 am

Thought Provoker Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 10:18 am
PART 5 – NOMA still lives

This is the last in the series. I have been attempting to have each part be a progression from the non-controversial known to controversial opinions. So the last part will be discussing various opinions.

While PART 4 was a model, I purposely tried to stay away from metaphysical implications like Free Will. I think philosophers will have no problem seeing Free Will in the model I described. Finding Free Will in this model will be a piece of cake compared to trying to rationalize Free Will in a model that includes an all-knowing, all-powerful, personal God.

Sobottka made a good stab at presenting a verifiable, single OMA truth based on this model. It bothered me when I first read it. However, during the second read-through I figured out where he crossed the NOMA line. I'm not saying Sobottka did anything unethical or even that he is wrong, just that NOMA continues to live because there are still unknown and unknowable Truths.

I notice that Stunney hasn't commented on Sobottka yet. It would be interesting to know what he thinks about it. I am also curious how much Joy's NOMA truth agrees with Sobottka's.

If quantum mechanics is truly the embodiment of consciousness than EAM the Truth by definition. Quantum mechanics is part of all matter that make up the universe. Personally, I am taking the more modest approach of assuming consciousness is just an artifact of quantum mechanics. I think of quantum mechanics as a non-deterministic, non-algorithmic, non-local process. A rock has little use for such a thing. It provides some value to quasicrystals. To wiggly, squiggly organic things is give them an edge in the evolutionary process. To inorganic AI machines, it could cause a paradigm shift and probably will.

Personally, I am still holding on to my multiple NOMA Truths that include an Ultimate Engineer (or Science Fair project) and a purposeless Mandelbrot Set which I will explain in light of the new reality model.

To expose my Atheistic "true colors", I will start with the purposeless Mandelbrot Set…

A Mandelbrot Set appears to be chaotic and "random" yet exposes patterns and design. If you picture the universe from outside space-time you would see time as just another dimension, therefore the universe is unchanging. Past, present, future is all fixed and consistent with itself. There are no discontinuities because the non-algebraic "equations" don't provide for it. The past is interwoven with the future. Time travel/retrocausality can and does happen but it doesn't cause a conflict because the whole Mandelbrot picture is unchanging. The universe just is.

But what if it had a purpose?

I can easily hold the notion that the universe is the Ultimate Invention of the Ultimate Engineers. For this non-engineer, I sometimes refer to it as a Supernatural Science Fair Project. The more I understand the more I am impressed. Surely a creation like this is worth a blue ribbon. But I can't know since I have nothing to compare it to even if I did, I wouldn't be able to fully appreciate either. But what about the fine tuning argument? Do you still think chance has anything to do with this? There are no dice. At least none we can see. This universe may be the only Mandelbrot Set that works. It is also possible that a designer got to choose. Either way, we will never know.

I am content with understanding, and being impressed by, the invention. If there is an inventor, I think it is a reasonable assumption that this is the best way to show our appreciation.

Provoking Thought

Comment by Thought Provoker — June 1, 2007 @ 10:18 am

kornbelt888 Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 1:58 pm
ThoughtProvoker, "Randomness is not an explanation of the unexplainable. Randomness can be simulated algorithmically (e.g. pseudorandom number generator). It would be very ironic if ID proponents started arguing for a chance hypothesis explaination to counter Penrose's proposal."

By way of clarification, "true" randomness can be simulated by pseudorandom generators, but not emulated. For that you need a quantum effect at the bottom of the generator. The white noise in a transistor or diode works rather nicely.

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 1, 2007 @ 1:58 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 2:12 pm
TP, "On top of that. any possible miscues are fixed with retrocausality."

IOW, something that transcends linear time is forcing the outcome. Starting to sound like theism.

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 1, 2007 @ 2:12 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Joy, "Baba Ram Das had a whole book about that a long time ago."

Be Here Now ?

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 1, 2007 @ 2:14 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 2:19 pm
TP, "Finding Free Will in this model will be a piece of cake compared to trying to rationalize Free Will in a model that includes an all-knowing, all-powerful, personal God."

Maybe this description of God is incorrect. It stands to reason that if God endowed other entities with agency, God thereby limited Itself to that degree. Classical theism need not be true.

Sidebar: does human consciousness have the power to retroactivity determine events? If this could be demonstrated, then that would be (more) evidence that consciousness transcends linear time.

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 1, 2007 @ 2:19 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 2:23 pm
TB, "If you picture the universe from outside space-time you would see time as just another dimension, therefore the universe is unchanging. Past, present, future is all fixed and consistent with itself."

And yet consciousness clearly experiences a "flow" through spacetime. If our understanding of spacetime is correct, it would mean that consciousness transcends spacetime.

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 1, 2007 @ 2:23 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Hi kornbelt888,

Thank You for responding.

You wrote…

By way of clarification, "true" randomness can be simulated by pseudorandom generators, but not emulated. For that you need a quantum effect at the bottom of the generator. The white noise in a transistor or diode works rather nicely.

How do we know that the white noise is actually random? How could we distinguish random from non-algorithmic, non-determistic, non-local quantum weirdness that is non-randomly interconnected to all other quantum wierdness throughout space-time?

IOW, something that transcends linear time is forcing the outcome. Starting to sound like theism.

Yes it does. Either that, or pagan worship of the universe itself.

does human consciousness have the power to retroactivity determine events? If this could be demonstrated, then that would be (more) evidence that consciousness transcends linear time.

