Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 8

[Constance]

Actually for the last few days I've been thinking about how humans can even come up with the idea of infinity and infinitesimal. If we are so "quantized" and finite as regards "atoms" and such -- making up a finite-sized brain of finite numbers of atoms -- then how did human minds ever conceive of "infinity" as a "defined" concept, pun fully intended. That got me to thinking about the atoms themselves with their electron shells S,P,D,F etc. As I understand the explanation, (-)electrons, in their so-called orbits around the (+)protons and neutrons of the nucleus, actually approach protons to the point that the potential energy between them goes to negative infinity, while the kinetic energy goes to positive infinity. This ensures that electron and proton will not actually combine on their own. So, if this is accurate, then this would be a powerful example of actual infinity in continual operation in our very physical makeup. This wouldn't lead to conscious perception of infinity, necessarily, but it could be an indicator of the kinds of infinity of reality that we continually encounter, even when much of our perception relates to the finite.

I think that's a brilliant insight, William, and in accord with what Thiese-Kafatos present in that paper. I've just linked in a post to @Soupie a second paper by these two scientists/scholars that I think you will enjoy.

Could I ask any of you regulars on this thread (especially the Triumvirate) if you know about the following experiment that I was led to believe was actually performed. Supposedly glasses were made that caused the wearer to see everything upside down. The subjects were supposed to wear the glasses for some length of time, and surprisingly, after a certain amount of time, the mind actually inverted what was perceived through the glasses. Later, after the subjects stopped wearing the glasses their "normal" vision was inverted for a while, until, again, the mind reverted it to the proper orientation. This might be one of those urban myths, but I am pretty sure that some long time ago I read about it in a respectable publication, I think. Perhaps I err . . .

I remember reading about that experiment and I think it attests to the openness and plasticity of our primary experiential interface with our locally lived environments as well as to the persistence of memory embedded in embodied consciousness. This experiment seems to me to indicate that the neural nets of the brain catch up with what experience itself has first provided. I hope one of us can find a link describing that experiment and its interpretation so we can discuss this further.

 

[Constance]

I've messaged @Pharoah asking that he rejoin the thread. Does any else still have his personal email address? If so, please message it to me so I can write to him there as well. Thanks.

 

[Randall]

... This experiment seems to me to indicate that the neural nets of the brain catch up with what experience itself has first provided ...

If the experience has been provided in the form of a record about someone else's experiences, then those experiences came before the activation of the neural nets of the person accessing the record. However if we're talking about real-time experience, then the brain does the work first, obviously.

 

[Soupie]

Brain Mechanisms Underlying the Brief Maintenance of Seen and Unseen Sensory Information. - PubMed - NCBI

Brain Mechanisms Underlying the Brief Maintenance of Seen and Unseen Sensory Information.

King JR, et al. Neuron. 2016.
Show full citation

Abstract

"Recent evidence of unconscious working memory challenges the notion that only visible stimuli can be actively maintained over time. In the present study, we investigated the neural dynamics underlying the maintenance of variably visible stimuli using magnetoencephalography. Subjects had to detect and mentally maintain the orientation of a masked grating. We show that the stimulus is fully encoded in early brain activity independently of visibility reports. However, the presence and orientation of the target are actively maintained throughout the brief retention period, even when the stimulus is reported as unseen. Source and decoding analyses revealed that perceptual maintenance recruits a hierarchical network spanning the early visual, temporal, parietal, and frontal cortices. Importantly, the representations coded in the late processing stages of this network specifically predicted visibility reports. These unexpected results challenge several theories of consciousness and suggest that invisible information can be briefly maintained within the higher processing stages of visual perception."

I haven't read the entire paper, but I take it that some theories of consciousness maintain that only material (information) that is conscious can be maintained and manipulated in certain, complex ways (will need to read the full paper for details).

This paper porports to show that unconscious information about external stimuli can be maintained and manipulated in these complex ways yet remain unconscious.

If consciousness is fundamental and continuous (as we've been discussing), then we still need to understand how the structure of the organism/brain shapes consciousness into specific contents of consciousness. And if all processes are fundamentally conscious, why does it seem that some processes are conscious and some are not?

In this regard, I want to explore some theories of consciousness that incorporate the role of memory. Not in the sense that memory processes cause consciousness, but in the sense that all processes have a fundamental element of consciousness, but only processes that have a memory function can "record" and "remember" their conscious experiences.

So the question then becomes: if all processes are conscious processes (and I want to provide a compelling bit of evidence for this!) why are some of these processes "recorded" and thus experienced as conscious processes and other processes "not-recorded" and thus not experienced as conscious.

This approach is just logical and unintuitive enough to seem viable haha.

