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.

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

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… §;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.

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

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.

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

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. §;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.

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.

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.

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