If it could be demonstated it would be deterministic and probably algorithmic. It wouldn't look random either. This is contrary to the hypothesis that the quantum effects powering consciousness are non-deterministic.

Provoking Thought

Comment by Thought Provoker — June 1, 2007 @ 4:50 pm

Joy Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 9:50 pm
TP:

If quantum mechanics is truly the embodiment of consciousness than EAM [is?] the Truth by definition.

Putting up some counters just to balance your enthusiasm, TP. Science being science and all, The Truth (big-t's) isn't really an issue of concern. This should definitely be kept in mind when discussing these topics. Metaphysics does claim to be about The Truth, but science isn't qualified to adjudicate between systems, and this leads to the unfortunate tendency for conflicts to get violent.

That last sentence is most pertinent to the 'New Atheists' and their current attack on metaphysics in general. Very postmodern. See, Metaphysicians already know science isn't qualified to adjudicate. Thus they're never likely to allow scientists to assume that role.

That said, I have not directly supported EAM as it was originally formulated by Mike Turner. I am not a panentheist, and his formulation is developed from that point of view (metaphysics always informs the way people understand the world). What I have been saying ever since encountering EAM is that whatever biology evolves into after this interim period of useless mutations and ridiculous selection, evolutionary theory will end up looking a lot like EAM. They won't call it that any more than they'd call any ID-friendly theory "ID." And it will still leave lots of room for error in the paradigm.

IOW, there are EAM statements Turner has made that I don't think are particularly useful or even applicable. I don't think all 'accidental' mutations are harmful. And I don't think all 'designed' mutations are successful. I just wish evolutionary biology would someday accept the evident fact that life itself is full of fate, and fate can be fickle. This accounts for a great deal of disease and death. In the constant struggle for life to survive and reproduce, sh*t happens. So 'random' variation and 'random' success/failure are considerable factors in evolution.

They're just not the cause or drive of deep-time evolution – influence, not causation. Cause of relevant evolution is primarily endogenous expression of the Prime Directive [survive, reproduce]. Which is itself absurd in the extreme, considering that life is 100% fatal in every generation and evolution absolutely depends on that fact.

Comment by Joy — June 1, 2007 @ 9:50 pm

Joy Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 9:54 pm
TP:

Quantum mechanics is part of all matter that make up the universe. Personally, I am taking the more modest approach of assuming consciousness is just an artifact of quantum mechanics. I think of quantum mechanics as a non-deterministic, non-algorithmic, non-local process.

Is it an accidental artifact, or a designed and constructed by intelligence artifact? There's a world of difference between those possibilities, where the crux of the issues are divided.

It's not that there's no dice. It's that they're loaded. Billiards is the intelligent long-term game, craps is just a sideline nature plays in real-time, as temporary as are our lives in time. We know by our direct empirical experience of life that the best laid plans can go terribly awry. I don't suppose it's any different in the matter of life itself.

A rock has little use for such a thing. It provides some value to quasicrystals. To wiggly, squiggly organic things is give them an edge in the evolutionary process. To inorganic AI machines, it could cause a paradigm shift and probably will.

Are you indicating with your first assertion that you believe in the existence of something we can call "living matter?" I'd like this clarified before going much further. Yes or no?

As for paradigm shift, science is very used to it. It can handle even drastic alterations in the space-time continuum without too many casualties (though there are usually some). That's happened in religion too over the millennia, but there it has been known to cause earth-shattering consequences. It's also a whole lot bloodier. I am one who thanks the AI guys not only for their funding (no matter how wrong I think their hopes may be), but even more for their reasoned inclusion of philosophy and theology in the quest. If Big Changes come, it's best to at least aim for a path of least bloodshed.

Because religions usually don't bite the dust of their own accord or because someone who thinks they have a 'better idea' forces it on people. Erroneous conceptions change over generations of exposure to new concepts, not in warfare with them. The 'New Atheist' crew is too impatient for some kind of kingly 'reward' in their own lifetimes (since they believe in no other). Human history has demonstrated countless times that such impatient people are dangerous. It's never "humanity" they serve. It's always themselves.

If the paradigm does shift significantly, it won't be in my lifetime or yours. Won't even happen in my grandchildrens' lifetime. Evolution is too slow to measure except in hindsight. Social evolution is quicker, but still generational. There are way too many committed believers-in NDS as an excuse for rude atheism who have to die off before any inclusion of design in life will be allowed to flourish – even if it isn't religious at all. As Stapp said during my millennium course at UA, at least 200 years for a working definition.

Comment by Joy — June 1, 2007 @ 9:54 pm

Joy Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 9:58 pm
TP:

If you picture the universe from outside space-time you would see time as just another dimension, therefore the universe is unchanging. Past, present, future is all fixed and consistent with itself. There are no discontinuities because the non-algebraic "equations" don't provide for it. The past is interwoven with the future. Time travel/retrocausality can and does happen but it doesn't cause a conflict because the whole Mandelbrot picture is unchanging. The universe just is.

It's a useful mind-stretcher to cast one's mind in extreme directions. Like exercises at the barre before dancing the Firebird. Time sort of loses its strict measurement whenever I cast my mind to Alpha (the origin event, currently considered Big Bang) – at the speed of thought. I can cast it toward Omega as easily, though the unforeseen trajectories offer way more hidden variables than the Big Bang does. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose have been doing this for fun and profit for decades.

But our ability to transcend time at the instantaneous speed of thought does not necessarily inform us about the nature of time. Or space. Or patterns. Or accidents. We like to believe so, but taking it too seriously is a mistake IMO.