 

[smcder]

Finished the Theise-Kafatos paper ... I also skimmed through a paper by Kafatos on the "qualitative meaning" of equations and I wasn't sure about his logic ... I may post a few examples of my concerns ... I did find that he is involved with the Chopra foundation and has co-authored papers and books? I think with Chopra.

The Theise Kafatos paper - it seemed to gloss over the complexities in order to get to fundamental principles which were kind of vague to me - they reminded me a bit of the Kybalion - which I think is a very interesting book - and they do quote from it:

as above, so below

I don't know how witting their references to the esoteric tradition are as the references to it felt a bit superficial - but that may have been because it was written for a popular audience. I can post some examples of this too.

 

[smcder]

EXPLORING CONSCIOUSNESS THROUGH THE QUALITATIVE CONTENT OF EQUATIONS
Ashok Narasimhan and Menas C. Kafatos

You can Google this and get to various links to the .PDF

The opening salvo:

In science in general and physics in particular, there has been inadequate exploration of the qualitative content of equations. The inspiration for this discussion is what Richard Feynman1 said: “The next great era of awakening of human intellect may well produce a method of understanding the qualitative content of equations”. Equations are about relationships between things and the mathematics of the equations define exactly how those relationships work and express themselves. However, it might be useful to think about why do those particular properties appear, in that qualitative form, in those relationships? We explore why and what does it mean, rather than ‘what is the mathematical output’.

I'm not familiar with the Feynman quote - ... so I'm not sure about the interpretation of it here ... but it seems that this:

Equations are about relationships between things and the mathematics of the equations define exactly how those relationships work and express themselves. However, it might be useful to think about why do those particular properties appear, in that qualitative form, in those relationships? We explore why and what does it mean, rather than ‘what is the mathematical output’.

... is a bit backwards? Instead, it seems that we observe relationships and look for some mathematics to model some aspect of those relationships that can be clearly defined and measured, (of course we also take existing equations and look or find applications for them) but in these lines:

equations define exactly how those relationships work and express themselves. However, it might be useful to think about why do those particular properties appear, in that qualitative form, in those relationships? We explore why and what does it mean, rather than ‘what is the mathematical output’.

... it seems that they are moving from the actual relationship to the mathematics and then not coming back, but instead looking for further relationships strictly in the mathematics ... we also do that ... we say if Eq1 says this and Eq2 says that ... then we should expect Eq3 ... but we then of looking for that and sometimes its confirmed and sometimes it isn't and then we go back and re-write Eq1 and Eq2 ... we don't expect reality to conform to the mathematics per se.

The point of an equation is not to have any qualitative content ... force equals mass times velocity squared applies to dancers and line backers equally ... but what it seems they do in this paper then is take E=MC(2) and make a series of moves from that. Thought experiments admittedly ...

 

[smcder]

I think I'll leave the paper for you all to read and see if you have the same sense of the logic used ... one thing I'll note is that literature that purports to be maverick or outside of the box, very interestingly, tends to have some very similar rhetoric and even begins to pick up a kind of orthodoxy ... well, that's kind of obvious, in this case I wonder if all of this hasn't condensed around the Chopra foundation, which provides money but also would tend to steer the results and possibly even a lot of the rhetoric and writing, I'll post something by the biologist Jerry Coyne about why he doesn't accept the very lucrative invitations the Chopra Foundation makes to him.

These complementarities in special and general relativity are typically considered to be separate complementarities, but we will see if in fact they are inextricably linked.

I'm not a physicist so I would want to know more about what is meant by "typically considered to be separate complementarities" a lot of papers begin with assertions that something isn't the way it's typically considered to be with the implication that people are just taking it for granted ... but many things in professions aren't discussed for reasons other than being taken for granted, perhaps they are generally accepted but not asserted in professional journals because they can't be rigorously supported ... but this is an insider's knowledge in a field - so when someone writes something like this about what appears to be a basic concern - my index of suspicion is raised.

In fact, the usual complementarities as envisioned by Niels Bohr, refer to incompatible variables, and these, for example, would be position and momentum; and time and energy. Here we see that we can generalize and have these mixed in the two sets of relationships above.

The starting point in our thought experiment is the famous relationship/equation = 2 3

where, of course, E = energy, m = mass and c is the speed of light.

Now, for the purposes of our thought experiment on the qualitative meaning of this equation, we will focus only on the obvious: mass and energy are equivalent (but complementary) entities, and the transformation from one to the other is mediated by the speed of light. For this initial thought experiment, we will not address the qualitative implications of the square of the speed of light – that is the subject of a separate discussion.

What does this tell us qualitatively? It says that energy, mass and the speed of light are linked. Let us take this a little further. Speed is time taken to travel distance and distance is nothing other than separation in space. So now we qualitatively have space and time in this equation.

