Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 2

[Constance]

What does that mean?

It means that, given the current lack of full comprehension of how quantum mechanics is integrated and effective in the evolution of the physical universe, you and I, like the physicists working in the quantum field, are not going to agree on its interpretation. So there's no point in arguing about interpretations still based in conflicting theories.

Are you continuing to assert that QM is required to explain the mind, and that every particle in the universe is entangled, or not?

I don't believe I've ever 'asserted' that qm is required to explain consciousness or mind; I've cited researchers who hypothesize that qm and quantum field theory are involved in brain activity and mental phenomena as in other phenomena (such as photosynthesis), and who are attempting to demonstrate how, through experiment and reasoning from that which is understood of quantum behavior at present. Re q entanglement, I haven't asserted that every particle in the universe is entangled with every other particle, but that q entanglement as a process of interactivity and interconnection in systems is thought by many physicists to extend throughout the universe and also beyond it.

I'm scratching my chin, sorry.

So are we all.

 

[Constance]

The "self" writing these words is a temporary mental awareness of a mental awareness of the state of the physical body and which has access to hard coded memories/experiences.

I think you might be placing too much importance on the transcience of self-referential attention and reflection. Most of us do not forget that we are, and who we are, while focusing our attention beyond ourselves in various kinds of engagement with others and with activity either physical or mental or both. Nor do we have to reconstruct ourselves and our past when we awaken each morning. What was the main point Strawson was making in that paper? I read it months ago and will read it again now. That was not the paper I asked you to identify yesterday; I thought you were citing some neuroscientific research on 'default consciousness' (reverted to after periods of focused consciousness) that I remember reading about in the last year or two and which I'd like to read again.

 

[Constance]

. . . Constance:
What would you say of my evaluation of your stance, that
You are confusing the problem of the 'first person perspective' with, the problem of 'your own perspective'?

I asked shortly after you posted this whether you would clarify what you mean. I'm still hoping you will.

 

[Constance]

That was not the paper I asked you to identify yesterday; I thought you were citing some neuroscientific research on 'default consciousness' (reverted to after periods of focused consciousness) that I remember reading about in the last year or two and which I'd like to read again

@Soupie, the paper at this link is not the one I was looking for concerning 'default consciousness' but it is interesting nevertheless in focusing our attention on the question of levels of consciousness in relation to the brain's "default connectivity" in cases of brain damage, coma, and other conditions. Highly relevant, it seems to me, is Pim von Lommel's report on experimentation in the Netherlands with EEG'S of coma patients thought to be brain-dead, measuring brain activity before and during the cessation of life support. As I posted yesterday, the medical scientists involved in these experiments reported consistent increases in brain activity, some very dramatic [from percentages near 3 percent before disconnection of life-support to nearly 90 percent of normal activity in some cases, lasting for several minutes after the withdrawal of life support]. We have to wonder how those increases in brain activity can be accounted for. I expect we'll read more about this research and the conclusions drawn from it in the near future. In the meantime, this article might help us to better understand what is meant by "default connectivity" in the brain.

Default network connectivity reflects the level of consciousness in non-communicative brain-damaged patients

 

[marduk]

It means that, given the current lack of full comprehension of how quantum mechanics is integrated and effective in the evolution of the physical universe, you and I, like the physicists working in the quantum field, are not going to agree on its interpretation. So there's no point in arguing about interpretations still based in conflicting theories.

Groovy. My position, to be clear, aligns pretty strongly with the Copenhagen interpretation.

I don't believe I've ever 'asserted' that qm is required to explain consciousness or mind; I've cited researchers who hypothesize that qm and quantum field theory are involved in brain activity and mental phenomena as in other phenomena (such as photosynthesis), and who are attempting to demonstrate how, through experiment and reasoning from that which is understood of quantum behavior at present. Re q entanglement, I haven't asserted that every particle in the universe is entangled with every other particle, but that q entanglement as a process of interactivity and interconnection in systems is thought by many physicists to extend throughout the universe and also beyond it.

My position is that QM could have something to do with the mind, but it's a stretch to think so today. The brain is a pretty big object, and how it seems to function is pretty much electrochemically. There's no QM component you can point to that seems to have an impact on our behaviour or experience that I know about.

I believe firmly that the mind arises from the brain, and the brain can be pretty accurately described classically, and that the process of the mind should be explainable computationally.

In short, I believe its one big wet squishy massively parallel computer with some specialized wetware underneath, a basic OS (set of instinctive instruction sets and hooks to the hardware), and some really, really fancy software subsystems running the pieces of mind, with one big overarching piece that I call "me" that abstracts the rest for the most part.

I mean, our mind can simulate a turing machine, the interesting question is given enough hardware, can a turing machine simulate a mind?

