Consciousness, microtubules and the physics of the brain.

They don’t have the slightest idea of what they are talking about. From a scientific point of view, there is nothing to explain, everything is already explained the moment you say that consciousness is a product of the brain. All the rest is scientific details that have nothing to do with philosophy. It is like explaining how it is possible that our body moves. Once you understood that your muscles make the movement, all other thousands of books are just details that add nothing to the basic idea that you already have.
So, there is a basic first mistake in all these discussions: pretending that we don’t know the basics of the scientific point of view.
The other mistake is that whatever science explains is the shareable aspect. Science is completely unable to deal with things that are impossible to share. Consciousness is a word that works tremendously well to create this ambiguity. It can be even referred to plants, the moment we see that plants are able to react to something. So, consciousness is a tremendously good topic, because of its greatly confused ambiguity, to create endless and sterile discussions.
The most essential aspect of consciousness, if we really want to avoid ambiguity and confusion, is the one that is impossible to talk about: it is your own experience about yourself, your perceptions, your emotions, whatever you perceive inside you. The moment we talk about it, we aren’t talking anymore about it, because we have immediately automatically selected, isolated, those aspects that we can talk about, leaving apart what is impossible to communicate, that is, the real experience of consciousness.
Of course, I know that this applies now to me as well: what am I talking about? I am talking about what I can’t describe by words, because I cannot make you enter inside myself, inside my way of perceiving myself, my feelings. Do you feel that such an incommunicable experience happens to you? Well, that is consciousness. If you don’t realize anything incommunicable inside the experience of yourself, then you will never be able to understand anything about consciousness: in this case, what you will talk and think about will always be what is expressible by words, not the real experience of consciousness.

Reply to universeness

I think the Penrose-Hameroff Orch-Or theory as initially proposed was regarded as implausible because the brain is too hot and wet for molecular superpositions exceeding more than a dozen or so atoms, even in microtubules. But recent research into interactions between light and molecules suggests that a coherent energy field can be generated between them, perhaps spanning macroscopic distances somehow. I think Hameroff is in full support of the photonics research and intends to integrate that info into his quantum consciousness theorizing once we have solid experimental evidence. I speculated on the role that light fields might have as a binding mechanism for percepts in a couple papers I've published. I used this site for editing and to solicit critiques, so you can find these papers in near final form as the multipost OPs of my threads: A Physical Explanation for Consciousness and A Physical Explanation for Consciousness, the Reality Possibly.

I doubt quantum processes are fundamentally nondeterministic, but this is no barrier to the claim that some degree of real as opposed to illusory volition exists, as I describe in the OP of my thread: A Materialist Proof of Free Will Based on Fundamental Physics of the Brain.

I wrote a long paper that I hope to publish soon which goes into way more depth about fundamental physics of the brain and posted it to this site, but that got deleted. Not a good venue for making a post that long, but this preliminary stuff should give you a good idea of where the science of consciousness is headed post-initial Orch-Or.

@Angelo Cannata has a point that consciousness is to a certain extent subjective and modeling the phenomenon with words or images doesn't do justice to the vivid immediacy. But I think models of psychology and brain function can enhance subjective self-awareness if properly comprehended and assimilated into one's philosophical perspective. I don't think subjectivity is so much a barrier to understanding the mind objectively as the expectation that you lie about consciousness, and these taboos related to describing qualitative experience must be dismantled gradually so upheaval in the stigmas of culture do not throw society into turmoil. This issue is the "hard problem of consciousness" as I understand it: how do we make it possible to seek and find the truth in this matter, wherever you are coming from as a human being?

The topic is fascinating and I hope we will one day be capable of understanding consciousness materially, from the subatomic to macroscopic to "nonlocal" levels, allowing researchers to come up with medical cures and sociocultural palliatives for stigma that help all kinds of individuals and demographics.

Quoting Enrique

models of psychology and brain function can enhance subjective self-awareness

We shouldn’t confuse enhanced perception with the basic phenomenon of subjectivity.
Of course perception can be enhanced by knowledge. For example, if I get the knowledge that certain feeling unwell is caused by chemicals present in the air, I learn to mentally connect these things, I can learn the smell of that polluted air, learn how its presence slowly acts in my feeling, so, I get a completely different interpretation of what initially was just a generic and confused feeling unwell. The same way people can educate their taste, becoming able to recognize shades in the taste of a special wine, or harmonies and styles in music. But all of this doesn’t touch in the least the fact that, whatever my interpretation of my feelings is, it remains unique and impossible to express even to myself: even the memory that I can have of my past feelings will never be able to give me again the experience that is definitely lost in the past. It is a question about being internal: I am internal to myself and I cannot absolutely make anyone else internal to me; I am internal to my present and I cannot absolutely make myself internal again to a moment of mine of the past, even of just one second ago; each part of the space is internal to itself and it cannot be repeated by any other part of the space, for a simple reason: because it is not the same part, it is another one. Two atoms are not the same atom. Two moments are not and will never be able to be the same moment. The hidden ambition of science of consciousness is to defeat the problem of non repeatability. Science is based of repeatability. What cannot be repeated cannot be scientific. Consciousness is feeling the non repeatable. When we make a photo, we have some hidden ambition to make that moment repeatable, but we have to realize that the photo witnesses the opposite: that moment is definitely lost. It is the same dismay we feel when somebody we knew very well dies: how is it possible that the experience of the presence and life of that person is definitely cancelled, definitely lost in the past? So, I would even say that all this science about consciousness and magic quantum physics hides inside it the ancient human desire to defeat death without our own existential involvement.