Qualitative Insight 1: Energy, mass and space-time are related.

Qualitative Insight 2: Energy and mass are complementarities particularly relevant in special relativity and space and time are complementarities in general relativity. *Both of those are traditionally not considered to be linked – but this seems to indicate that these are all interrelated and directly linked qualitatively.

Again, I want to know more about "traditionally not considered to be linked" - and also the move here from quantitative linkage to a qualitative one ...

 

[smcder]

I think Coyne is considered pretty irascible - probably with an I.Q. (Irascibility Quotient) near that of Daniel Dennett, so with a grain of salt ...

Chopra tries to buy me out

And I will say those who think outside the box do have a real challenge to bring their work out - when I say I question some of the things I do in the above posts, it's just that questioning)

 

[smcder]

Ok, but there is very important point not to be missed in this. I sense that—for what it's worth—you and I have found some common ground, so I want to build in that. I'm not suggesting we need to be in agreement, but rather mutual understating.

(I will likely need @smcder to help "translate" these ideas.)

Perception is a special kind of conscious experience. We have emotional, conceptual, and perceptual experiences. Among others.

I agree that we must use radical empericism to investigate consciousness. Radical empericism would seem to include all experiences, perhaps those investigated in phenomenology and meditative practices.

However, the type of empericism that most mainstream scientists use to investigate consciousness centers on perceptual experience: seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, etc.

I would add the stipulation that the boundaries between affect, percept, and concept are not hard boundaries. But generally speaking, science is founded on perceptual experiences.

While our conscious, perceptual experiences are indeed "made of" consciousness, and thus experiencing perceptions is technically experiencing consciousness, what typically, naively happens is that one takes our perceptual experiences of reality to be perceptually identical to reality.

If we hypothesize that the fundamental substrate of reality is consciousness, but agree that there are individual minds that form within this substrate, then these minds still must have a means of perceiving and interacting with one another. I contend that each of these minds will have evolved a perceptual system which allows them to perceive other minds and systems that have evolved/differentiated within the substrate.

But each perceptual system and its corresponding perceptions will be mind-specific (individual- and species-specific).

These perceptions allow us to interact with and within reality, but these perceptions shouldn't be mistaken as veridical (naive realism). Such thinking leads to the Hard Problem.

I think people are very willing to believe things are other than they seem - I think "naive realism" is oversold, we are a sophisticated populace in that sense - (and some, I would say many, even feel they are using a "technology" that isn't based strictly on the standard model. Most of these come from the Western esoteric tradition.)

But people aren't going to believe a particular version of this until it can do more for them than the "standard model". It has to do more than be mathematical or logically consistent. What I've seen so far generally follows the pattern of reality isn't what you think, it's really this, but here's why it looks this way (metaphor) and then metaphor is taken away and various models are offered but no predictions made that can be tested. I would count the "we are living in a simulation and I can prove it mathematically" genre in this. The problem is all the arbitrary assumptions that go in and that are left out. Which is not to say we couldn't be living in a simulation. It is to say I think any of a number of other hypotheses could be put forward and supported as rigorously as the simulation or Hoffman model ...

So I think people are perfectly willing and do believe that reality isn't what it seems - but they are rightly reluctant to believe a particular claim until it can do something for them ... either provide better "technology" or better answer their metaphysical concerns. Hoffman's model seems typical of the problem in that he seem to have reinvented the wheel due to a lack of knowledge of the history of philosophy and made some fundamental mistakes about models.

 

[smcder]

It is to say I think any of a number of other hypotheses could be put forward and supported as rigorously as the simulation or Hoffman model ...

In fact, I'd say we are squarely in the esoteric tradition with all of these theories. In fact, you can pretty much substitute this statement for the last few posts above - it covers the ground.

 

[Soupie]

But people aren't going to believe a particular version of this until it can do more for them than the "standard model".

I agree with you. However, when it comes to consciousness studies—in particular the Hard Problem—and the study of perception, I think being self-aware of our tendency to assume a Naive Realist stance is going to be helpful. Especially with the apparently growing understanding of the role of predictive processing in perception.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-12-illusion-reveals-brain-peripheral-vision.html

I also think it can help with the problem of uniting quantum and classical physics. There are and have been physicists argueing that we need to stop trying to fit QM into a Naive Realist box.

I would say that generally our peceptual experiences work incredibly well for helping us get by in life. But as we continue to grapple with things like QM and consciousness, realizing the limitations of Naive Realism needs to happen.

