If you think that consensus will eventually go your way, why are you worried? What do you think will be the negative repercussions of what I regard as "science as usual"?

I'm not worried. Humanity has survived just fine for ~150K years without imposed scientistic beliefs, apart from a few short digressions here and there. If science (in the hands of professional death-dealers and corporate environment-rapers) doesn't make us extinct, we'll continue to survive just fine. I don't have a problem with all this going away tomorrow. My life won't change.

And if you regard judicial fiat as "science as usual," perhaps it should go away. Most people won't miss it.

I think we've reached the impasse at the bottom of our abilities to grok one another's positions. Thanks for the discussion.

This has been hot stuff for more than a decade. Evidence is strong and building in this direction, technology is advancing even more rapidly to put it to work.

Are you referring to quantum consciousness or something else? There isn't any evidence for quantum consciousness, as yet. Penrose thinks it's a necessity, but only a tiny minority of AI research is aimed at quantum computing.

Penrose's argument from Gödel's incompleteness theorem is really quite pathetic. The theorem applies equally well to humans as to deterministic machines. Even if Penrose was right, his claim has nothing to do with intelligence because Gödel's incompleteness theorem doesn't limit intelligence.

Defending a theoretic that has been known to be entirely inadequate since the 1950s (and seriously doubted for a century and a half).

How do you know NDE is entirely inadequate? There's no evidence of this.

High-level predictions of NDE mechanisms have been confirmed. Just because some elements of the theory are difficult to calculate with today's technology is not negative evidence against the theory. If it were, we would have to discard quantum chromodynamics because we cannot compute low energy its low-energy consequences.

It's come to the point where those die-hards have succeeded in getting a federal judge to declare criticisms of that inadequate theoretic (and mention of any alternative in public schools) unconstitutional.

No one is locking up IDists or forbidding them from finding positive evidence for their "theory." What we're doing is stopping them from using a wedge issue to divide America, and inject religion into the public schools.

It's not the job of school boards to use science class to inform children that the scientific consensus contradicts the faith of their board members. That's blatantly unconstitutional religious interference in public schools. And neither you nor me nor the school board have the authority to say what the scientific consensus is. That's for the scientific community to do, and they have clearly spoken in this case.

But they do establish a baseline upon which a true theory of teleological [purposeful, intelligent] design can be built.

But you don't need any New Age concepts to make this happen. Why not claim that we're living in a simulation? That works just as well.

Why not claim that a god created the universe yesterday, or created the universe at the Big Bang, knowing that we would be created by natural processes? You could claim just as much support for these views.

There's proof of teleology in this forum, but its the teleology of IDists for whom design is a foregone conclusion.

All the complaining and whining and ranting and raving in the world won't stop it from happening. I have tried to be a steady voice from this edge of science, attempting to keep the combatants who claim science as their position from doing real damage with their ideological zeal.

I'm not here to stop science from happening. I'm here to stop politics and religion from corrupting science with pseudoscience.

There are smart people like you, MikeGene, Omar and others here at TT. I don't think you're all part of a conspiracy to overthrow enlightenment thought. However, I do think that you've lost sight of what constitutes explanatory theory, scientific inference, and, sometimes, established scientific fact.

We all have our pet beliefs that give us hope for the future. Some people say we humans need to believe in God. Rather, I would say that we need something to believe in, something to be optimistic about. This desire blinds every one of us to more objective assessments of our theories. Where our visions of life conflict, we inevitably see conspiracies in the theories of others. But this is why we have scientific institutions - to establish processes that insulate our works from our spiritual beliefs and Earthly rewards.

Scientists are just people, but they live in a world where ideas need to pass peer review, and where there's a price to be paid for making claims you can't back up with evidence. I think this is a healthy situation, not a defect.

If you think that consensus will eventually go your way, why are you worried? What do you think will be the negative repercussions of what I regard as "science as usual"

If I understand Penrose, he claims that collapsing superpositions are a necessary ingredient of consciousness. This mechanism works independently of any proto-consciousness (whatever that may be).

No, the claim made for computational function in microtubule assemblies is Hameroff's. He made it back in the '80s. Stu was doing some hefty research as far back as his grad days in the '70s attempting to identify the physical/neural correlates (mechanisms) of consciousness. He was in a unique position to do so as an MD, a psychologist and an anesthesiologist attached to a teaching hospital [UA] and being curious enough about consciousness to have devoted his life to working with it directly.