A consequence of what I said is that it is impossible not only to understand how it is being like a bat, but actually it is impossible to me to understand how it is being like me. The moment I realize something, I am already referring to something belonging to the past. Knowledge of the present is impossible: if I think of the present, what I am thinking is a thinkable aspect of the experience, the experience that I needed to abandon, for a moment, to be able to think of the thinkable part of it. This means that the moment I think of consciousness, I am not experiencing it anymore, because my attention is taken by expressing it to myself. If I stop expressing it to myself, then I am experiencing consciousness. We can combine in our present, probably, thinking and experiencing, but, anyway, what we are thinking can never coincide with what we are experiencing; it is always just a copy of some thinkable part of it.

Quoting Angelo Cannata

We can combine in our present, probably, thinking and experiencing, but, anyway, what we are thinking can never coincide with what we are experiencing; it is always just a copy of some thinkable part of it.

That might be true from a certain perspective perhaps. The idea that we can fully assimilate "consciousness" into objective knowledge may be an ideal strictly within the scope of a specific mechanistic framework, to be contextualized and not essentialized. Neither you nor I want materialist fundamentalism, but relativism can be fundamentalist also as can any point of view. The fundamentalist undercurrent in all kinds of mainstream educating, propagandizing, communicating is a major factor in hostilities surrounding science and religion. But in my opinion "fundamentalism" shouldn't be wantonly used as an epithet against those willing to commit strongly to a cause either. It all really depends on how people are educated: if we get society's members to think for themselves with some strategic guidance, contextualization necessarily follows, furthering objectivity while preserving subjectivity. Then both of our perspectives on consciousness have a grain of truth within their respective domains, and we can reach agreement where necessary. This is about the opposite of most cultural approaches lol

I think promoting the sanctity of subjectivity has legitimacy as a value judgement to the extent that this doesn't discourage human beings from coming together and reaching novel consensus. Balance has to be reached between personal and civic commitment, a compromise that respects subjective experience while not detracting from the possibility of objectivity. Rational individualism: enlightenment.

Reply to universeness

Complicated stuff. Penrose's recent discussion with Jordan Peterson is one of my next things to watch.

Reply to Enrique

Have you read Penrose's Cycles of Time? I really struggled with it.

Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole

Have you read Penrose's Cycles of Time? I really struggled with it.

Penrose's books are difficult and I don't venture into them much. He's such a math whiz and you always have to do logic gymnastics. I'm more of a spatial thinker than an abstract logic puzzle guy, so not my aptitude. I'm sure Cycles of Time was intellectually brutal lol

Reply to Enrique

Ah so it's not just me! It was like I was reading a book in another language :lol:

I've still got to read Hoffman's The Case Against Reality. I think you said it was so-so?

Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole

I've still got to read Hoffman's The Case Against Reality. I think you said it was so-so?

Been recently getting into a bunch of physics history. Wasn't me that said it! Haven't read that book.

Quoting Enrique

Balance has to be reached between personal and civic commitment, a compromise that respects subjective experience while not detracting from the possibility of objectivity.

I agree that we cannot get rid of categories and ideas based on objectivity. It is just impossible. The problem is how to make a fruitful relation between these things. I don’t think a good solution is some sort of half subjectivity/half objectivity, like saying that a lot of things are subjective, but a lot are objective as well. This would sound to me like just giving up in finding a real relation between the two things.
I would express the situation in these terms: we see that we exist in a world of subjectivity, but we cannot even think of it without using objective categories and reference points. I think that what makes them really connected is the context of ideas of human experience: we realize that we are subjects who, for some mysterious reason, perceive in their existence a lot of inexorable things that look nothing but undeniable objectivity. It is an existential condition.
I think this is different both from saying that everything is subjective and from saying that objectivity exists for sure. I think that this kind of existentialism is a ground different from both things. In existentialism, subjectivity is not like a soap bubble where we are imprisoned; rather, it is the source of art, expressivity, creativity, perception of freedom. Objectivity is not the level of certainty, reality out there, values valid for everybody and everywhere; rather, it is the human experience of being subject to things that we are unable to master, like death, competition between subjects, materiality, things that actually can be turned into positive experiences if we have some patience to work on them and harmonize them with subjectivity.
In this context, scientific research on consciousness can be helpful if it recognizes its limits. There is no point in establishing in advance what science is unable to reach, but also there is no point in thinking that science, sooner or later, has the potentiality to master absolutely everything. This claim would mean exactly forgetting the existential perspective I suggested.

Quoting Angelo Cannata

There is no point in establishing in advance what science is unable to reach, but also there is no point in thinking that science, sooner or later, has the potentiality to master absolutely everything. This claim would mean exactly forgetting the existential perspective I suggested.

Sides of the same coin perhaps: when the objectivist hat is on, rational individualist, when the subjectivist hat is on, existentialist. I think we brought perfect harmony to the cosmos haha

Thanks to everyone who has responded so far. I have enjoyed reading them very much.
I will follow all the links offered by @Enrique

I was familiar with the tiling problem described by Roger and his point that consciousness was not a phenomenon that had a purely computational or algorithmic description/solution.
I don't think electronic computing, based purely on von Neumann architecture, will ever create an AI system, which can pass the Turing test. But I think qubit systems (which can employ entanglement) combined with future advances in biological computing might.
Rogers comparison between the incompatibility of classical physics at the macro size and quantum physics at the sub-atomic and our current inability to explain consciousness as a serial/parallel set of processes sets the scene nicely for me.
I think it is likely that phenomena we are aware of in quantum mechanics such as entanglement, superposition, quantum tunneling etc must be part of the 'mechanisms'/processes involved in consciousness.
Stuart's expertise in anesthetics and the processes of switching consciousness off (at least from the standpoint of 'awareness of time passing' and the ability to be aware enough to memorialise/experience events) is a good in-road to understanding the processes involved.
If we can understand exactly what we are switching off then we should be able to progress in understanding consciousness more. I found Stuart's comment that all creatures from insects to humans and bigger require the same relative amount of anesthesia to render them unconscious a quite astonishing finding.
His comment that entanglement is the most likely candidate for the cumulative effect of firing neurons which 'work in parallel' to produce a 'thought,' was also compelling for me.

