Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 2

[smcder]

I like where you're going, but not sure about steps 4 and 5. Seems a bit of a stretch, sure there's no confusion between the "there exists" and "for all" kind of logical statements?

Could be ... it's not my argument and the author has an agenda (intelligent design) but he is trying to get conscious experience to be causally relevant (what you think and experience causes something to happen) and not just epiphenomenal.

I'll have a look.

 

[smcder]

I'll just leave this right here for everyone's perusal:

'How do we know where we are? How can we find the way from one place to another? And how can we store this information in such a way that we can immediately find the way the next time we trace the same path? This year´s Nobel Laureates have discovered a positioning system, an “inner GPS” in the brain that makes it possible to orient ourselves in space, demonstrating a cellular basis for higher cognitive function.' (emphasis mine)

The 2014 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine - Press Release​

I have no problem with that ... ? In my own individual case I would question the accuracy of the system if not it's existence.

 

[marduk]

Could be ... it's not my argument and the author has an agenda (intelligent design) but he is trying to get conscious experience to be causally relevant (what you think and experience causes something to happen) and not just epiphenomenal.

I'll have a look.

Oh, sorry, misunderstood. I thought those were your arguements.

 

[marduk]

I have no problem with that ... ? In my own individual case I would question the accuracy of the system if not it's existence.

I didn't think you would.

However, some may not know the current state of the art of the biology of cognition.

 

[Constance]

. . .some may not know the current state of the art of the biology of cognition.

And some of us might be reading only one side of it.

 

[marduk]

And some of us might be reading only one side of it.

What, exactly is your position?

 

[Constance]

What, exactly is your position?

The position developed from phenomenology to enactive cognition as developed by Varela, Thompson, Noe et al and Panksepp et al's biological insights into primordial protoconsciousness. I've linked these sources over the development of this thread and will provide a list of recent relevant books this evening.

 

[marduk]

The position developed from phenomenology to enactive cognition as developed by Varela, Thompson, Noe et al and Panksepp et al's biological insights into primordial protoconsciousness. I've linked these sources over the development of this thread and will provide a list of recent relevant books this evening.

Sorry, I don't know what this means.

 

[Constance]

Sorry, I don't know what this means.

That's why I'll provide you with a list of books this evening. Alternatively you could search posts in this thread concerning Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson, and Jakk Panksepp for links to papers cited.

 

[marduk]

That's why I'll provide you with a list of books this evening. Alternatively you could search posts in this thread concerning Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson, and Jakk Panksepp for links to papers cited.

Or, perhaps, maybe, you know, you could just tell me?

Where do you think consciousness comes from?

 

[Constance]

Or, perhaps, maybe, you know, you could just tell me?

Where do you think consciousness comes from?

The origin-of-consciousess question is the toughest one for all philosophers and scientists and might never be answerable by our species. I've said before (including in response to you), that it seems likely to me that protoconsciousness, consciousness, and mind arose along a continuum built on a habit of interaction laid down in the quantum substrate and evolved through increasingly complex systems of systems, of which life and the evolution of species constitute an example.

 

[marduk]

What does quantum substrate mean?

 

[Constance]

The ground state of the physical universe according to some quantum theorists. For example:

If, as Hameroff-Penrose suggests, the causal substrate is quantum-dynamic on the seriously sub-cellular level of NCCs, cognitive science will have to accept global properties that don't magically 'emerge', but are there all the way down – it's called "Coherence," the technical term for quantum entanglement (non-locality).

 

[marduk]

The ground state of the physical universe according to some quantum theorists. For example:

Your quote is not coupled with your statement.

The ground state of the universe is very cold, but not quite zero. It can be extracted but not for free.

Penrose's argument is essentially based on a misunderstanding of godel's theories and based on that, since consciousness is not computible perhaps it occurs in small structures where qm could make a difference.

It has been widely criticized enough that nobody has bothered to test it. The sheer fact that the brain is wet and and body temperature would make it difficult to maintain coherence.

And that has zero to do with the quantum base state of the universe.

So, no.

What do you mean by habit?

 

[Constance]

Penrose's argument is essentially base on a misunderstanding of godel and theories that since consciousness is not computible perhaps it occurs in small structures where qm could make a difference.

It has been widely criticized enough that nobody has bothered to test it. The sheer fact that the brain is wet and and body temperature would make it difficult to maintain coherence.

Those are the same responses to the Penrose-Hameroff theory that I heard ten years ago, and yet well-schooled quantum physicists continue with various quantum brain experiments. But science is long, of course, and presuppositions and opinions are of relatively short-term value.

Besides, in posting my theoretical approach to consciousess above (in response to your asking for it) I wrote as follows:

. . . it seems likely to me that protoconsciousness, consciousness, and mind arose along a continuum built on a habit of interaction laid down in the quantum substrate and evolved through increasingly complex systems of systems, of which life and the evolution of species constitute an example.