I once lay on a picnic table at a closed down rest area next to the Rio Grande gorge (a crack 650+ feet deep but not 200 yards wide), in northern New Mexico where the Sangre de Christos rise 6-7,000 feet straight up on one side and ancient caulderas and cones punctuate the high mesa on the other. More stars than anyone can count! I cast my mind back in time and 'saw' the rising earth (mesa's at 6,000 feet) boil. The surface of the mesa flat as a pancake, the rocky upthrusts serving to keep it molten with force. Ice, snow and rain then draining toward the lowlands by their favored route, a faultline in the recently-cooled lava opened by the upthrusted mountains' settling game. Carving the soft pumice quickly and deeply. An age in chaos, so to speak.

That imagining is nowhere close to what geological consensus was at the time. I have no idea what that consensus is now, since catastrophism was allowed (and there is evidence of impact craters nearby).

If God (or whatever) does play a particularly mean game of billiards, earthly catastrophism isn't so far-fetched at all. I can actually remember a time when people suggesting such things were every bit as persecuted (or more) as ID supporters are. Or would be if the turf-warriors got their way. There is always more than one way to understand our world. There always will be, and we'll never have a good way to adjudicate between them. In science, we rely on evidence. In metaphysics, we rely on coherence and appeal to logic. That's why I am a big fan of freedom, and thus NOMA. I do not like mind tyrants or wannabe mind tyrants of any variety.

I am content with understanding, and being impressed by, the invention. If there is an inventor, I think it is a reasonable assumption that this is the best way to show our appreciation.

So do I. I just don't think it matters a whole heck of a lot whether my understanding or awe encompasses anything approaching Absolute Truth. Retrocausality is not as discernable as you seem to be hoping. Or Paul Davies appears to be hoping. If it indeed operates in matter undirected by embodied mind, then its cumulative effect (over time!) must follow some other instruction-set supplied by some supervenient mind-like phenomenon. This is what the Neodarwinian Orthodoxy and the 'New Atheists' are most terrified of.

Comment by Joy — June 1, 2007 @ 9:58 pm

Joy Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 10:03 pm
kornbelt888:

Be Here Now ?

Yeah, that's the one! And I actually was following Carlos at the time too. Which tells you I probably missed the pertinent points of both! Â§;o)

Comment by Joy — June 1, 2007 @ 10:03 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
June 1st, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Hi Joy,

The part about EAM was in PART 5 which was pure NOMA.
I was just discussing the various possible NOMA opinions.

Is it an accidental artifact, or a designed and constructed by intelligence artifact?

"That, detective, is the right question."

I left it vague on purpose, because the answer is metaphysical IMO.

Are you indicating with your first assertion that you believe in the existence of something we can call "living matter?" I'd like this clarified before going much further. Yes or no?

I think all matter contains quantum weirdness. All matter is the same. There isn't "living matter" just interesting arrangments of plain old matter that can amplify quantum effects to the macro level.

I was a little confuses with the loaded dice part. I tend to think in more absolutes.

Loaded or not, do your think there is such a thing as "natural" randomness?

As opposed to non-deterministic, non-algorithmic, non-local process that just looks random?

Thanks and Regards,
TP

Comment by Thought Provoker — June 1, 2007 @ 11:57 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 2nd, 2007 at 9:23 am
If it could be demonstated it would be deterministic and probably algorithmic. It wouldn't look random either.

I don't think it has to to conform to any particular idea, if it transcends spacetime. Transcend means transcend. If something transcends a system (such as spacetime) then it need not conform to any rules whatsoever within the system it transcends, including ideas about randomness and determinism (or even the very idea of existence itself), which, I suspect (but could never prove), are meaningless once spacetime is transcended.

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 2, 2007 @ 9:23 am

Joy Says:
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:46 am
TP:

I left it vague on purpose, because the answer is metaphysical IMO.

On the issue of whether or not consciousness is a mere artifact of quantum mechanics, we should be able to use our consciousness to make reasonable assumptions. In fact, if it were an artifact of quantum mechanics, rocks would be conscious (and so would dead bodies). Since it is entirely evident that dead people are not conscious, even though they were conscious a moment before dying, it is reasonable to presume that consciousness is neither a property of matter nor an artifact of quantum mechanics.

IOW, just because matter is an effect of QM it doesn't mean consciousness is an effect of QM. Consciousness USES material process to manifest materially. But unless you're willing to grant consciousness to rocks and dead things, it's not an artifact of material process. Heck, it's way more likely that material process is an artifact of consciousness – as a fundamental parameter of reality.

Loaded or not, do your think there is such a thing as "natural" randomness?

The Fickle Finger of Fate pokes us all during our lifetime, so it would be ridiculous to deny that sh*t happens. Of course, I am not a believer in "random" as causal of anything, since it's merely an effect (and much of that is merely apparent). All things – including accidents – have traceable causes, and these are not random.

Proximity to a radiation source will have damaging effects on molecules of your body. You can say this damage is "random" because it's precise damage and specific molecules are unpredictable, but the radiation source isn't random. We know it's radioactive and can calculate its activity quite precisely. It's a cause of the effects. Steering failure while going through a curve may cause a 'random' accident in which you lose your life to a tree that stubbornly didn't get out of the way, but the whole event can be retro-calculated to forces and causes that weren't random at all.

I don't think the term 'random' is satisfactorily defined per its widespread usage by NDS orthodoxy.