He identified MTs early on as likely suspects based on the specific actions of various anesthetic agents employed in his 'day job' - which is to make consciousness go away enough not to feel it when surgeons slice into your body, but not completely enough to die.

Penrose, at the end of a long and distinguished career as a theoretical mathematician/physicist, was developing his "Theory of Everything" [ToE], which is sort of an expected thing even if it goes down in flames eventually. It gets the youngsters' blood going, and that's a good legacy for any great scientist to leave to the endeavor. When Hameroff read of Penrose's work he recognized that his own crafted model of consciousness was the same concept "brought to life," so to speak, and contacted Penrose. The rest, as they say, is history (and a full trilogy plus a revelation of the whole concept of quantum computing, which the AI Guys would probably not have dreamed up on their own).

The adage in theoretical physics is that any ToE that can't apply its mechanisms to the mind of the conscious being who conceived it isn't a ToE.

You can get a FREE download of Hameroff's 1987 book Ultimate Computing: Biomolecular consciousness and nanotechnology [Hameroff calls it his "pre-quantum ode to microtubules"] at his website - The New Frontier. It comes in both pdf and html, and is a pretty good introduction.

Penrose's trilogy - The Emperor's New Mind, Shadow of the Mind, and The Large, the Small and the Human Mind are all available from Amazon in paperback. I liked them a lot, but you don't actually need all three. The last two are a fair wrap-up of the developed theoretics plus mathematics.

Okay, let get down to brass tacks. What are you trying to explain with this idea?

I'm not trying to explain much of anything, because I'm not very good at that (witness onething and Douglas complaining about that shortcoming in comments to this very blog). I linked Zizzi's paper, cited some parts of the introduction, and commented on those. You can access the paper too, all you need is Adobe Acrobat (free download). She's probably not much better than I am at "talking down" to people who are trying to understand, but the paper's quite entertaining, as I said.

I can't make Penrose's mathematics easy to understand, nor can I explain Hameroff's computational model in a hundred words or less. Sometimes you've got to make the effort to understand, because nobody else can do that for you. I think they're onto something, though I've more confidence in MTs/actin constructs as PCCs/NCCs than I do in quantum gravity (by any description). Penrose won't specify the vector of this particular massless extremal, and I've got another pet ToE that does (with only 8 dimensions, but using a math based on p-adic primes). Still, it's the right direction, and work is ongoing to refine things further.

This has been hot stuff for more than a decade. Evidence is strong and building in this direction, technology is advancing even more rapidly to put it to work. Most people will think it all happened overnight when the consensus comes in, but that's never been true of any revolutionary idea in science. It usually takes decades, sometimes a century or more. Scientists can be as die-hard conservative (and protective of their 'orthodoxies') as anybody else.

About five years ago I got invoved in these debates because I was amazed and disgusted by the outrageous slanders, devious tactics and outright lies being told by self-professed "scientists" in cyberspace. Defending a theoretic that has been known to be entirely inadequate since the 1950s (and seriously doubted for a century and a half). It's come to the point where those die-hards have succeeded in getting a federal judge to declare criticisms of that inadequate theoretic (and mention of any alternative in public schools) unconstitutional. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of "science" doing, and it harms science way more than it's ever going to harm schoolchildren (who will be much more interested in ID now than they would have been, just making the inevitable happen faster). This will become apparent as time goes on, because the revolution's already underway while the die-hards were busy protecting their egotistical and ideological turf.

Teleological design is not an unscientific concept. It is not religious dogma (you and I have established so far that interpretations don't count). It is actively being researched. The theoretical framework is already proposed, and thousands of scientists are filling gaps as we speak. This was fated to happen the moment "Modern Science" decided it should studiously avoid the phenomenon of consciousness, when it couldn't do so and claim to explain reality. The AI Guys got the idea they could maybe create a machine consciousness. They've got money to make it happen, too.

Zizzi's not the first theorist to have dreamed up a scenario where the Alpha and Omega of consciousness both fine-tunes its own parameters and creates its own necessary observers, who in turn create the creator (and everything in between). A time phenomenon, and time is not what we like to think it is. I know you've probably heard of such concepts, as they've been floating for years as side-effects of quantum theory. These aren't things we're capable of establishing as fact at this point, but then, neither are multiverses. Or even wavefunction collapse. But they do establish a baseline upon which a true theory of teleological [purposeful, intelligent] design can be built. And it will be science.

