Penrose & Hameroff Proto-consciousness
Penrose always says the Universe is not conscious, but that proto-consciousness is a fundamental property of it. Now I'm a bit confused.
1. What is proto-consciousness?
2. How is proto-consciousness differentiated from matter?
3. What is the difference between consciousness and proto-consciousness?
1. What is proto-consciousness?
2. How is proto-consciousness differentiated from matter?
3. What is the difference between consciousness and proto-consciousness?
Comments (136)
Apparently, Penrose is merely postulating that primitive neural nets were not conscious, but evolved toward the kind of awareness that humans experience*1. Unfortunately, that kind of definition does not answer questions 2 & 3.
In place of that short-sighted theory, I have developed my own notion of the origin of consciousness. I won't go into the details here, but basically I view human-style Consciousness as an evolutionary development from fundamental Information*2. Some physicists & information theorists have concluded that Generic Information is the fundamental element of reality ; both Mind & Matter*3.
Based on that understanding of creative evolving Information, I postulate that everything in the universe is a form of Information, but the scientific & philosophical kind of information is a recent development from a non-conscious (Big Bang) origin. That pre-BB beginning was essentially Mathematical ratios, but not yet Mental meanings. If you are interested, I can provide my Information-centric answers to your questions. :smile:
*1. What is proto consciousness? :
Protoconsciousness theory posits A primordial state of brain organization that is a building block for consciousness (Hobson 2009)
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-07296-8_27
*2. Information is :
[i]*** Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
*** For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
*** When spelled with an I, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an E, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.[/i]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
*3. Forget Space-Time: Information May Create the Cosmos :
[i]What are the basic building blocks of the cosmos? Atoms, particles, mass energy? Quantum mechanics, forces, fields? Space and time space-time? Tiny strings with many dimensions?
A new candidate is "information," which some scientists claim is the foundation of reality. The late distinguished physicist John Archibald Wheeler characterized the idea as "It from bit" "it" referring to all the stuff of the universe and "bit" meaning information.[/i]
https://www.space.com/29477-did-information-create-the-cosmos.html
I'm just providing a bit more detail from ChatGPT to provide some background:
[quote=ChatGPT]Roger Penrose, a theoretical physicist and mathematician, has proposed the idea of "proto-consciousness" as a potential explanation for how consciousness arises in the brain.
According to Penrose, proto-consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe that exists independently of the brain. It is a non-computable aspect of the universe that has the potential to influence brain function and give rise to conscious experience.
In Penrose's view, proto-consciousness is a property of the universe that is related to the collapse of the quantum wave function, which is the process by which a quantum system goes from a superposition of states to a definite state when it is observed or measured. Penrose has proposed that the collapse of the wave function is not a purely random process but is influenced by proto-consciousness, which he believes is a fundamental property of the universe.
According to Penrose, proto-consciousness interacts with the brain in a way that enables conscious experience to arise. He suggests that the brain acts as a kind of "receiver" for proto-consciousness, which influences neural activity and gives rise to conscious experience.
It is important to note that the idea of proto-consciousness is still a highly speculative hypothesis and has not been widely accepted within the scientific community. It is an area of ongoing research and debate, and further study is needed to fully understand the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world. [/quote]
You can also find an interview with Sir Roger Penrose in which he explains this here.
My view is, based on the interview, that Penrose is saying something very close to: 'Hey, consciousness is a real mystery. And so is the collapse of the probability wave. Maybe they're related!' :razz:
1. From what I understand from this interview, Penrose says consciousness is part of the fundamental reality, but it is not the only fundamental part. ''Consciousness itself is a feature of that physics we need for other reasons". Maybe I'm wrong?
2. I still don't understand what proto-consciousness is in his view. How does he differentiate it from normal consciousness? How does he differentiate it from matter?
It's a bullshit generator.
That is, mine is a methodological criticism. ChatGPT is not an authority, because it has been shown to generate bullshit.