Comment by Joy — June 2, 2007 @ 11:46 am

Thought Provoker Says:
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Hi Joy,

You wrote…

On the issue of whether or not consciousness is a mere artifact of quantum mechanics, we should be able to use our consciousness to make reasonable assumptions. In fact, if it were an artifact of quantum mechanics, rocks would be conscious (and so would dead bodies). Since it is entirely evident that dead people are not conscious, even though they were conscious a moment before dying, it is reasonable to presume that consciousness is neither a property of matter nor an artifact of quantum mechanics.

I think we disagree here.

I think of quantum mechanics like engines and living things like automobiles. An automobiles can quit running even if its engine is perfectly intact.

There could be a running engine inside a plain box, but the box wouldn't run until a transmission, axles and wheels were added.

Rocks have quantum mechanics in them. Does that mean they have consciousness too? Maybe. But, to me, that is a tautological and/or metaphysical question. Granted, believing that smart rocks exist goes against common sense. However, you should know my opinions on common sense and group think by now.

This adds an interesting twist to the Great Zombie debate. While I can agree with the idea that humans are more than deterministic Turing machines. I am not ready to dismiss the possibility of reanimating a dead corpse by fixing broken connections to the quantum mechanical engine.

Provoking Thought

Comment by Thought Provoker — June 2, 2007 @ 10:03 pm

Joy Says:
June 3rd, 2007 at 12:34 am
TP:

I think of quantum mechanics like engines and living things like automobiles. An automobiles can quit running even if its engine is perfectly intact.

Then I would have to say you don't have a very good grasp of quantum mechanics. These are not "things" and it doesn't help anybody to think in those terms. It's a big mistake to confuse the metaphor with that which it hopes to explain. There's no "there" there. You're taking things way too seriously.

QM isn't a thing. It's a process. It deals exclusively with interacting fields. We only call them "matter" because we want it to be real stuff. It's not.

If Hameroff and Penrose are even close to right the notable tendency for tubulin dimers to alpha-beta switch – and there may be delta and gamma as well – it means something on the information processing level as well as the cytoskeletal (form) /intercellular /intracellular /transport /transduction /construction level. We're just beginning by identifying components of the physical correlates of consciousness [PCCs]. There's MAPs and Actin as well, just to make things multi-complex.

The only non-deterministic factor in any of it is the collapse of wavefunction and the subsequent measurement of state. That takes place in time – and in fact *is* a function of time. There are still die-hards out there who deny that wavefunctions collapse at all. We've a long way to go yet.

What Penrose and Hameroff are saying is that the microtubules and their tubulin dimers, MAPs and actin accessories *are* the physical mechanisms of consciousness. And that these, as measured on that nanosecond scale, *are* time as we experience it here in 3+1 reality. I've said before that I'm not fond of Penrose's massless extremal, but that's only because I have another one in mind. He's probably right and I'm probably wrong – I'm not near as famous as Sir Roger is. But I do believe he's on the right track, and he did give Matti credit in that big book you've mentioned. A nod to a multi-sheeted space-time Penrose himself knows must come later. AFTER we quantify the mechanisms.

This adds an interesting twist to the Great Zombie debate. While I can agree with the idea that humans are more than deterministic Turing machines. I am not ready to dismiss the possibility of reanimating a dead corpse by fixing broken connections to the quantum mechanical engine.

The dead do not come back to life outside the ER or in situations when a jolt to the heart can maybe get things going again. That's immediate. Nobody 3 days dead that I've ever heard of save the two described in Scripture ever made it back. Lazarus' tragedy was that he had to die twice. It made Jesus cry.

I don't believe in zombies. I think they're a ridiculous reach, taken by people who are so desperate to avoid the implications of a weird reality that they'll believe anything. Even about themselves. I personally don't find self-appointed zombies to be very trustworthy in matters of empirical science. They're just machines. I am something much more and so are you.

Comment by Joy — June 3, 2007 @ 12:34 am

Thought Provoker Says:
June 3rd, 2007 at 1:25 am
Hi Joy,

Thank you for the response.

You wrote…

Then I would have to say you don't have a very good grasp of quantum mechanics.

I take no shame in my ignorance considering either Penrose or Hawking or both "…don't have a very good grasp of quantum mechanics."

I got sloppy with my engine analogy, but I believe my point remains the same. QM PROCESSES occur in rocks as well as living organisms. QM PROCESSES are non-local and, probably, non-determinisitic as well as non-algorithmic. At least, this is my understanding.

Instead of 3-day old corpses, lets take a hint from Penrose and talk about artificial intelligence.

While Penrose has been arguing that Strong AI will never work and that even Weak AI will probably not work, in both cases it appears he is assuming algorithmic AI that uses pseudorandomness to SIMULATE human thinking.

But what about building something that EMULATES human thinking including the quantum level effects of tubular dimers? IOW, an inorganic replica of the organic original.

I feel it is the process, not the material, that makes consciousness. This is consistent with the idea that there is nothing special about "living matter".

Such an inorganic device could have an on/off switch.

Turning the switch on, allows a "consciousness" to develop and learn.

Turning the switch off, kills the "consciousness".

Turning the switch back on could either
a) allow a new "consciousness" to develop and learn.
b) resume where the old "consciousness" left off
c) none of the above

What do you think?

Provoking Thought

Comment by Thought Provoker — June 3, 2007 @ 1:25 am

Joy Says:
June 3rd, 2007 at 12:49 pm
TP:

QM PROCESSES occur in rocks as well as living organisms. QM PROCESSES are non-local and, probably, non-determinisitic as well as non-algorithmic. At least, this is my understanding.