All the complaining and whining and ranting and raving in the world won't stop it from happening. I have tried to be a steady voice from this edge of science, attempting to keep the combatants who claim science as their position from doing real damage with their ideological zeal. I have not been successful, and now the damage is done. The ramifications will not become apparent for a few years, but they're there, predictable as clockwork. And THAT is indeed a very big shame.

Science has moved on. You can either try to keep up or stay to protect your turf-hole until it's passed you by altogether. Your choice, not mine. I made my choices long ago.

Now, what if (for the sake of discussion), it does turn out that a sort of proto-consciousness is fundamental to this universe, from the very instant of its completed inflation? Do you think it's possible that biological organisms are able to concentrate and express this fundamental parameter?

If I understand Penrose, he claims that collapsing superpositions are a necessary ingredient of consciousness. This mechanism works independently of any proto-consciousness (whatever that may be).

I would say that consciousness is a form of self awareness. If so, what is one great collapse during inflation aware of? Especially, given that there's nothing external to the universe to be externally aware of. If the proto-consciousness had anything to convey to us, what would that be?

I really think this idea has travelled well beyond the meaning of the words that purport to express it.

Let me ask you this. Can your ideas be expressed in terms of a classical model of consciousness? Just suppose consciousness is classical (for argument's sake). If the entire universe were classically conscious for an instant at its birth, what would that mean? Feel free to postulate some classical mechanism for connecting the two "minds."

Okay, let get down to brass tacks. What are you trying to explain with this idea?

I generally contain my emotions in these forums, but watching supernaturalists accuse scientists of corrupting science is something I'm happy to let off a little steam about.

Excuse me? I will allow this post to stand, primarily for its educational value as well as because I offered an opinion to which your post was a response. But any further such broad-brush outbursts are going straight into the Memory Hole. I am not "ID," the "ID Movement," anybody's school board member, or the charismatic leader of any church.

This blog is about Paola Zizzi's speculative theory of how consciousness became a fundamental parameter of the universe, according to further speculative (but evidentially and mathematically sound) theories about how consciousness operates through the mechanisms of biological organisms - life. Which can relate directly to the issue of intelligent design in nature and in life.

Zizzi is a well known and respected academic and scientist. So is Roger Penrose, and so is Stuart Hameroff. So are Henry Stapp, Basil Hiley, Diedrick Aerts, Mae-Wan Ho, Dorien Sagan, etc., etc., etc. These are all scientists doing science. They are not "supernaturalists," "dictators," "emperors" or "popes." They won't bully, torture, murder or abuse you. Neither will I or any other contributor to this blog.

My support of an ID inference is based upon what I see to be sound scientific and evidential grounds. I've consistently said it's not ready for prime-time, and do not support the teaching of ID in conscriptive settings. But I certainly see that desperate neodarwinist die-hards have corrupted science [evolutionary biology in its several guises] with their ideology, and I think that's a shame. I also think their overreaching will come back to bite science on its collective ass sooner rather than later. That's purely a sociopolitical prediction.

No interpretation of evidence in any field should be forbidden by law in a "free country," and while things politically are a bit questionable of late, this is still not the USSR. The whole idea of "Forbidden Science" is anathema to me. It will soon become anathema to science as well, I predict.

Now, what if (for the sake of discussion), it does turn out that a sort of proto-consciousness is fundamental to this universe, from the very instant of its completed inflation? Do you think it's possible that biological organisms are able to concentrate and express this fundamental parameter?

I think all the interpretations are highly speculative and unnecessary so long as we can make the science work, FAPP.

Here we are in agreement.

Physics - which has far more speculative interpretations than biology allows - has never tried to use sociopolitical processes to declare any one of them absolute, or to forbid mention of alternative interpretations, or to make it a violation of law to criticize the current favorite. I think it's a shame that desperate neodarwinist die-hards (primarily evangelical atheists with a not-so hidden sociopolitical agenda) have been allowed to thoroughly corrupt biology by doing just this.

Generic ID isn't remotely like a speculative string theory. It's not a scientific theory at all. It makes no predictions, or rather, it refuses to.

IDists ridicule demands for predictive theories of ID as putting the cart before the horse. They say that design has to be detected before such a theory is constructed. This is flat-out wrong!

You don't detect theories. You detect patterns in data. What counts is whether what you detect is what you predicted!