Quoting Enrique

I wrote a long paper that I hope to publish soon which goes into way more depth about fundamental physics of the brain

Fantastic!

Quoting Enrique

but this preliminary stuff should give you a good idea of where the science of consciousness is headed post-initial Orch-Or.

When both Penrose and Hameroff chose terms like 'ORCHestrate' and 'like an orchestra tuning up' and 'musical composition/arrangement,' I was immediately reminded of string theory. I wonder if interdimensional vibrating strings could be the fundamental at work within microtubules and dendrites?

Quoting Angelo Cannata

The most essential aspect of consciousness, if we really want to avoid ambiguity and confusion, is the one that is impossible to talk about: it is your own experience about yourself, your perceptions, your emotions, whatever you perceive inside you. The moment we talk about it, we aren’t talking anymore about it, because we have immediately automatically selected, isolated, those aspects that we can talk about, leaving apart what is impossible to communicate, that is, the real experience of consciousness

It's interesting that I find the above description akin to the 'measurement problem,' described in quantum physics.

Quoting Enrique

The topic is fascinating and I hope we will one day be capable of understanding consciousness materially, from the subatomic to macroscopic to "nonlocal" levels, allowing researchers to come up with medical cures and sociocultural palliatives for stigma that help all kinds of individuals and demographics.

I second this position strongly. I think it's very life-affirming and a celebration of humanism for humans to think about such issues. For me, it shows how insipid viewpoints such as antinatalism are.

Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole

Complicated stuff. Penrose's recent discussion with Jordan Peterson is one of my next things to watch.

I cited it and linked to it in my thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12828/the-penrose-bounce

Definitely worth watching! I personally think Jordan was a little out of his depth but I think he got a lot from the exchange.

Reply to Enrique

Quoting Enrique

Been recently getting into a bunch of physics history. Wasn't me that said it! Haven't read that book.

Consciousness is something I need to read up on. I am more inclined to the view that consciousness isn't anything special (a la Dennett). Any book recommendations?

Reply to universeness

Quoting universeness

I cited it and linked to it in my thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12828/the-penrose-bounce

Definitely worth watching! I personally think Jordan was a little out of his depth but I think he got a lot from the exchange.

See, I said recent discussion, but I'm well late to the party.

Jordan Peterson gets so much respect that I thought I was missing something, and pushed myself to watch more of his stuff. Still not impressed by him, especially his poetic religious beliefs and right-wing unpleasantness.

Desperate times call for desperate measures!

Microtubules & consciousness! Wild would be an understatement. Clearly, we're in a dark room, blind, wearing shades and looking for a black cat which isn't there.

Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole

Still not impressed by him, especially his poetic religious beliefs and right-wing unpleasantness.

I was recently reading reports on his stay in a Russian institute to help him with his 'obfuscated' substance addiction and the, imo, suspicious motivations/actions of his daughter.
There definitely is some brand building going on for financial gain but putting all of that 'true intentions' stuff to one side and Jordan's religious and right-wing tendencies. As a left-wing socialist, atheist, I find him a very intelligent and interesting individual.

Reply to Enrique
Have you watched:


Demis Hassabis and deep mind are doing some fascinating work on AI.
The alpha-fold2 system for protein folding is incredible. He states that before alpha-fold, an entire PHD could be spent on producing an accurate prediction on how a single amino acid genetic sequence forms a 3D ball structure (protein).
Proteins are of course very important in brain function so must be part of any final description of human consciousness.

Quoting Agent Smith

Desperate times call for desperate measures!

Microtubules & consciousness! Wild would be an understatement. Clearly, we're in a dark room, blind, wearing shades and looking for a black cat which isn't there.

Oh my, did you hear of a desperate person who wanted to say we revolved around the sun? I mean, its plainly obvious by looking in the sky that it revolves around us. The need to escape God's glory, and our singular importance as human beings in this world is a mental illness for sure!

I think you get the point. The inquisitive and curious mind does not mock attempts at discovery, but always gives it a chance.

Thanks for sharing man. I will watch this sometime in the future and may spiral back for some dicussion. Peace.

Quoting Philosophim

Oh my, did you hear of a desperate person who wanted to say we revolved around the sun? I mean, its plainly obvious by looking in the sky that it revolves around us. The need to escape God's glory, and our singular importance as human beings in this world is a mental illness for sure!

I think you get the point. The inquisitive and curious mind does not mock attempts at discovery, but always gives it a chance.

My bad, I dunno what came over me!

I have great respect for Roger Penrose and I'm sure his bad ideas are better than my good ones. Yet, his microtuble theory gives me the impression of a man fast running outta options.

Quoting universeness

When both Penrose and Hameroff chose terms like 'ORCHestrate' and 'like an orchestra tuning up' and 'musical composition/arrangement,' I was immediately reminded of string theory. I wonder if interdimensional vibrating strings could be the fundamental at work within microtubules and dendrites?

String theory is an interesting framework that could find applications someday, but I don't consider it to have much realism so its explanatory power might be limited. If the electrical properties of neurons can be explained in terms of vibrating strings I would be surprised, but what's impossible when it comes to the unknowns of physics? As for electromagnetism, I subscribe to the "electron sea" model. What we rudimentarily call electrons are complex density contours induced by nuclear etc. force that shift around at relativistic speeds as coherent states, roughly analogous to a body of water in the case of solutions, an elastic, multimolecular crystal in the case of solids, etc. Coherence is not in my opinion a fundamentally electromagnetic phenomenon: electric field condensation is induced by nuclei acting on the comparatively nonlocal substrate to produce loci of highest density we know as atoms, which interact at the speed of magnetism and light, but parts of the field not knotted up by nuclei can perturb and transmit energy at much faster rates. All of this still needs to be verified by experiment of course. I think technologies that transcend the speed limits of conventional matter could be possible, and we might get our Star Trek future eventually.

Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole

Consciousness is something I need to read up on. I am more inclined to the view that consciousness isn't anything special (a la Dennett). Any book recommendations?

My favorite consciousness theorist is Johnjoe McFadden. I'd recommend his book Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology as a good introduction to the topic. He doesn't go into consciousness with much depth in that book, but it's what started me thinking about the nature of ion channels and signal transmission in neurons as a possibly quantum phenomenon. His website has a lot of very accessible information about CEMI (conscious electromagnetic information) theory and additional science. I think he's got volition figured out and I've referenced his ideas in all my consciousness papers.

I suspect that percepts as light/molecular interactions within cells are possessed by all organic life in some form, but the human capacity for reason is certainly extraordinary, though computers might surpass and displace us someday if we don't adequately regulate artificial intelligence technology, the usual scifi discontents.

Quoting Enrique

As for electromagnetism, I subscribe to the "electron sea" model. What we rudimentarily call electrons are complex density contours induced by nuclear etc. force that shift around at relativistic speeds as coherent states, roughly analogous to a body of water in the case of solutions, an elastic, multimolecular crystal in the case of solids, etc. Coherence is not in my opinion a fundamentally electromagnetic phenomenon: electric field condensation is induced by nuclei acting on the comparatively nonlocal substrate to produce loci of highest density we know as atoms, which interact at the speed of magnetism and light, but parts of the field not knotted up by nuclei can perturb and transmit energy at much faster rates.

Is this not related to quantum field theory?
Btw you did not answer me about the Demis Hassabis interview I posted above?
Have you watched it? I would be interested in your response to it. No pressure!

Quoting universeness

Is this not related to quantum field theory?

Like quantum field theory except the field is not fundamentally quantum as conventionally conceived but has properties such as entanglement which transcend electromagnetism and the speed of light. I may get around to watching the video, have to do some jumping jacks and planks first.

Reply to universeness
I respect Penrose a lot. But in this case, I think he is looking for and working on a quite "exotic" explanation and description of consciousness, by creating "a new kind of science" as he says. Of course, since conventional Science has failed in that sector, even if most of the scientists believe and claim otherwise.

"The Penrose-Hameroff theory of quantum consciousness argues that microtubules are structured in a fractal pattern which would enable quantum processes to occur." (https://theconversation.com/can-consciousness-be-explained-by-quantum-physics-my-research-takes-us-a-step-closer-to-finding-out-164582).
Really, "What?"

I have watched part of the video, most of the Penrose talk. I have come to read quite a few of such "exotic" stuff. They are desperate attempts to answer the "hard problem of consciousness", which is and will always be an open problem for science. Why? Because all scientific theories and attempts like the present one, try to tackle the problem on a physical level and more specifically the brain. They talk about conscious and unconscious states of a person, and here is where the anesthesiologist Mr Hameroff come in the scene. As if consciousness were a black or white case or a case with a lot of shades of grey! Of course, perception --which is a central element in consciousness-- needs the brain to work. Only that the brain is a medium, a machine, a communication means for the individual to perceive his environment. But he can also be aware of other things that are not in his environment --thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc. These are rarely talked about.

Well, this is the only way that Science can work. Only that all efforts are in vain. Because consciousness is a subject out of the jurisdiction of Science!

Have you ever hear any of these scientists talking about awareness of awareness, i.e. a person being aware of being aware? A person examining his thoughts? Quantum physics theorists of consciousness, like Penrose, say that from the moment one examines his thoughts they change, which is similar of what is happening with particles in a quantum context. It may be true, there may exist a similarity between the two, but this is specific feature, characteristic. Yet, they try to build scientific models of consciousness based on that kind of stuff.

Listening to Mr Penrose, I hoped that he would give some tangible examples of how his theory-system of consciousness works. Well, he didn't. As no one else who has a scientific theory or explanation does. It's all theory. Not a single example. No application in everyday life. Isn't that strange? :chin:

Quoting Alkis Piskas

Listening to Mr Penrose, I hoped that he would give some tangible examples of how his theory-system of consciousness works. Well, he didn't. As no one else who has a scientific theory or explanation does. It's all theory. Not a single example. No application in everyday life.

That's because theory wasn't developed enough to construct a viable experiment. But we're getting to the point where the material basis of consciousness is a robustly empirical issue, even merely in terms of electromagnetism.

The microtubule theory as originally proposed is flawed simply because atoms don't superposition much except when in extremely low entropy states such as temperatures near absolute zero, and even then microscopically. But a light field may superposition with atoms in a biologically functional way at macroscopic scales, which may be part of an explanation for the entirety of consciousness, not just as it relates to electrical transmission within the brain. The microtubule theory might even have some validity once dynamics of EM radiation are included in the picture. Coming up with a model of nonlocality in terms of matter will be key, and I think quantum physics is the conduit to that model, though as you say the road is littered with flawed attempts.

Reply to Down The Rabbit Hole

The Great Courses' Mind-Body Philosophy is great. They got Patrick Grim to do it. His "Mind and Consciousness: Five Questions," which has work from Chalmers, Dennett, Putnam, L.R. Baker, Hofstadter, and others could be a nice supplement.

The courses are significantly cheaper through Amazon/Audible than on the Great Courses site BTW.

Reply to Enrique

I think the Penrose-Hameroff Orch-Or theory as initially proposed was regarded as implausible because the brain is too hot and wet for molecular superpositions exceeding more than a dozen or so atoms, even in microtubules.

Indeed, but it has since turned out quantum phenomena do indeed happen in biological systems and that life takes advantage of these phenomena. I think this is a hold over from the old Copenhagen days, where it was hoped that a neat dividing line could be set up between quantum and classical scales. Quantum weirdness could be safely spirited away from most of the problems in science.