The Orch-OR model as applied to life is quite specific and cumulative of the specified physical correlates that occur ONLY in life. Out in the wider universe of rocks and ice and thermonuclear furnaces decoherence is automatic at the Planck separation level (distance/time measurement of separating spacetime sheets). Thus non-conscious. On the biological level, actual consciousness doesn't arise until the critter's got X number of specialized cells – neurons, in which microtubules perform highly specialized functions and are dynamically quite stable.

A sort of "cellular intelligence" arises in eukaryotes by virtue of the MTs that comprise its centrioles and cytoskeleton, provide transport, signal transduction, form and information processing for that single cell. It's not really conscious, it just carries the potential to develop consciousness in a quorum situation.

IOW, there is a big difference between automatic collapse at the Planck level in the subatomic particles of regular matter and orchestrated reduction of macroscopic molecular superpositions in living cells. The sheer complexity of the process in living cells is not equivalent to mere movement of raw matter through spacetime getting measured at Planck increments along the matrix. Different processes.

While Penrose has been arguing that Strong AI will never work and that even Weak AI will probably not work, in both cases it appears he is assuming algorithmic AI that uses pseudorandomness to SIMULATE human thinking.

I agree with Penrose in this. I could of course be wrong. It seems to me that a pseudo-process could only simulate a pseudo-consciousness. Do we really need zombies-in-a-box?

I feel it is the process, not the material, that makes consciousness. This is consistent with the idea that there is nothing special about "living matter".

I have mentioned that the "AI-guys" are primary funders for the consciousness quest. They desire the knowledge that will allow them to create a conscious machine, in service to their dream of offering pseudo-immortality for the transhumanist cyber-crowd. I think they're whistling Dixie, but hey… they're rich enough, even if the project is doomed.

The simulation you describe is macroscopic, working with zeros and ones like any other computer. What the AI-guys are currently developing are quantum nano-computers. These do not work like your PC or my Mac.

The analogy of mind to computer works for many macroscopic descriptive applications, but it isn't particularly apt. If Hameroff is correct that the MT/MAP/Actin network in neurons is the PCC mechanism of consciousness, we get an added level of complexity nobody's even begun to address yet.

Tubulins now appear to have at least 4 configurational states, so the superpositions are stacked – they only collapse into the either-or at measurement in the macroscopic frame, and this involves sub-computing parallels we can't even fathom (yet). The AI-guys haven't begun to consider parrallels in more than two configurations. It may well be impossible to simulate, because it adds at least four more spacetime sheets (dimensions) to the model and requires a hedgehog to collapse through them all.

Penrose likes a graviton for this operation, but I'm not convinced there is such a beastie. We may instead be talking monopoles or mini-holes.

Comment by Joy — June 3, 2007 @ 12:49 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
June 3rd, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Hi Joy,

You wrote…

The simulation you describe is macroscopic, working with zeros and ones like any other computer.

Ok, I are a eenginear, but even I can realise what we are talking about isn't as easy as on or off. Tri-state and quad-state and, possibly, n-state would be just a start.

What the AI-guys are currently developing are quantum nano-computers. These do not work like your PC or my Mac.

The analogy of mind to computer works for many macroscopic descriptive applications, but it isn't particularly apt. If Hameroff is correct that the MT/MAP/Actin network in neurons is the PCC mechanism of consciousness, we get an added level of complexity nobody's even begun to address yet.

I purposely tried to stay away from saying "AI" or even "computer" and used the term "inorganic device". Are you suggest that the processes we are talking about must inherently involve carbon based "living matter"

Penrose likes a graviton for this operation, but I'm not convinced there is such a beastie. We may instead be talking monopoles or mini-holes.

I like it when you present things on a scientific level. Your metaphysical ideas about consciousness may be right, but I need to see the progression of logic. I need to understand.

Sobottka comes close but Sobottka isn't here, you are.

Have you looked it Sobottka's ideas yet? I would be interested in knowing where you agree and disagree with him.

Thanks and Regards,
TP

Comment by Thought Provoker — June 3, 2007 @ 1:16 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
June 3rd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Thought Provoker,

How do you deal with knotty problems like unity of consciouness?

Comment by kornbelt888 — June 3, 2007 @ 1:20 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
June 3rd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Hi kornbelt888,

You asked…

How do you deal with knotty problems like unity of consciousness?

I don't. Those are subjects that Sobottka (and possible Joy) may need to address.

Whether or not a rock is conscious or all living things are consciously linked is still a metaphysical question, IMO. (Safely on the other side of the NOMA wall)

Having quantum effects universally linked is one thing, universal consciousness is another. And that is before we start trying to address the definition of term "consciousness".

Regards,
TP

Comment by Thought Provoker — June 3, 2007 @ 1:31 pm

Joy Says:
June 3rd, 2007 at 2:12 pm
TP, I'm getting to Sobottka now, will get back to you.

TP to Kornbelt888:

I don't. Those are subjects that Sobottka (and possible Joy) may need to address.

The unity of consciousness seems to me not to be a hard problem, at least not theoretically if we're willing to go all the way down to quantum level. It's a kind of 'field' relationship based on direct entanglement (while transcending linear time). On the level of even human brains – possibly the most complex collection of neurons in existence – we're still talking a minor collection of mass in the universe.

IOW, all neurons and interconnections are directly related to all neurons developed at the beginning of gestation and original differentiation of the physical body. Thus they're all space-bound as well as time-bound. Replacing pieces-parts wholesale or merely supplying the necessary nutrients that enable neurotransmitter production makes use of elements also bound by the mass entanglement. All the cells and all the parts of the cells are entangled, all the time.