...which is generated without regard for telling the truth.
Quoting Wayfarer
Then don't use it as if it where.
Quoting Eugen
A vague placeholder for a conceptual placeholder for a feature of our folk psychology (i.e. subjective intuition).
The latter corresponds to bodies and the former corresponds to the (vaguest) idea of bodies.
The latter is a vague (aka "proto") placeholder for the former conceptual placeholder.
Of course not all of it is bullshit. But some of it is. And it, and the reader, cannot tell which is which. Hence it is not an authoritative source.
:up:
You know, I could quite easily have included that entire passage without any attribution whatever. I included the attribution for transparency. I suppose I could have read a bunch more material by and about Penrose so as to write a couple of hundred words of original text, but there are only so many hours in a day. And as I said, it does provide at least some elaboration of what Penrose means by proto-consciousness (which incidentally I am highly dubious of, as it happens.)
Well let us see a little of what Penrose has to say:
[i]But there is one thing that I do believe in relation to this problem [of consciousness], and that is that it is a scientific question that eventually should become answerable, no matter how far from being about to answer it we may be at present. Roger Penrose
The question is significantly raised, of course, as to whether a paramecium or, indeed, an individual human liver cell might actually possess some rudimentary form of consciousness []. Roger Penrose
If we are to believe that neurons are the only things that control the sophisticated actions of animals, then the humble paramecium presents us with a profound problem.
So what is the nature of that problem? Penrose continues:
For she [a paramecium] swims about her pod with her numerous tiny hairlike legs the cilia darting in the direction of bacterial food which she senses using a variety of mechanisms, or retreating at the prospect of danger, ready to swim off in another direction. She can also negotiate obstructions by swimming around them. Moreover, she can apparently even learn from her past experiences [].
Finally:
How is all this achieved by an animal without a single neuron or synapse? Indeed, being but a single cell, and not being a neuron herself, she has no place to accommodate such accessories.
such (putative) non-computational processes [i.e., in the brain and which Penrose believes are vital for both consciousness and what he calls understanding] would also have to be inherent in the action of inanimate matter, since living human brains are ultimately composed of the same material, satisfying the same physical laws, as are the inanimate objects of the universe.
Penrose also tells us that he doesnt perceive any necessity that such a device [one that instantiates or merely simulates consciousness] be biological in nature. He goes on:
I perceive no essential dividing line between biology and physics (or between biology, chemistry, and physics).
Nevertheless [] the behaviour pattern of an ant is enormously complex and subtle. Need we believe that their wonderfully effective control systems are unaided by whatever principle it is that give us our own qualities of understanding?[/i]
How does this differ from some forms of panpsychism? In particular panexperientialism?
I think the use of the term consciousness is confusing and there is no uniform usage or definition.
It does seem like awareness of the enviroment and adpatable response is fairly widespread (perhaps ubiquitous) in nature and so as not to confuse these forms of experience or mind with human like self awareness and reflection perhaps some other term like mind, experience or awareness is appropriate.
Hey great to hear from you Prothero. He does seem to be reaching for a kind of pan-psychist solution. (Incidentally, where did those passages come from?)
Quoting Roger Penrose
And this I profoundly differ with. I'm more inclined to accept the basically Aristotelian distinction between the living and non-living, and also between the sentient and non-sentient (e.g. animal and vegetative) and rational and non-rational (human and animal). These signify fundamental differences as far as I'm concerned. Trying to attribute consciousness to matter or work out how it is that matter can be or become conscious seems mistaken to me. And the idea that everything is composed of a single substance is lumpen materialism (which I don't think Penrose actually advocates.)