This has turned out to be a false hope. Quantum phenomena appear to occur in noisy systems all the time, it's just harder to measure them and figure out how they work.

Reply to Enrique
:lol: You sound much healthier than me!

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

This has turned out to be a false hope. Quantum phenomena appear to occur in noisy systems all the time, it's just harder to measure them and figure out how they work.

In enzyme active sites, photosynthetic reaction centers, etc., but this is all nanoscale to the extent that it solely involves atoms. EM radiation interacting with atoms boosts superposition to the macroscopic scale, as a field that binds atoms via a range of near-instantaneous spectral dynamics. Photonics could turn out to be a major ingredient of the empirical basis for panprotopsychism as THE correct philosophy of consciousness.

Reply to Alkis Piskas
I knew your contribution would be an interesting one in this particular area. I enjoyed reading it.
If you get a chance you should watch the Demis Hassabis interview I posted above.
You might find some of the AI future projections interesting.

Quoting Enrique

we're getting to the point where the material basis of consciousness is a robustly empirical issue, even merely in terms of electromagnetism.

That wo\uld be just great. But you see, you said it yourself: the material basis of consciousness. I mentioned that in connection with physical perception and the anesthesiologist. This is a very limited view of consciousness. Anyway, it would be great to create a workable scientific model of even that ...
BTW, why do you use the first plural? Are you participating in the project?

Quoting Enrique

The microtubule theory as originally proposed is flawed simply because atoms ...

Hold on, hold on! I said that I'm no good in Physics! :grin:

Reply to universeness
Ha! Didn't expect that coming! :smile: Thanks. I hope you mean it! (re: my contribution etc.) :smile:

I will certainly watch the interview you posted. But it will be for tomorrow ...

Quoting Alkis Piskas

BTW, why do you use the first plural? Are you participating in the project?

Humanity is the ideal we from my point of view, but yes, I have published some papers on consciousness.

Reply to Alkis Piskas
I am surprised at your surprise. Because we have clashed on occasion does not mean I don't value your opinions. Our viewpoints often differ but if I did not pay attention to viewpoints that differed from mine then I would rarely progress in my own learning.
You have not given any indication that you are ossified in your viewpoints like many do indicate imo.
I know you have a lot of interest in the area of consciousness so I very much value your input.

Reply to Enrique

Maybe. I recall and experiment a few years back where entire photosynthetic bacteria were said to be entangled with one another.

This shouldn't be shocking. It would be shocking if life didn't involve and take advantage of quantum behavior, given that life is made up of quantum scale objects. The fact that any theory of "quantum behavior in living systems," was initially written off simply showcases how people's philosophical/ontological commitments cause them to ignore the data sitting in front of their faces. The hard dividing line between classical and quantum worlds never made any sense to begin with.

That said, I have no idea how quantum behavior in brains is supposed to solve the hard problem or act as some sort of explanatory panacea. It seems to me like identifying more quantum behavior within our bodies will just make explanations of biology even more complicated and harder to parse. There is definitely a "God of the gaps" narrative surrounding QM vis-a-vis the hard problem and I think that is also a misunderstanding of what it means for quantum behavior to be involved in the brain.

Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

The Great Courses' Mind-Body Philosophy is great. They got Patrick Grim to do it. His "Mind and Consciousness: Five Questions," which has work from Chalmers, Dennett, Putnam, L.R. Baker, Hofstadter, and others could be a nice supplement.

The courses are significantly cheaper through Amazon/Audible than on the Great Courses site BTW.

Thanks. I've been meaning to watch some more of Sean Carroll's Mindscape to get a handle on the subject.

Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus

Entanglement in photosynthetic reaction centers has been around a while. Based on neural anatomy, signal transmission in neurons seems likely to be currents of electromagnetic coherence, so a quantum scaled phenomenon is in effect throughout the brain. These currents of electron density along with EM field perturbations probably integrate via phase locking and feedback loops to produce the macroscopic impetus of consciousness insofar as it arises from the brain. EM radiation generated by these coherence currents then might superposition with molecular structures to produce fields of vibrational feel and imagery as additive wavelength. This in addition to more nonlocal forces that transcend electromagnetism etc. hehe, parts of the field not fixed with relationship to atoms. All of this has to be better verified by experiment of course. So cool I'm wearing myself out writing about it and getting sick of it lol

The problem with Penrose's hypothesis is that microtubles aren't restricted to brains, the purported thinking organ. It's a step backwards in that sense - he's chosen a cellular structure that's ubiquitous and for that simple reason he wouldn't be able to home in on a particular organ as the seat of consciousness.

Reply to Angelo Cannata I think you managed to communicate about what consciousness means, in a very broad way. And then there are all sorts of discussions, yes, at an abstract level, dealing with qualia, even specific qualia.Quoting Angelo Cannata

They don’t have the slightest idea of what they are talking about. From a scientific point of view, there is nothing to explain, everything is already explained the moment you say that consciousness is a product of the brain. All the rest is scientific details that have nothing to do with philosophy. It is like explaining how it is possible that our body moves

But we know how muscles contract and extend. We can explain the movement of bodies. We don't know why we experience things. Saying that it comes from brains, but isn't associated with anything else implies we know what leads to consciousness and so we can rule out that, for example, plants experience. But we can't, because we don't know what leads to consciousness. We know one place where it is, but until we know why it is there, we can't rule out other places.

Reply to Bylaw
It is a complete nonsense that science is doing all over the world, for the following reasons: a full and complete definition or concept of consciousness does not exist. This means that all scientific researchers all over the world don't know what they are looking for; whenever they think they have found something, it is impossible to know what it has to do with consciousness, because when they say "consciousness" they don't know what they are talking about. If they build some definition of consciousness and they find something related to it, it will still be impossible to know if that conscious being is really experiencing consciousness, because you cannot enter inside other beings and see how they experience their own consciousness.
So, scientists have no idea of
- what they are looking for
- what has to be considered evidence of what they are looking for
- how to get evidence that what they found works as what they are looking for and is what they are looking for.