The question should be answered in the next few dozen years, so we'll have an answer one way or another hopefully.

That's my position.

So are we all.

 

[Constance]

@Soupie, the paper at this link is not the one I was looking for concerning 'default consciousness' but it is interesting nevertheless in focusing our attention on the question of levels of consciousness in relation to the brain's "default connectivity" in cases of brain damage, coma, and other conditions. Highly relevant, it seems to me, is Pim von Lommel's report on experimentation in the Netherlands with EEG'S of coma patients thought to be brain-dead, measuring brain activity before and during the cessation of life support. As I posted yesterday, the medical scientists involved in these experiments reported consistent increases in brain activity, some very dramatic [from percentages near 3 percent before disconnection of life-support to nearly 90 percent of normal activity in some cases, lasting for several minutes after the withdrawal of life support]. We have to wonder how those increases in brain activity can be accounted for. I expect we'll read more about this research and the conclusions drawn from it in the near future. In the meantime, this article might help us to better understand what is meant by "default connectivity" in the brain.

Default network connectivity reflects the level of consciousness in non-communicative brain-damaged patients

Here's another paper that does not answer the question posed by the research Lommel cited but that does enlighten us to some degree on the relationships of consciousness (defined as 'awareness' of the environment and 'arousal') and different types or phases of brain connectivity. It does shed some light on the question of the experiential {self-reported} periodic loss of 'self-awareness' [and specific focus] in waking states as possibly correlated with and potentially to be accounted for by varying states of brain activity -- shifting processes occurring in the brain for reasons not yet understood.

http://www.coma.ulg.ac.be/papers/consciousness/boly_AnnNYAcadSci_08.pdf

There is also a reference to Tononi's IIT in the paper, which might interest you.

 

[Constance]

Groovy. My position, to be clear, aligns pretty strongly with the Copenhagen interpretation.

Yes.

My position is that QM could have something to do with the mind, but it's a stretch to think so today. The brain is a pretty big object, and how it seems to function is pretty much electrochemically. There's no QM component you can point to that seems to have an impact on our behaviour or experience that I know about.

A number of theorists and experimentalists pursuing the question of quantum activity in the brain have been interested in how it might play a role in certain kinds of awareness and thought. Hameroff and Penrose's theory postulates quantum activity in microphysical parts of the brain supporting consciousness as a whole. A number of consciousness researchers think that quantum entanglement might account for receptive para-normal experiences reported by many people and also para-normal capabilities that are pronounced in some humans.

I believe firmly that the mind arises from the brain, and the brain can be pretty accurately described classically, and that the process of the mind should be explainable computationally.

I think it's clear that brain activity of a sufficiently global nature is required for consciousness (in terms of arousal and awareness of the environment), but that consciousness itself provides us with the platform for obtaining other 'information' than that which informs mechanical brain processes. What we call 'mind' integrates conscious and also subconscious experience with thought, through which we approach understanding of all of the above in question the nature of reality.

In short, I believe its one big wet squishy massively parallel computer with some specialized wetware underneath, a basic OS (set of instinctive instruction sets and hooks to the hardware), and some really, really fancy software subsystems running the pieces of mind, with one big overarching piece that I call "me" that abstracts the rest for the most part.

I mean, our mind can simulate a turing machine, the interesting question is given enough hardware, can a turing machine simulate a mind?

The question should be answered in the next few dozen years, so we'll have an answer one way or another hopefully.

Yes, we'll find out eventually. Given the complexity of human experience and consequently of human consciousness and mind (which includes subconscious and perhaps supraconscious personal and collective experience and ideation still little understood), I do not think a computer intelligence can ever understand reality as we experience it or duplicate the ways in which our minds work on our experientially 'lived reality'. It still might be interesting to converse with such an intelligence to find out what and how it thinks.

 

[marduk]

A number of consciousness researchers think that quantum entanglement might account for receptive para-normal experiences reported by many people and also para-normal capabilities that are pronounced in some humans.

It might, but given that you can't actually use entanglement to transmit information, I seriously doubt it.

 

[Constance]

It might, but given that you can't actually use entanglement to transmit information, I seriously doubt it.

I've heard that claim before and it seems to me to be counter-intuitive given that interacting particles appear to exchange information with one another, even across great distances. Is it possible that scientists attempting to use q interactions to transmit information just haven't figured out yet how to do it?

 

[marduk]

I've heard that claim before and it seems to me to be counter-intuitive given that interacting particles appear to exchange information with one another, even across great distances. Is it possible that scientists attempting to use q interactions to transmit information just haven't figured out yet how to do it?

No, it's not about figuring it out.

It's about how the universe works. In fact, if it worked, you'd essentially have created a non-causal system, a time machine, reversed entropy's direction, and broken the laws of thermodynamics all in one fell swoop.