You explain patterns by claiming a rule that dictates a cause and effect relationship among them. That rule is called a predictive theory. If your putative theory doesn't predict anything, then you have no explanation, and you're back at looking at observations. There's no difference between saying that you don't have an explanation, and saying that you have a rule of explanation that depends exclusively on wholly undetectable factors.

We all know that there are two reasons why ID wants to avoid having an actual theory. First, there's currently no evidence of anything that would validate a proper design theory. Second, the designer is usually identified as God, and a proper theory of God is impossible by definition (as if God could even be explanatory of anything in the first place).

So, it's not a corruption of science to bar non-theories of ID from the scientific sphere. Rather, it is a corruption of science to weaken the standards for what counts as scientific theory to the point that stories of the supernatural would count as scientific.

I generally contain my emotions in these forums, but watching supernaturalists accuse scientists of corrupting science is something I'm happy to let off a little steam about.

Scientists have been bullied, tortured, murdered, and generally abused by religion for centuries. God forbid that scientists should contradict the pronouncements of dictators, emperors and popes! So, where science couldn't be silenced it would be controlled.

Now, having had its domain of necessity whittled down from an oak tree to an acorn, religion makes one last stab at science by trying to get the supernatural admitted as scientific theory. Ain't gonna happen.

Consistent Histories (CH) is not in conflict with superposition, and is in total agreement with experiment (as is Many Worlds).

Ah, so. As I said, I'm not that familiar with all the latest interpretations that have nothing to do with the science. Which works fine even if it's not interpreted at all. Google didn't return Wiki, which has demonstrated itself to be a less than reliable source. So I went to the actual source (Griffiths) and his in-house arguments with Hiley, Maroney, Bassi and Ghirardi. No 'consensus' here.

A proposed 'new' theoretic that uses the same methods and tools to reach exactly the same conclusions is entirely interpretational. Interpretations of "what it all means" are philosophical beliefs - science should not pretend to arbitrate or to impose. It was never authorized to do so.

Quantum computers work just as well in every interpretation of QM. In CH, decoherence occurs at the classical limits, as with all quantum theories, so quantum computation works just fine. The difference is that CH gives a quantitative description of decoherence.

I remain a little confused as to how the several interpretations would affect quantum computation, which requires that a measurement be made, and that measurement must present a definitive result. In THIS universe.

…but I'm not an AI Guy. I'll let them figure it out.

Again, the requirement that consciousness collapse the wave function is considered highly speculative and unnecessary. It's the kind of thing you read about in New Age books like the Tao of Physics. Like I say, speculation is a good thing, but claiming that highly speculative ideas are the core of mainstream scientific thought is misleading.

I think all the interpretations are highly speculative and unnecessary so long as we can make the science work, FAPP. Physics - which has far more speculative interpretations than biology allows - has never tried to use sociopolitical processes to declare any one of them absolute, or to forbid mention of alternative interpretations, or to make it a violation of law to criticize the current favorite. I think it's a shame that desperate neodarwinist die-hards (primarily evangelical atheists with a not-so hidden sociopolitical agenda) have been allowed to thoroughly corrupt biology by doing just this. It threatens the whole endeavor of science far more seriously than an ID perspective on the evidence ever could have.

"Unless you are more specific about what bothers you, I'm afraid I can't help. I might not be able to help even if you are specific. Is it a religious issue? A scientific issue? You'll have to help me out here, as I don't understand your objection. Thanks."

It was a stupidity issue, as in I need more pictures, and less words and things that I don't understand. I was joking about your talking "over my head".

Consistent Histories (CH) is not in conflict with superposition, and is in total agreement with experiment (as is Many Worlds). The computations are the same, as Hiley and Maroney agree from your own quote:

In the Bohm approach exactly the same conclusion is reached so that where the two approaches can be compared they predict exactly the same results.

You say

Thus believers-in either of the "˜no-collapse' interpretations - Many Worlds and Consistent Histories - must deny the possibility of quantum computation on principle.

Oops!

Quantum computers work just as well in every interpretation of QM. In CH, decoherence occurs at the classical limits, as with all quantum theories, so quantum computation works just fine. The difference is that CH gives a quantitative description of decoherence.

Again, the requirement that consciousness collapse the wave function is considered highly speculative and unnecessary. It's the kind of thing you read about in New Age books like the Tao of Physics. Like I say, speculation is a good thing, but claiming that highly speculative ideas are the core of mainstream scientific thought is misleading.