You want to add the rest of spacetime to this entanglement, and of course that must also exist if the universe had a beginning in space and time. Everyplace in anytime is the honest-to-goodness "Center of the Universe." Including our measly brains. That entanglement isn't real-time dynamic in the way that consciousness is, though. Sure, the whole directly influences the sub-unit by simply allowing its manifest existence moment-to-moment. Here is the automatic level of reduction, matter's "habit" to be now what it was a moment before. Like a law or a fundamental parameter of spacetime. Use of our own physical complement to accomplish our own thoughts, dreams, desires, learning, plans, goals, etc. is much more intimate and much more directly entangled.

By the way, I don't buy the notion of "living matter." The elements that comprise our physical bodies are just elements – carbon is carbon whether it's in coal or in you. Thus I do not expect science to ever spontaneously generate life in a test tube. They'll always be limited to designing from pieces-parts already existent from life or synthesized by already existing life.

Nor do I believe it's any particular arrangement of matter that spontaneously generates life. If you've ever been with someone who died, you'd recognize that the arrangement of matter isn't any different from one moment to the next. It's consciousness – life itself – that disappears at that boundary between moments. I suspect part of our continuing confusion on this issue is the result of the way science has been done for so long. You can't learning anything particularly pertinent about the decor of a house by nuking it and then examining the ashes.

Life is what causes life. And life only comes from life. Dead bodies (with all pieces-parts present), raw minerals, chemical agents, etc. are not alive. You can get iron by ingesting a little red clay, and your body will use that iron for its metabolic purposes. The iron isn't alive or conscious, YOU are.

If the actual physical form of matter that comprises body components contained the life (in its sub-atomic processes), our bodies would be able to discriminate between isotopes of various elements – some of them are quite fatal. It cannot – the matter in our bodies is as dumb as the matter in the moon.

Comment by Joy — June 3, 2007 @ 2:12 pm

Raevmo Says:
June 3rd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Joy:

If you've ever been with someone who died, you'd recognize that the arrangement of matter isn't any different from one moment to the next.

How did you monitor the arrangement of all matter in this dying person? Sounds like quite a feat to me and the end of the 2LoT and Heisenberg's inequality.

Comment by Raevmo — June 3, 2007 @ 2:38 pm

Joy Says:
June 3rd, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Raevmo:

Sounds like quite a feat to me and the end of the 2LoT and Heisenberg's inequality.

LOL!!! Well, I admit I haven't attended any spontaneous combustions. Â§;o)

TP,
from just looking through Sobottka's course, I notice he does not differentiate general non-locality from direct entanglement. Perhaps a desire to make his metaphysical points seem stronger, but then, I don't necessarily agree with those either.

I'm a realist, not sure about duality or monism (haven't made up my mind). I consider reality to be real, FAPP. The moon is there whether I'm looking at it or not. I do not consider the automatic reduction in general spacetime (however many dimensions, by whatever extremal) to be itself conscious – it's more like a parameter or matrix that, like the time development in Schroedinger's equation, should be treated as potential.

Part 1 of the course (dealing with what is known about quantum weirdness via the evidence) is fine, though I'm always a little suspicious of introduced metaphysics so prominent in the course as to comprise indoctrination. I do not think that the scientific investigation of consciousness needs a formal metaphysics at all, as this is overlapping some magesteria that shouldn't be overlapping.

I do know lots of physicists who think quantum weirdness supports eastern metaphysics more than it supports western metaphysics or even western philosophy. I see that as personal preference, since any metaphysics can be interpreted to flow from quantum weirdness. I do not believe it's a scientific question at all.

But that's probably my baseline talking – again, I don't see general non-locality to function on the same operational level as direct entanglement. Sobottka puts these into a "tangled hierarchy" that makes some sense, but I don't think differentiates enough per the focused phenomenon of consciousness (or just awareness) that life displays. Life is ever ephemeral. It is greater-than the whole (at any given moment) because it's so concentrated, and it's much less-than the whole because it's so explosively short. That's an interpretational issue, which is in fact a matter of personal preference.

So if I had to take a course in quantum consciousness (and I have taken such a course), I'd advise the UA department. They represent individuals with the range of interpretive beliefs covered by Sobottka, so promote none of them as pertinent to the science. Because they aren't pertinent to the science. I think it's a big mistake to conflate science with metaphysics, and if science really wants to go that route, it'll soon find itself marginalized just like any other religious or philosophical contender. That would be a shame.

Truth is, all science can authoritatively say about any of it is that there's apparently a lot more going on than we had thought or hoped. Quantify the physical process, let people make up their own minds about what it means. Materialism cannot hold ideological sway here, which is why you'll see them complain so bitterly that the entire quest is a waste of time. I figure that if they want the funding they can learn to work with the various other 'isms' and stop complaining. Or make themselves superfluous to the endeavor entirely. I don't care about that as much as Sobottka obviously does.

Comment by Joy — June 3, 2007 @ 3:11 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
June 3rd, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Hi Joy,

Thanks for that summary of Sobottka's model. I think your interpretation is close to mine although I had to read through it twice to get it. Why do I get the impression it took you less than 30 minutes to read it and understand it?

I admit I get confused in knowing when you are in dispassionate science mode as opposed to when you are explaining your beliefs.

Quantum weirdness makes the distinction significantly less identifiable. I like clear, straight lines in the sand. I doubt this is surprising coming from a discipline whose main tools used to be quadrille paper, rulers and pencils. While the tools have been modernized to computerized CAD/CAM, the thinking remains basically unchanged.

Regards,
TP

Comment by Thought Provoker — June 3, 2007 @ 3:35 pm

Joy Says:
June 3rd, 2007 at 4:28 pm
TP:

Why do I get the impression it took you less than 30 minutes to read it and understand it?

Hahaha!!! I merely skimmed most of it, paying attention to the subtitles. I've seen this before, and while some are better at presentation than others, it all just begs the question that inevitably arises in my mind…

"What kind of Guru are you?" [h.t. Frank Zappa]

Quantum weirdness makes the distinction significantly less identifiable. I like clear, straight lines in the sand. I doubt this is surprising coming from a discipline whose main tools used to be quadrille paper, rulers and pencils. While the tools have been modernized to computerized CAD/CAM, the thinking remains basically unchanged.

Heck, I remember slide rules, and always trusted them more than pocket calculators when those were finally invented. Being a realist flows from that background, even though I'm only half as old as quantum weirdness. Philosophically I'd like to be a dualist (so I could be a vitalist). But monism has its strong points too, thus I'm not taking a firm position. Probably never will.

As philosophical as I care to get while talking science (rather than beliefs) – Mind and body are intimately entangled in any life form that has enough substrate to enable the operation of awareness. Even most single celled organisms are aware of "self-other" distinction on rudimentary levels. There's a cumulative awareness effect, along a continuum of increasing complexity in the substrates. This is why brain damage affects consciousness, and why consciousness disappears from matter at death (and doesn't come back). Yet if living consciousness is a concentrated strobe-flash of potential, manifesting from a fundamental parameter of reality (as opposed to arising from the individual's pieces-parts), it probably cannot be annihilated.

It looks to me like irreducible complexity appeals to magical poofs either way – whether it's IC physical structures [Behe's flagellum] or IC mental properties [epiphenomenal emergence]. As a realist, I'm not big on magical poofs. I don't think they'll ever qualify as science. They do make for entertaining stage shows, though.

Comment by Joy — June 3, 2007 @ 4:28 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
June 3rd, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Hi Joy,

You wrote…

Heck, I remember slide rules, and always trusted them more than pocket calculators when those were finally invented. Being a realist flows from that background, even though I'm only half as old as quantum weirdness. Philosophically I'd like to be a dualist (so I could be a vitalist). But monism has its strong points too, thus I'm not taking a firm position. Probably never will.

At the risk of sounding like an old-timer waxing nostalgic…
I was also trained on a slide rule and while we had basic calculators some of our engineering professors wouldn't let us use them on tests. They felt we might start equating precision with accuracy.

Maybe those professors were on to something (before they had to succumb to the inevitable). Have scientists/engineers these days become overly confident in their answers because "computers don't make mistakes"

The slide rule forced us to always double check our answers with the big picture. With calculators and computers people can make the mistake of thinking it is optional.

As philosophical as I care to get while talking science (rather than beliefs) – Mind and body are intimately entangled in any life form that has enough substrate to enable the operation of awareness. Even most single celled organisms are aware of "self-other" distinction on rudimentary levels. There's a cumulative awareness effect, along a continuum of increasing complexity in the substrates. This is why brain damage affects consciousness, and why consciousness disappears from matter at death (and doesn't come back).

I could accept this as a possiblity based on my understanding of the scientific evidence. I suspect most of the Pharyngula crowd would consider it so much "woo".

I find Pharyngula crowd's reaction interesting in that there seems to be an agreement that Penrose, the quantum mechanic, is brilliant. And even Penrose, the mathematician, is one of the top. But, somehow, when Penrose suggests quasicrystals are the result of a non-algorithmic process in nature, suddenly he is clueless and doesn't know what he is talking about. And, of course, the Penrose/Hameroff team should be ignored completely.

I am not sure what to take of the Telic Thought crowd's reaction. I have noticed some comments in other threads have made mention to topics somewhat related to this one. Based on this, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt that more then the vocal few are reading this, but are choosing to remain silent.

I suppose it is harder to know what to say on these gray issues. It's easier to attack the guys in the black hats than to question a nuanced position. Should ID proponents agree with Penrose or not? There are advantages and disadvantages either way. IMO, desires shouldn't play into scientific investigations. What I have learned over the last week has made me uncomfortable, but I try to focus on what makes sense regardless of my wishes.

Yet if living consciousness is a concentrated strobe-flash of potential, manifesting from a fundamental parameter of reality (as opposed to arising from the individual's pieces-parts), it probably cannot be annihilated.

This does not make sense to me. If "Mind and body are intimately entangled in any life form" then why wouldn't the mind be annihilated when separated from the body?

Provoking Thought

Comment by Thought Provoker — June 3, 2007 @ 6:30 pm

Joy Says:
June 3rd, 2007 at 8:40 pm
TP:

Maybe those professors were on to something (before they had to succumb to the inevitable). Have scientists/engineers these days become overly confident in their answers because "computers don't make mistakes"

LOL! Sometimes I don't think very many of them even know how to read, textbooks or blueprints! Four nuclear reactors in this country were sited – and built, and licensed to operate – smack dab atop geological fault lines. Three plants were constructed backwards. And some of the spent fuel pools are open directly to the atmosphere, without even a tarp you'd have to install over your backyard swimming pool when it's not in use! I've never had much trust in gadget-bots, though I do admit that some gadgets (like this here 'pooter) are rather handy… Â§;o)

I could accept this as a possiblity based on my understanding of the scientific evidence. I suspect most of the Pharyngula crowd would consider it so much "woo".