No-communication theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Constance]

Here is compendium of most current theories concerning consciousness. Very helpful I think.

Models of consciousness - Scholarpedia

 

[smcder]

The ability to consciously consider a range of actions and their potential consequences and choose one and do it is an ability that not all animate objects have.

Better!?

Lol

No

 

[smcder]

The ability to consciously consider a range of actions and their potential consequences and choose one and do it is an ability that not all animate objects have.

Better!?

I was thinking something like

"... only animals with big brains have it."

What it lacks in accuracy it makes up for in clarity. After all, even a dead horse tells time!

 

[Constance]

No, it's not about figuring it out.

It's about how the universe works. In fact, if it worked, you'd essentially have created a non-causal system, a time machine, reversed entropy's direction, and broken the laws of thermodynamics all in one fell swoop.

No-communication theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow, what a mess that would be.

I'm not persuaded yet, just on an intuitive basis. I spent the last three hours browsing neuroscience and consciousness abstracts and articles to see whether quantum involvement in brain activity and consciousness is still being pursued, found that it was, saved some abstracts in Word to share, on this subject and others (including some by Baars and Edelman, who persuaded a lot of people ready and willing to be convinced that consciousness isn't significant since the brain is a meat computer). I also came across abstracts for some very interesting different approaches to the questions raised in brain and consciousness research. I'll post a range of these abstracts over the next few days because they're interesting and raise a lot of questions that should be considered in this thread. This is the most interesting field these days. Had all this been happening when I had my OBE as an undergraduate I would probably have changed my major.

 

[Constance]

No, it's not about figuring it out.

It's about how the universe works.

Last I heard, physical science hasn't yet figured out how the universe works.

 

[marduk]

Last I heard, physical science hasn't yet figured out how the universe works.

That depends on your sense of scale.

Newtonian physics explains events to a sizeable fraction of the universe. Say, 99%.

Einstienin physics explains the next significant digits (high energy). Say, 99.9% accuracy.

QM explains the small scale to say, 99.99% accuracy.

There's no bridge yet between relativity and QM. And to say either describes reality would be incomplete.

And, yet, very, very approximately true.

So I disagree. It's like Godel's theorem. Yes, there is incompleteness. But the incompleteness only serves to show the vastness of what has been understood. To point to the gaps and say "there's the answers" is to say "let God sort it out."

I say screw it. Let's sort it out.

 

[smcder]

That depends on your sense of scale.

Newtonian physics explains events to a sizeable fraction of the universe. Say, 99%.

Einstienin physics explains the next significant digits (high energy). Say, 99.9% accuracy.

QM explains the small scale to say, 99.99% accuracy.

There's no bridge yet between relativity and QM. And to say either describes reality would be incomplete.

And, yet, very, very approximately true.

So I disagree. It's like Godel's theorem. Yes, there is incompleteness. But the incompleteness only serves to show the vastness of what has been understood. To point to the gaps and say "there's the answers" is to say "let God sort it out."

I say screw it. Let's sort it out.

I don't follow the reference/comparison to Godel 's theorem here ? Which one?

 

[Constance]

That depends on your sense of scale.

Newtonian physics explains events to a sizeable fraction of the universe. Say, 99%.

Einstienin physics explains the next significant digits (high energy). Say, 99.9% accuracy.

QM explains the small scale to say, 99.99% accuracy.

There's no bridge yet between relativity and QM. And to say either describes reality would be incomplete.

And, yet, very, very approximately true.

So I disagree. It's like Godel's theorem. Yes, there is incompleteness. But the incompleteness only serves to show the vastness of what has been understood. To point to the gaps and say "there's the answers" is to say "let God sort it out."

I say screw it. Let's sort it out.

It seems from what I read that a lot of physicists are trying to sort it out and finding something wrong with the numbers in the mathematics they're relying on. Here are two articles, one of which on 'scale' I posted in a new thread earlier this month at

A new theory of scale | The Paracast Community Forums

and another linked within it going to this page:

Complications in Physics Lend Support to Multiverse Hypothesis | Simons Foundation

I'd be interested in your thoughts on both of them.

 

[Constance]

ps: I kind of like the Alice in Wonderland sense of reality I gather from the article on scale.

 

[marduk]

I don't follow the reference/comparison to Godel 's theorem here ? Which one?

Sorry, I'm a math geek.

Godel stated, simply, that there are provably true statements in math that cannot be derived mathematically... i.e. that the domain will always be incomplete.

We can poke our finger in an incomplete domain, postulate a truth, prove it, but we can't "get" there from basic axioms.

Since the domain is by definition infinite, our ability to map it therefore will always be incomplete.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems