Questioning Consciousness

[DrEvil]

Btw: IBM just built a 5 qubit quantum computer and stuck it in the cloud:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/ ... ter-works/

[jakell]

I'm not sure if this quantum mechanics denial comes from the same place as the velocity/redshift denial. We'll never know unless these things are followed through (ie by being rigorous). The trouble is, using this formula, an endless number of queries can be produced using very little effort, it's the scientists who are expected to do all the running.

I expect another one to rear its head at this rate, then we start to paraphrase Alice (disbelieve 10 possible things before breakfast).

[jakell]

Quantum physics are not theoretical. The double slit experiment wouldn't work without it, and people working on cutting edge computer chips have to take it into account or things just don't work.
Some banks are already using quantum encryption, Dwave has a working quantum computer (there's some controversy around it, but most people agree there's quantum effects involved), videos have been posted on this very site of quantum levitation etc.

I would say that for people requiring everyday intuitive explanations it is, and this is what we've been seeing here, all we can do is point to real world things that are the product of the theory, but if questioners still refuse to broach that theory, they can still sit forever in denial mode.

QM cannot be explained in terms of everyday familiar things (like a lot of recent science), some mental work has to be done. To demand such an explanation is mischievous at best and malicious at worst, assuming that the questioner has some self-awareness.

So.... for this new page, we are back to looking at consciousness, here appearing as self awareness, an appreciation of personal limits and how to live within them or surpass them, whichever we choose (both being useful skills)

[DrEvil]

To be fair, the Halton Arp redshift thing is a viable theory, it just doesn't have much supporting evidence.

Edit: I think the biggest mistake people make is to try to frame things in a way that makes sense from a human perspective, to make things simple and neat and easy to understand. It requires a basic assumption that the universe is meant for us to understand, something I personally don't buy at all.
Smells too much like religion.

[jakell]

To be fair, the Halton Arp redshift thing is a viable theory, it just doesn't have much supporting evidence.

Edit: I think the biggest mistake people make is to try to frame things in a way that makes sense from a human perspective, to make things simple and neat and easy to understand. It requires a basic assumption that the universe is meant for us to understand, something I personally don't buy at all.
Smells too much like religion.

I said the same thing, but pointed out that it doesn't actually throw out any of the other redshift components, which is what is needed if Cosmological redshift is to be denied. I'm still open to a continuation of all that.

Arp's ok, and so are Lerner and the plasma cosmology guys, it's just that they've been hijacked by the far less rigorous Electric Universe crowd, and that is where we are starting to see religiosity creeping in. What they say is not too far from 'creationist scientists' who I've spent a fair bit of time debating, they tend not to follow through in the final analysis too (which is a tactic, not laziness)

[jakell]

Going back to Chalmers' exploration of how to broach a complex (and possibly controversial) issue in order to move past a logjam, I may adopt his phraseology, especially in reference to some of the stilted discussions here.

It's a given that we are naturally going to prefer our present frame of reference when looking at the world. the trouble with this is that, if we cleave too firmly to it, then we can look back over our mental development and wonder which state was the best... The 5yo, the 10yo, the youth, young adult etc etc.. ie, none can be seen as satisfactory, we can even project this into our future years.
The secret is not to cleave too firmly, but lightly.

Chalmers talks of 'the easy problem' and 'the hard problem', a division of something complex into something we feel comfortable with and something we don't. The 'easy problem' is understood by our present frame of reference, the hard one is where we have to make an extended effort, and which many may baulk at (probably producing all sorts of excuses). What is interesting here is, not so much how it is used as a conscious methodology, but how we do it unconsciously too.

Examples from this thread are redshift and Quantum Mechanics**
Standard redshift is fairly (relatively?) easy to understand, Cosmological redshift is harder and the other two components (gravitational and Intrinsic) harder still. the first one gives us a way in and that is the key.
QM on the other hand is pretty much all 'the hard problem' and some may reject it purely on this basis. the question is, going back to those younger selves of ours "is this an intelligent basis for rejection?"


** It doesn't have to be science, it can be any field, Chalmers' examples seem to straddle a few.

[lucky]

fwiw... I remember reading 'does one brain cell have consciousness? two? 10? 50?...."

Is there a tipping point? or does consciousness exist externally to the brain.

just my 2c worth

[Pele'sDaughter]

Consciousness seems to be an energy field although science is having a hard time pinning down the generator. It is probably equally difficult for us to imagine it without reference to ego. Perhaps consciousness is not what we think it is and is present everywhere in the universe, and that all it really takes is a receiver and amplifier to indirectly observe its properties. These would be the physical components, such as ourselves. If we are nodes in a hologram, then this would surely be the case?

[82_28]

fwiw... I remember reading 'does one brain cell have consciousness? two? 10? 50?...."

Is there a tipping point? or does consciousness exist externally to the brain.

just my 2c worth

Goddamn is that not one good question! I was just wondering the same thing about trees yesterday.

I think it exists "outside" the brain. But that is a double negative of "comprehension"! I think all "consciousness" is shared among all living things.