 

[smcder]

I agree with you. However, when it comes to consciousness studies—in particular the Hard Problem—and the study of perception, I think being self-aware of our tendency to assume a Naive Realist stance is going to be helpful. Especially with the apparently growing understanding of the role of predictive processing in perception.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-12-illusion-reveals-brain-peripheral-vision.html

I also think it can help with the problem of uniting quantum and classical physics. There are and have been physicists argueing that we need to stop trying to fit QM into a Naive Realist box.

I would say that generally our peceptual experiences work incredibly well for helping us get by in life. But as we continue to grapple with things like QM and consciousness, realizing the limitations of Naive Realism needs to happen.

I think you missed my point.

 

[smcder]

When you say "things aren't as you perceive them to be" you have two choices:

1. asserting they are some other way
2. asserting the way things really are can't be determined

in the case of 1 you are back to adjusting your perceptions to the way things are - a kind of post or neo "naive realism"

in the case of 2, know one need bother with your particular argument, because it defeats itself.

 

[smcder]

I think you are making an esoteric claim - and, if so, I express my sympathy and my condolences! and I recommend a study of the history of esotericism and it's apologia, so you know what to expect.

 

[smcder]

I think most people know that there are limits to what their senses can tell them about the world - we've all been exposed to enough science documentaries and news stories to know ... but what science claims is that it can ultimately identify and correct for those things and present us with a picture of how the world works, even if we can't directly perceive it and asks us to bet on it.

So if you say offer the simulation argument or the many worlds hypothesis, you may solve a problem but at the cost of a lot of messiness - now you have an infinity of worlds or you have to answer the question of who or what is running the simulation and are they in a simulation themselves? and you are asking people to quit looking for a simpler answer that puts the ability to truly see the world in their hands. I saw a headline recently about a new theory that did away with dark matter and multiple worlds theories.

In this case, you "solve" the "hard problem" but introduce other problems that are just as difficult.

 

[Soupie]

in the case of 1 you are back to adjusting your perceptions to the way things are - a kind of post or neo "naive realism"

It wouldn't be adjusting our perceptions so much as adjusting our conceptions, as you suggest below:

but what science claims is that it can ultimately identify and correct for those things and present us with a picture of how the world works, even if we can't directly perceive it and asks us to bet on it.

And this is happening. And I think Naive Realism is a stumbling block that is in the process of being overcome.

 

[smcder]

It wouldn't be adjusting our perceptions so much as adjusting our conceptions, as you suggest below:


And this is happening. And I think Naive Realism is a stumbling block that is in the process of being overcome.

Is this in agreement with how you are using the term NR?

Naïve realism, also known as direct realismor common sense realism, is a philosophy of mind rooted in a theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world. In contrast, some forms of idealism assert that no world exists apart from mind-dependent ideas and some forms of skepticism say we cannot trust our senses.

 

[smcder]

Are direct and indirect realism helpful terms here?

"It is not uncommon to think of naïve realism as distinct from scientific realism, which states that the universe contains just those properties that feature in a scientificdescription of it, not properties like colour per se but merely objects that reflect certain wavelengths owing to their microscopic surface texture. This lack of supervenience of experience on the physical world has influenced many thinkers to reject naïve realism as a physical theory.[12]

One should add, however, that naïve realism does not claim that reality is only what we see, hear etc.. Likewise, scientific realism does not claim that reality is only what can be described by fundamental physics. It follows that the relevant distinction to make is not between naïve and scientific realism but between direct and indirect realism.

The direct realist claims that the experience of a sunset, for instance, is the real sunset that we directly experience. The indirect realist claims that our relation to reality is indirect, so the experience of a sunset is a subjective copy of what really is radiation as described by physics. But the direct realist does not deny that the sunset is radiation; the experience has a hierarchical structure,[13] and the radiation is part of what amounts to the direct experience.

An example of a scientific realist is John Locke, who held the world only contains theprimary qualities that feature in a corpuscularian scientific account of the world (see corpuscular theory), and that other properties were entirely subjective, depending for their existence upon some perceiver who can observe the objects."[1]

The modern philosopher of science Howard Sankey argues for a form of scientific realism which has commonsense realism as one of its foundations.[14]

 

[smcder]

The above and the section in Wikipedia on naive realism ending in

"Yet many scientists are mathematical realists, and since there are currently several competing Interpretations of quantum mechanics there is little reason for contemporary realists to worry about anti-realist interpretations of quantum strangeness."

Where do you fit in among these possibilities?

 

[smcder]

It wouldn't be adjusting our perceptions so much as adjusting our conceptions, as you suggest below:


And this is happening. And I think Naive Realism is a stumbling block that is in the process of being overcome.

I think that's a statement about what you are learning at this time.

I think as a general statement it doesn't hold up IF it implies a general move upward in thinking from naive realism to something better as a general progression.