4 ms·

>Very well, I shall look again, but color me (extremely) skeptical. That's awesome, thank you! Ultimately it's beneficial to keep an open mind on things about

>Very well, I shall look again, but color me (extremely) skeptical. That's awesome, thank you! Ultimately it's beneficial to keep an open mind on things about which one is skeptical or even convinced the idea is rubbish (well, some are of course). >Are you able to propose a mechanism by which quantum mechanics can explain qualia? Again, I don't (yet?) see how any mechanistic explanation can explain this. No, I'm not that smart, by far (hehe). You're way too far up the explanatory hierarchy. A starting point are rather the laws of nature, of which Roger Penrose makes a good point that they are not enough understood to make inroads to an understanding of consciousness. At the beginning, consciousness and qualia must be based upon something mechanistic. Penrose argues that QM is incomplete (a non-computational component most likely), I would add that not only GR and QM should be unified (we need to find out where both are wrong), but the triad of Information theory (which I consider the most fundamental), GR and QM should be unified. Maybe this would leed us to conclude (proto-)consciousness is pervasively embedded at the most fundamental level of nature. I think it must be. So why wouldn't a rock be conscious? Maybe because its composition and arrangement of atoms doesn't allow it to be a facilitator to quantum information processing like neurons. Maybe neurons - in their composition and arrangement of atoms and biochemical state and interconnectedness - are especially apt acting as a facilitator harboring microtubules that store and process qubits. In any case, i haven't and can't answer your question, sorry. >I've also given up on proving the existence of God! I agree the non-existence of god can't be proven, and is not provable even in theory. But I've worked around it by arguing that the soul can't exist, considering the theory of evolution. At what point of the evolution exactly would god have turned us human by magically inserting a soul? And if this principal instrument of god doesn't exist, maybe the idea of god is also a bit nonsensical. Good enough for me! (And as I always joke, Thumbs up if you believe you have a soul). >However, I don't think science (or philosophy for that matter) currently has the ability to propose an explanation for how some process p implements qualia. Agree completely on that one. >QM argument really does seem like the pituitary gland of the 21st century. Eesh, not that again ... :) >Respectfully, have you considered the possibility that your ideas just don't add up? I actually consider this the most likely possibility, yes. >(links welcome) Already mentioned in my original post. Enjoy diving deep in the rabbit hole of Orch OR! If you got heaps of time, watch a few youtube videos of Penrose (and Hammeroff) explaining the concept. It's really inspiring watching the most eminent scientist currently on the planet (imsvho).

omginternets 6y ago
>Maybe this would leed us to conclude (proto-)consciousness is pervasively embedded at the most fundamental level of nature. I think it must be. Why? You've presented no argument! This is just a declaration of faith! >So why wouldn't a rock be conscious? Indeed why not, but then again why would it be? This position is called panpsychism. It is hardly new, and hardly specific to QM. If you want to posit consciousness as a fundamental natural force, we need to be able to predict and measure it in all things, including rocks. >Maybe because its composition and arrangement of atoms doesn't allow it to be a facilitator to quantum information processing like neurons. Perhaps. Or perhaps a rock doesn't integrate information as much as a brain? That's what Giulio Tononi thinks [0], and at least his panpsychic theory has managed to collect some evidence (n.b. it suffers from exactly the same problem as QM with respect to mechanism). Even if we buy the panpsychic argument (after all, why not!), you have made no argument for quantum mechanics as opposed to information-integration, or indeed anything else! None! Zero! Panpsychism does not imply quantum mechanics! >In any case, i haven't and can't answer your question, sorry. I appreciate the concession, but I'm afraid I must now insist upon a subsequent one. You must concede that your only reason for thinking QM is involved is because you don't see a reason why it wouldn't be. That's a bad reason. >I actually consider this the most likely possibility, yes. That contradicts your insistence of QM as the likely candidate for phenomenological consciousness. Either you think that assertion has merit, or you think it doesn't. Which is it? >Already mentioned in my original post. Yes, I was asking for things I might not already be familiar with. Am I to conclude that this theory hasn't made any progress in 15 years? [0] https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.344.1832&rep=rep1&type=pdf https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.34...
kaetemi 6y ago
>So why wouldn't a rock be conscious? Yes. Our experience of (or as) consciousness may be biased by having a brain. Consciousness may not require thought or senses in the way that we know it. They key is in the observer, and the observer effect that makes the brain aware of the observer (giving rise to self awareness). Consciousness cannot be proven, but it does affect the conscious being, so there are potential observable effects that might differentiate conscious existence from non-conscious existence (assuming it exists). A rock may be conscious and the consciousness would observe being stone. Thought may not necessarily be a requirement for consciousness. It would not think that it is stone, it would not have any memories, it might not feel anything. It might be a rather dull consciousness, or perhaps it observes the forces that hold the rock together. Perhaps it experiences the forces on the rock as an 'otherworldly' sense that we cannot imagine. But it would not think about it, nor remember it, those are functions of the brain. Or perhaps its rock shape is its memory. Physical storage.

omginternets 6y ago

>Maybe this would leed us to conclude (proto-)consciousness is pervasively embedded at the most fundamental level of nature. I think it must be. Why? You've presented no argument! This is just a declaration of faith! >So why wouldn't a rock be conscious? Indeed why not, but then again why would it be? This position is called panpsychism. It is hardly new, and hardly specific to QM. If you want to posit consciousness as a fundamental natural force, we need to be able to predict and measure it in all things, including rocks. >Maybe because its composition and arrangement of atoms doesn't allow it to be a facilitator to quantum information processing like neurons. Perhaps. Or perhaps a rock doesn't integrate information as much as a brain? That's what Giulio Tononi thinks [0], and at least his panpsychic theory has managed to collect some evidence (n.b. it suffers from exactly the same problem as QM with respect to mechanism). Even if we buy the panpsychic argument (after all, why not!), you have made no argument for quantum mechanics as opposed to information-integration, or indeed anything else! None! Zero! Panpsychism does not imply quantum mechanics! >In any case, i haven't and can't answer your question, sorry. I appreciate the concession, but I'm afraid I must now insist upon a subsequent one. You must concede that your only reason for thinking QM is involved is because you don't see a reason why it wouldn't be. That's a bad reason. >I actually consider this the most likely possibility, yes. That contradicts your insistence of QM as the likely candidate for phenomenological consciousness. Either you think that assertion has merit, or you think it doesn't. Which is it? >Already mentioned in my original post. Yes, I was asking for things I might not already be familiar with. Am I to conclude that this theory hasn't made any progress in 15 years? [0] https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.344.1832&rep=rep1&type=pdf https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.34...

kaetemi 6y ago

>So why wouldn't a rock be conscious? Yes. Our experience of (or as) consciousness may be biased by having a brain. Consciousness may not require thought or senses in the way that we know it. They key is in the observer, and the observer effect that makes the brain aware of the observer (giving rise to self awareness). Consciousness cannot be proven, but it does affect the conscious being, so there are potential observable effects that might differentiate conscious existence from non-conscious existence (assuming it exists). A rock may be conscious and the consciousness would observe being stone. Thought may not necessarily be a requirement for consciousness. It would not think that it is stone, it would not have any memories, it might not feel anything. It might be a rather dull consciousness, or perhaps it observes the forces that hold the rock together. Perhaps it experiences the forces on the rock as an 'otherworldly' sense that we cannot imagine. But it would not think about it, nor remember it, those are functions of the brain. Or perhaps its rock shape is its memory. Physical storage.