[jakell]

fwiw... I remember reading 'does one brain cell have consciousness? two? 10? 50?...."

Is there a tipping point? or does consciousness exist externally to the brain.

just my 2c worth

This is one of the examples given by Stuart Hameroff when moving towards his quantum theory of consciousness and showing how the treating the neuron as a basic on/off switch is inadequate (which is the basis of the computer model of consciousness).

He uses the amoeba as an example and how, even though it is just one cell, it manages to perform pretty complex operations and respond to it's environment, he argues that information processing can therefore happen within cells, and not just between them. (discussed in the video below)

I've read this thread through looking for any mentions of Stuart Hammerof's ideas, and haven't seen any.
The language he uses is pretty technical and his stuff has a steep learning curve which gives the impression that he is coming from a purely scientific and material direction. Once that curve levels out though it can be seen that he is addressing the metaphysical too

His approach seems an answer to a few posters here:

...If the brain is more like an amplifier than a computer say, then consciousness might not so much ‘arise’ from the brain, as much as the brain being part of an interface system that provides access to externally generated signals (vibrations)...

...How would "consciousness as radio" work? What are the underlying principles, where does the signal come from, and how does it propagate? How does our brain pick it up? And what happens if you tune it to the wrong frequency?...

Admittedly, he does seem to be kicking the can down the road a bit, the radio receiver/transmitter is a medium that, in itself, would require some technical knowledge. The real question is usually about what is on either end of this.

What is on the 'transmitting' end, according to Hameroff. is what he calls the 'Fundamental Level of the Universe' and which can only be accessed down at the very smallest level, the quantum level. He also posits that there are Platonic values embedded in this that can only be accessed at the quantum level, this seems to be more Roger Penrose's side of things and I haven't studied him yet.
In order to access the quantum level, large structures such as neurons are inadequate and we have to go much much smaller, to stuctures within cells called microtubules, and beyond, via this he argues that the individual neuron itself is incredibly complex (a 'brain' in itself) and not the simple on/off switch that is so beloved of those who favour the computer model of the human mind.

I've kept this woefully barebones (for now) to keep it readable, but in short, it is when we access this quantum level that we experience consciousness of something that is already there, qualia that we don't have an analogue for at the macro level and therefore have trouble understanding.


This is one of the more accessible interviews I've seen him do. Some of the short sections in the middle are broken down into 'questions' that aren't actually answered, this is more a fault of the editor though. Overall though it's a fairly good overview:

[82_28]

Goddamn. One fantastic link, Jakell!

Not to be a showboat of any sort but everything I have ever thought that dude said in that clip. It had me laughing so to speak.

[zangtang]

have we posited fractal consciousness yet? - not that i'm yet able to express what it is that i think i mean ?

[jakell]

Goddamn. One fantastic link, Jakell!

Not to be a showboat of any sort but everything I have ever thought that dude said in that clip. It had me laughing so to speak.

His use of ideas from quantum physics seems fanciful, but then we are talking of cutting edge stuff that's hard to intuit, so he has to use a framework from somewhere.

Everytime I make the effort with quantum stuff and manage to grasp it, I've forgotten it a few days later due to it's strangeness and removal from everyday experience. Therefore I'm more interested in how Hameroff's stuff forms a set of ideas with other thinkers on Consciousness (a bigger and easier picture) and why I posted the Chalmers video above... Hameroff is working on the hard problem, Dennet insists there is no hard problem, and I actually like 'em all.

[DrEvil]

I think a good way to get to what consciousness is for is to try to figure out why we need it. What can't we do without consciousness? Pretty much every other species on the planet does just fine without it, so it's not a necessity. Maybe it's just an evolutionary dead end that we'll either "grow" out of, or it will wipe us out. Our consciousness hasn't exactly helped us maintain a stable ecosystem...

The brain uses ridiculous amounts of energy for its size so presumably it has to be good for something. I'm leaning towards the "conflict resolution between competing instincts/motor functions in a complex environment" model myself (see the Peter Watts piece I posted earlier in the thread), but that's purely speculative.

[Sounder]

Dr. Evil wrote...

I think a good way to get to what consciousness is for is to try to figure out why we need it. What can't we do without consciousness? Pretty much every other species on the planet does just fine without it, so it's not a necessity. Maybe it's just an evolutionary dead end that we'll either "grow" out of, or it will wipe us out. Our consciousness hasn't exactly helped us maintain a stable ecosystem...

I think you are referring to a particular style of conscious expression, namely ego-consciousness. We may not recognize expressions of consciousness that are far different than our own, but we have no good cause to say that other expressions of being do not display consciousness. Some historians and social critics even say that ego-consciousness did not exist until rather recently.

Personally, I associate ego-consciousness with rational consciousness that produces a system oriented toward the ethics of maxima, disrupting the homeostatic balance that natural systems depend on.

The brain uses ridiculous amounts of energy for its size so presumably it has to be good for something. I'm leaning towards the "conflict resolution between competing instincts/motor functions in a complex environment" model myself (see the Peter Watts piece I posted earlier in the thread), but that's purely speculative.

It’s worth a shot.