Nonetheless they are spending so much time and energies and conferences on it!

Quoting Angelo Cannata

a full and complete definition or concept of consciousness does not exist.

Why do you feel qualified to make such a statement, other than here is my opinion based on nothing but my own conjecture?

Quoting Angelo Cannata

It is a complete nonsense that science is doing all over the world,

What do you mean? Why make such sweeping generalisations that convince no one of anything?

Quoting Angelo Cannata

because when they say "consciousness" they don't know what they are talking about.

and you seriously think you do? What is your suggestion? Is it don't ask any questions about consciousness because humans are unable to ever find out what is it and why it is?
I could never be that defeatist. I think I will continue to value the work being done by Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, Steve Pinker, Demis Hassabis, et al, on human consciousness, over the defeatist musings of Angelo Cannata. With all due respect of course.

Quoting universeness

a full and complete definition or concept of consciousness does not exist.
— Angelo Cannata

Why do you feel qualified to make such a statement,

The question is very simple:
1) either such a definition does not exist
2) or it does not exist.

If 1) then I am right, if 2) then I would like to know it.

Quoting universeness

I will continue to value the work being done by Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, Steve Pinker, Demis Hassabis

Science is not made by respect or value. It doesn't matter how famous or respectable these people are. Science is made by experimental evidence, clarity, strict definitions.

Quoting universeness

I could never be that defeatist

As I said, we are talking about science. In science there is not defeatist or non defeatist, optimism or non optimism. Science is made by scientific procedures, hypotheses that must be clear, experiments, repeatability.

What is clear in research on consciousness?

Reply to Angelo Cannata
Ok, I recommend you go with 2. but I assume you meant to type
2) or IT DOES exist.

Keep watching the offerings from the people I mentioned earlier as well as continuing with your own personal musings and gathering any actual evidence that backs up your position and then you might get more support for your position.

Quoting Angelo Cannata

Science is not made by respect or value. It doesn't matter how famous or respectable these people are. Science is made by experimental evidence, clarity, strict definitions.

I said nothing about any fame or respect associated with the people I mentioned. I refer to their expertise in the area. If you have equivalent expertise or some other reason others should value your opinions highly then do tell us why?

Quoting Angelo Cannata

As I said, we are talking about science. In science there is not defeatist or non defeatist, optimism or non optimism. Science is made by scientific procedures, hypotheses that must be clear, experiments, repeatability.

What is clear in research on consciousness?

I agree that the scientific method does not employ emotion but scientists are human and do employ emotion just like you and I do. Your position is defeatist in my opinion. I did not try to conflate your defeatism with the scientific method. I see no relevance to your point.
In the video both Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff mentioned experiments that are in the pipeline which may provide some of the empirical evidence you are asking for. There is also the evidence that photosynthesis most likely employs quantum entanglement and there is also evidence such as:
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/birds-direction-quantum-mechanics-compass-physics#:~:text=Birds%20could%20get%20their%20sense%20of%20direction%20from,by%20their%20innate%20sense%20of%20north%20and%20south.
Birds may get their sense of direction from quantum physics.
examples of how quantum physics is employed by everyday processes may be anecdotal evidence that there is a very good chance that quantum physics is also employed in human consciousness but I agree with you that much more evidence is required. It is defeatist and a unqualified sweeping generalisation to simply handwave away all the efforts currently being made by Roger Penrose and many others based on the musings of Angelo Cannata. I am sure, if you thought about it you would come to the same conclusion.

Quoting universeness

I refer to their expertise in the area. If you have equivalent expertise or some other reason others should value your opinions highly then do tell us why?

It looks like you aren’t even so much interested in understanding the problems contained in the topic: for you what is enough is that they have expertise. As a consequence, what they say must be necessary correct, it must be solid.
What’s the point of making discussions here if experts have to be just honoured because of their expertise, and we have to ignore purposedly our perplexity? Isn’t this just the situation of the Emperor’s New Clothes story?

Reply to universeness
I'm back, with a little more knowledge on the human intelligence existing in our world! And I'm talking of course about Demis Hassabis. What an amazing guy! I take my hat off! And I feel envious of him -- something quite rare for me-- mainly because we share the same passion about programming. So thanks for bringing him up. But better, we must bringing him in TPF! :grin:

As for the video, I watched about 10 minutes in total, and the whole part referring to consciousness. Yet, I got almost nothing from there, except that he too rejects Penrose's "quantum" brain, since, as he said, there has not been any evidence about anything of a quantum nature in the brain. This was of course a more pragmatic rejection than my talking about and "exotic" therory. But see, I am not a scientist or well informed like Hassabis to use more solid arguments ... In this area, mine are mostly intuitional.

I might come back to the video some time to watch more ...

Quoting universeness

... does not mean I don't value your opinions.

Thanks again. I didn't think of that. It is was rather a reaction that my views and positions on mind and consciousness are shared by really very few in here.

Quoting universeness

if I did not pay attention to viewpoints that differed from mine then I would rarely progress in my own learning

I fully agree. I have told myself a similar thing a few times in here and elsewhere.

Quoting universeness

You have not given any indication that you are ossified in your viewpoints like many do indicate imo.

"Ossified in something" ... I got linguistically richer by one expression tod?y. Thanks! :grin:

Quoting universeness

I know you have a lot of interest in the area of consciousness so I very much value your input.

Indeed. Mainly the mind, and by extension consciousness.
BTW, my preferred term is "awareness". It is more specific and has a more restricted meaning and application than "consiousness", which can refer to various things --both physical and non-physical-- and in genera it is quite misused and "damaged" term not only in everyday life but by the scientific community and even in philosophy, i.e. places like this one.