This is what "seems likely to me," from my own reading in quantum physics and consciousness studies (Stapp, Tiller, and others) and theories developed by biologists and neuroscientists such as Panksepp and before him Varela, Thompson, Noe, and others). The dictionary I consulted for a definition of the quantum substrate (which you requested) provided the quotation referring to Penrose-Hameroff's usage of that term. So far as I have seen, the P-H theory might turn out to be valid; testing it in living human subjects is not, however, possible. Maybe you have another suggestion for testing it?

I'm going to provide you with a list of books you will need to consult if you're going to be persuaded away from a materialist/objectivist/mechanistic definition of consciousess. If you're not interested in finding out about the cognitive-enactive approach underway in the investigation of consciousness, just ignore it.

But even a ten-minute reading of the Hasker paper linked here several times in the last week would enable you to see the shortcomings in the computational theory of mind out of which enactivism has proceeded.

 

[smcder]

@Constance

Margaret Lucas Cavendish (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Came across this looking for something else ... had never heard of her, I think you'll find it interesting.

"Margaret Lucas Cavendish was a philosopher, poet, scientist, fiction-writer, and playwright who lived in the seventeenth century. Her work is important for a number of reasons.
...


It also offers important insights that bear on recent discussions of the nature and characteristics of intelligence and the question of whether or not the bodies that surround us are intelligent or have an intelligent cause.

Another reason that the work of Cavendish is important is that it anticipates some of the central views and arguments that are more commonly associated with figures like Thomas Hobbes and David Hume.

She also anticipates discussions in the work of contemporary philosophers, such as David Chalmers and Colin McGinn, about whether or not our ability to understand how matter thinks is relevant to the question of whether it does think. "

 

[smcder]

This is a separate article from the one I linked above and has a section on Penrose-Hammerhof, specific to this discussion:

Quantum Approaches to Consciousness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

"More recently, a novel idea has entered this debate. Theoretical studies of interacting spins have shown that entangled states can be maintained in noisy open quantum systems at high temperature and far from thermal equilibrium. In these studies the effect of decoherence is counterbalanced by a simple “recoherence” mechanism (Hartmann et al. 2006, Li and Paraoanu 2009). This indicates that, under particular circumstances, entanglement may persist even in hot and noisy environments such as the brain."

That's not the end of that section but it does address @marduk comment, I think - (this isn't my area)

see also Section 2 on Philosophical background assumptions

Article was updated 2011

 

[Constance]

@Steve, thank for both links. I've just had my computer worked on and will read your links forthwith. Btw, what you've quoted from "Quantum Approaches to Consciousness" in SEP sounds very familiar to me; I think the progress noted there was first reported by Russian scientists and was first disparaged here and then pursued.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Your quote is not coupled with your statement.

The ground state of the universe is very cold, but not quite zero. It can be extracted but not for free.

Penrose's argument is essentially based on a misunderstanding of godel's theories and based on that, since consciousness is not computible perhaps it occurs in small structures where qm could make a difference.

It has been widely criticized enough that nobody has bothered to test it. The sheer fact that the brain is wet and and body temperature would make it difficult to maintain coherence.

And that has zero to do with the quantum base state of the universe.

So, no.

What do you mean by habit?

Damn it man! Consciousness *is* computable. Haven't you seen the movie Transcendence?

Seriously, this thread is proof of one thing and one thing only, and that one thing is extremely important. If taken too seriously, science becomes a religion, and you merely pick your favorite soothing sect in which to immerse your tired old insecurities. The self justification of dogma follows.

I think it bears merit to retain the understanding that no one knows anything for certain. 100% of it is subject to falsification minus the three laws of certainty. They are:

1) Wherever you go, there you are.

2) We're all here, because we're not all there.

3) If everything's alright, there must be nothing left.

 

[Constance]

Could be ... it's not my argument and the author has an agenda (intelligent design) but he is trying to get conscious experience to be causally relevant (what you think and experience causes something to happen) and not just epiphenomenal.

It may be that the author entertains or even advocates elsewhere the intelligent design theory regarding nature, but so far as I see in the article we're discussing, intelligent design thinking does not enter into his thinking and reasoning there, so I would say that Hasker does not present or represent an ontological 'agenda' in this paper, which I find to be exemplary in its focus on the major epistemological issues in consciousness studies.

Besides which, it's of course undeniable that materialists and computationalists clearly do pursue an unmistakeable agenda in consciousness studies. Everyone these days is of course ready to dismiss anything said by any philosopher or scientist that can be connected in any way to ontologies different from the dominant scientistic one decreed by Dawkins et al. It's rather like a witch hunt and is intellectually disgusting. Now I know that you, Steve, have an eminently capacious and well-informed mind capable of entertaining all theories, so this post is not about you.