They think anything but their own radical, ideological spew is "woo." It helps to remember that PZ's not qualified to judge physical theoretics, as he is neither a mathematician nor a physicist.

But, somehow, when Penrose suggests quasicrystals are the result of a non-algorithmic process in nature, suddenly he is clueless and doesn't know what he is talking about.

I can't imagine why you'd think anything PZ Myers says about theoretical physics has any bearing or any credibility. Very strange.

I am not sure what to take of the Telic Thought crowd's reaction. I have noticed some comments in other threads have made mention to topics somewhat related to this one. Based on this, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt that more then the vocal few are reading this, but are choosing to remain silent.

Discussions about consciousness, the quest to quantify it and the evidence incoming on various fronts generally don't do too well around here. The subject matter is deep and I'm sure many ID supporters haven't much of a grasp of how this ties in to biology and evolution, or the question of whether physical processes could produce, express or embody intelligent designers of physical processes.

Should ID proponents agree with Penrose or not. There are advantages and disadvantages either way. IMO, desires shouldn't play into scientific investigations. What I have learned over the last week has made me uncomfortable, but I try to focus on what makes sense regardless of my wishes.

ID proponents don't have to know anything about Penrose, or even much about physics. All interested parties have to do is defer to physics when the phenomena at issue is in that domain.

I sure don't know what would be discomfiting about this or any other physical, chemical, electromagnetic or other field-like model of consciousness. At least, to anyone who isn't already a zombie. All I can guess is that some people are genuinely so insecure in their beliefs that they're terrified of answers.

If "Mind and body are intimately entangled in any life form" then why wouldn't the mind be annihilated when separated from the body?

Because the fundamental properties of our reality (and all possible others) will, if effectually present and interactive in our dimensions, be subject to applicable conservation laws. Unless you die by falling into a black hole (unlikely), what is manifest in you is as subject to law as everything that is not you.

But I'm interested in why you think death means consciousness is somehow "separated from the body." How does that work? It's not that I don't think consciousness is separable – it's fairly evident that it is, but science generally considers that to be "woo" – it's that by accepting separability one must already have some conception of what consciousness *is* or is made of.

If it's 'stuff' like matter or energy (as a metaphysical materialist would insist), you already know very well it cannot be annihilated. This requires materialists to fall back on magical IC poofs (epiphenomenal emergence) to explain consciousness – it doesn't objectively exist at all.

Zombies.

Comment by Joy — June 3, 2007 @ 8:40 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…

I can't imagine why you'd think anything PZ Myers says about theoretical physics has any bearing or any credibility. Very strange.

In case you haven't noticed, I am a little egotistical and fond of arguing.

PZ Myers basically dismissed me with a "read Kandel" (i.e. telling me to study neuroscience). It was the camp followers who made the challenging remarks.

While I sometimes I argue for sport, more often I argue to solve the puzzle of understanding other people's positions. Solving puzzles is my most enjoyable way of learning, and I humbly suggest I am good at it.

I generally discount people's unsupported opinions as just that, unsupported opinions. I am looking to understand the logic behind the opinion or I am testing my own opinion. I was testing my opinion at Pharyngula.

ID proponents don't have to know anything about Penrose, or even much about physics. All interested parties have to do is defer to physics when the phenomena at issue is in that domain.

I find that a strange sentiment. Penrose/Hameroff impacts just about every aspect of the SCIENCE of ID. I'm confident you know my opinion and attitude concerning the ID Movement.

I sure don't know what would be discomfiting about this or any other physical, chemical, electromagnetic or other field-like model of consciousness.

It wouldn't be too far fetched to say science approaches a religious belief in my case. I would have staked my life on F=MA being true. I have had to readjust my semi-religious dogma a few times over the years, including last week. My discomfort may also be due in part to dread. I'm not looking forward to re-establishing my position concerning Free Will.

It's getting late, I will address the remaining stuff later.

Regards,
TP

Comment by Thought Provoker — June 3, 2007 @ 11:36 pm

Joy Says:
June 4th, 2007 at 10:07 am
chunkdz:

My reading of Penrose/Hammeroff is that they consider the tubulin proteins to be the quantum substrate of consciousness. But Jibu and Yasue seem to think that it is the water inside the microtubules that mediates the quantum collapse function. (Something about the fact that the water inside the tubes exists in a semi-crystalline state.) Is there any evidence for one or the other that you guys have come across? Is this possibly a way to get around Tegmark's objections?

Hi, chunk! I missed your post when trying to catch up with TP. You are correct that Orch-OR does consider the tubulin dimers – in more stable MT constructs, such as in neurons and possibly in relatively stable MT elements of other cells – are the "q-bits" of the ongoing parallel quantum computations. Tegmark's objections were tackled mostly by Hameroff on the basis of 'ordered water' (quasi-crystal) inside MTs and similar gel-form (condensed matter) actin molecules surrounding them providing insulation against automatic reduction for the time it takes to complete the computations (which, in quantum computing terms, is really fast).

Not that Max buys it, of course. Still, the response to his objections was quite good.

See the thread on Psyche-B List, which includes both Tegmark's criticism and Hameroff's response, plus discussion. Scott Hagan and Jack Tuszynski helped formalize it in Consciousness, the Brain, and Spacetime Geometry.

Comment by Joy — June 4, 2007 @ 10:07 am

ID and Consciousness

66 Responses to “ID and Consciousness”

Featured Books