Reply to Enrique
:up:

Quoting Angelo Cannata

What’s the point of making discussions here if experts have to be just honoured because of their expertise, and we have to ignore purposedly our perplexity? Isn’t this just the situation of the Emperor’s New Clothes story?

I have no problem with you airing your viewpoints. My problem is when you handwave away expertise in favour of your own musings using sweeping generalisation. Provide your own empirical evidence before you just keep complaining about the lack of it from those actively involved in researching the area.
Armchair philosophy will not get us very far, entertaining yes, even mildly interesting but nothing more than that.

Quoting Alkis Piskas

Yet, I got almost nothing from there, except that he too rejects Penrose's "quantum" brain, since, as he said, there has not been any evidence about anything of a quantum nature in the brain.

Yep, I thought you might appreciate his position. He is as you say a fascinating scientist.
I think his 'Deep Mind' group are leading edge and they seem to have a lot going on in the AI area.
Near the end of the interview, he talks about being able to fully simulate a human cell within the next few years. I don't think he dismisses the work of Penrose and Hameroff, I think he just remains unconvinced of some of the premises behind the work. You should definitely watch the whole interview if you find the time.

Quoting Alkis Piskas

BTW, my preferred term is "awareness".

:up: We all have our preferred terms.
Is your 'overall' view of the source of human 'awareness' akin to dualism?

Reply to universeness
You confirmed what I said: if those who talk are expert people, you are not interested in considering their flaws: it is like you think “They are experts! They must be right! We don’t need evidence!“, and, on the other side, “Angelo Cannata is not an expert, so, it is good to ask for empirical evidence!”.
The funny thing is that these “experts” are not expected to give evidence of something that can be easily verified (which is a clear definition of consciousness), while at the same time you ask me to give evidence of its non existence! So, you put the burden of proof on those who deny the existence of something that is supposed to be easily verified.
According to this criterion, if somebody says that Santa Claus exists, the burden of proof is on those who question its existence!
So, those who say that the Emperor is naked are to be considered “armchair philosophy”, by principle, whithout any need to check, and viceversa.

Quoting Angelo Cannata

You confirmed what I said: if those who talk are expert people, you are not interested in considering their flaws: it is like you think “They are experts! They must be right! We don’t need evidence!“, and, on the other side, “Angelo Cannata is not an expert, so, it is good to ask for empirical evidence!”.

Well perhaps I confirmed to you what you need to be confirmed in accordance with your own musings.
I require empirical evidence before I move an idea from idea to hypothesis to theory to fact, no matter who posits it. 'They are experts, they must be right,' is merely your incorrect projection of what I typed as you are trying to defend a very weak position. You handwave away the work of Penrose and Hameroff. That is very unwise in my opinion and you do it based on your own armchair philosophy, again unwise. You should stop doing that, perhaps if you do, this emperor you keep seeing will get its clothes back.
Scientists want to find as much empirical evidence for their posits as they can. They relish the challenge. They do not find that requirement a burden. It's only theists, theosophists and the like that worry about the burden of proofs when they get challenged by non-believers.
Scientists are quite happy when they get proved wrong because it means progress for all.

Quoting Angelo Cannata

So, those who say that the Emperor is naked are to be considered “armchair philosophy”, by principle, whithout any need to check, and viceversa.

So go ahead and cite all the sources you have to back up your position and I am sure you will get supportive and dissenting feedback. Do more than type merely your own musings from your armchair.

Here is another offering from Stuart Hameroff with much more detail on the Orch OR Model:



What I like most about this presentation is that Hameroff takes on the papers published so far, which speak against their Orch OR model and he defends the model against these papers.

Reply to universeness
Yes, I should watch more of the video, esp. about the end of it, which you suggest. But I would prefer having the interview in written form. I would also prefer hearing/reading interviews about each of the subjects of this comprehensive interview, separately. See, by talking a little about everythingin interviews like these, you actually learn nothing (as in the case of consciousness at ~0:32:00 that I mentioned). So I will try to find written material elsewhere ... But thanks again for bringing up this subject.

Reply to universeness
I don't like to put terms, concepts, thoughts, views, etc. into frameworks like -isms. They always limit the extent of their meaning and application. Moreover, they adulterate their essence or nature by introducing to them foreign elements that these -isms contain. And even worse, they make them ambiguous because these -isms usually come in "brands", variations. Just check how many variations and definitions the term "dualism" has!

So, when I use such terms, I prefer describing them as separate, independent entities, and stating what exactly they mean to me and what exactly I mean by them. For example,

Awareness is an ability and a state. It is the result of perception. It is shaped by perception. In a way, it is perception itself. And by perception I mean whatever I notice, comes to my attention or I observe through my senses (external environment) or stemmed from inside me (thoughts, feelings, etc.)

Awareness is the most simple thing that exists. It’s the basic thing one does: being aware of his environment as well as being aware of oneself, one's thoughts, feelings, etc. The highest form of awareness is "being aware of being aware", an attribute and ability exclusive to humans. It does not exist in any other form of life.

Now, if you mean to ask whether I see the mind and body as separate things (re: dualism), yes I do. But I would like to address the matter in a different more general way: that we consist of two separate parts -- physical and non-physical. Calling this "dualisim" adds nothing but complexity, ambiguity and even confusion. Even just talking about "two parts" of a human being is quite unnecessary. I one defines/explains clearly one's terms, thoughts, views etc. and uses characteritic examples of their existence and/or application in life, one does not need to categorize them, closing them into boxes. They must be free to flow everywhere and permeate everything. They thus become something more than knowledge. They become experience. I don't just know what awareness is. I have the experience of it. I can experience it. This is very basic to my reality of the world.

Quoting Alkis Piskas

But thanks again for bringing up this subject.

:up:

Quoting Alkis Piskas

The highest form of awareness is "being aware of being aware",

Can that not go on forever? Are you aware that you're aware that you're aware?

Quoting Alkis Piskas

It does not exist in any other form of life.

How do know that for sure?

Quoting Alkis Piskas

I see the mind and body as separate things (re: dualism), yes I do.

Does any aspect of the mind exist in the body? Is all of what you refer to as mind non-physical? Does any aspect of what you refer to as mind reside/exist in the body in your opinion?

Quoting Alkis Piskas

They must be free to flow everywhere and permeate everything.

Do you mean that what you are referring to as 'mind' can travel? or are you suggesting there is an aspect of mind which is omnipresent?

Reply to Angelo Cannata Perhaps it is futile, but there sure is something that is not explained. Quite unlike what we can explain in relation to moving bodies. That we can explain. Consciousness no. Regardless of whether you are correct that they don't know what they are looking for or haven't defined it well. But we have this phenomenon - experiencing - and we don't know what causes it, what is necessary for it to occur. Waht has it and what does not. We do not what moves. We do not what it takes for the bones of a living creature to shift from one position to another when not being affected to do this by outside forces. We know muscle physiology and the nervous system. We do not know why experiencing is happening. Is it a mechanism? a facet of all matter? We do not know. The challenge, yes, is made hard by the fact that so far we don't seem, at least in science, to have direct access to other minds.

Quoting universeness

The highest form of awareness is "being aware of being aware",
— Alkis Piskas
Can that not go on forever? Are you aware that you're aware that you're aware?

You mean something like "I know that I know that I know ....", right? Well, you can do that if you like and not have anything better to do! :grin: But not if you want to sleep. It will keep you awake! :grin:
Otherwise, just "I know that I know" is enough. It tells all.

But better than looking at the subject conceptually, you can try experiment and have a direct knowledge and experience of it: Just be aware of your environment and notice a sound, or picture or whatever else you like. Then, be aware that you are doing that. I first discovered this ability of "being aware of being aware" when I was young and during a night when I couldn't catch a sleep. It was an amazing revelation and experience! You see, we are having thoughts --trying to solve a problem, imagining a nice day on the beach, ...-- and this is so normal that we are simply used to it. We know well that we are doing that and never be aware that we are doing that or ask who is doing that. And justifiably so. Why should we? What would such a thing serve to? Well, at first, nothing more than a proof that we exist and that we are humans! :grin: Not a big deal, eh? But then we can use that to view our thoughts, problems, emotions and a lot of other things in which we are getting too involved in and being catpured by, from an external, detached point of view. This helps in more things that you one can imagine --including myself! :grin:.

Quoting universeness

It does not exist in any other form of life.
— Alkis Piskas
How do know that for sure?

Good question. How could I know if I cannot live as an animal for a while, just to verify that? So, this can be only inferred from the differences we know well between humans and animals, and if that are not enough we can also used some reasoning and/or imagination. Try to think of any animal doing what I described in my previous comment. How long could you hold such a thought? Not even a second. Except of course if you are a cartoon designer! :grin:

Quoting universeness

Does any aspect of the mind exist in the body? Is all of what you refer to as mind non-physical? Does any aspect of what you refer to as mind reside/exist in the body in your opinion?

As I said, and as I personally know, understand and can experience, mind is non-physical. And as such, it has no location, since only physical things are located in space. But see, I really don't care about that. In what would that help me? I only care about the manifestations of the mind, how it works and its effects on the body and on itself (feedback).

Quoting universeness

They must be free to flow everywhere and permeate everything.
— Alkis Piskas
Do you mean that what you are referring to as 'mind' can travel? or are you suggesting there is an aspect of mind which is omnipresent?

Nothing of the two. I used that just an expression I felt nice about! :grin:
But more specifically, if you want, I was tallk about well defined terms and ideas, which are independent of any framework and thus can stand and be used and be applied everywere --when appropriate, of course.

Quoting Alkis Piskas

But not if you want to sleep. It will keep you awake! :grin:
Otherwise, just "I know that I know" is enough. It tells all.

Yeah, I think that you could make too many voices in your head with that one but if you can be satisfied with I am aware that I am aware then fair enough. Doesn't do it for me, unfortunately!

Quoting Alkis Piskas

But then we can use that to view our thoughts, problems, emotions and a lot of other things in which we are getting too involved in and being catpured by, from an external, detached point of view.

Stand outside yourself and observe the processes of your own mind. Yes, I do that but as I have said to you before, using my best mental efforts, I only ever perceive 3 combatants/teammates/characters. Perhaps this is just because I have only been able to see the brain as a triune system ever since Carl Sagan told me so in his books. Any one of me, myself and I can stand outside the other two and observe /listen to their viewpoints/fears/joys etc. Sometimes they fight and slag each other off, other times they unite and are focused and very sure about what they are doing. This works well for me. Perhaps it is just a case of well, whatever keeps your boat afloat.
Still, I would like to know a great deal more so I turn to those actively involved in investigating consciousness for more insight but I also enjoy reading about how other people such as you, perceive themselves.

Quoting Alkis Piskas

Try to think of any animal doing what I described in my previous comment. How long could you hold such a thought?

I am not so convinced. I have read about many examples of animal intelligence. From Koko the gorilla to base info stuff such as Most Intelligent Animals.

Quoting Alkis Piskas

Nothing of the two. I used that just an expression I felt nice about!

Fair enough but I personally, need a lot more than that. It's good to feel nice and be 'content' with your own musings about consciousness/awareness but I will always seek proof. Even if I never get it, I will die seeking it and die happy in the effort.

Reply to universeness
This has turned into a personal exchange since quite some time ago. Please look at your INBOX.

Reply to Alkis Piskas
Ok.