I'll try and say what I feel is mistaken with Penrose's efforts in this regard. To me, he seems to be attempting to arrive at an objective account of the nature of consciousness (or mind). Whereas the way I see it, is that the mind (or consciousness or awareness) are not known to us as an object of experience (in the way that all material objects are, being spatially located and sense-able). Of course, I can infer all kinds of things about the nature of mind or consciousness through objective analysis within the scope of cognitive science, but what consciousness is, its essential nature, as the ground or basis of experience, is another matter. It seems to me that Step 1 in the investigation is acknowledging that limitation, which is a problem in principle, not simply a matter of acquiring more data.
Perhaps we are all bullshit generators, certain slant of light winter afternoons. But maybe it's bad to be too comprehensible. Shouldn't interpretation be frustrating at times ? I mean we should expect that to be the case. Of course sometimes what we are interpreting isn't worth the strain in retrospect (or we just lose patience and shit-talk the grapes.)
Perhaps. :sweat:
Then why don't they just call it consciousness?
As is usual in these types of discussions we would be starting from very different ontologic assumptions. I think the distinction between living and non living is somewhat artificial and any sharp line drawn can be shown to be arbitrary in nature. I also think the way people bandy the term consciousness about leads to considerable confusion since they do not agree on a definition or common usage. How can we discuss what entities might be conscious if we do not agree on a meaning for the term? If we do not know what counsciousness is how can we discuss proto-consciousness? Human consciousness is associated with human brains. What term should we use for the seeming mind or intelligence (experience or awareness if you prefer) of an ant colony or a bee hive? Since consciousness for most people means that self aware internal dialogue we as humans experience is it really the appropriate term for other types of experience and awareness of other creatures, systems and organizations?
I ascribe to a form of panpsychism which still strikes many as nonsense despite the increase in popularity and consideration of the term and idea among many philosophers of late. Of course the experience of a jellyfish is nothing like the consciousness of a human, but is it a difference in ontologic kind or just a difference in degree and form?
I am also a monist although a discussion of the nature of matter or substance would be in order since I would object to being categorized as a lumpen materialist since I am more of a process philosophy advocate.
I think even most human experience (the taking in of information from the environment, the filtering, organization and presentation of such data) to the human mind does not rise to the level of conscious awareness i.e. most human mental activity is not conscious in the sense lay people understand and use the term.
I like to think that I care about truth, but in the light of the theory of evolution, I speculate (fear? pretend to fear?) that I might only tolerate truth or wave its flag to the degree that it helps my genes leap to next stone.
These chat bots might be telling us things about ourselves that we don't want to hear. At the moment, I think the real thing is superior in terms of quality over quantity, but we are at the beginning of something revolutionary. Evolution had millions of years with the brain. Humans have only been at it for a few decades, and we are just recently getting serious about it.
Here again, at a fundamental level I would take issue with your distinction between mind and matter. As Whitehead would say the jellyfish advances and withdraws likewise the electron is attracted and repulsed. There is (in my worldview) no such thing as inert, independent matter with inherent properties. There are no quantum particles with inherent values. Instead there are quantum events occurring in space time with some measurable relationships. The reductionist and empirical approach of science gives a partial view of nature. There are much deeper and hidden connections between processes and events which are somewhat beyond our understanding (quantum entanglement is a good example).
There are always physical correlates to experience but measurement or observation of the physical correlate alone does not give you a complete picture of nature. Activity in certain areas of the human brain is associated with certain mental experiences (emotions, hunger, anger, etc.) but that observation or empirical measurement is not the totality of the event or experience. In my view that is true of all empirical reductionist approaches to nature although what is left out of the description in physics is much less than what is left out in biology.
When people have such profound differences in their ontologic worldview it is hard to see how they will ever come to agreement about more derivative matters. So such discussions may allow them to understand each other's point of view but not to agree. It is like two different cultures with two different worldviews colliding. The best we can do is better understand each other. Since so much of these discussions is speculation the best that can be hoped for is to be exposed to some new ideas to consider or new approaches to explore. These are not arguments to be won or minds (no pun intended) to be changed.
I'm not sure. Maybe they want to avoid potential accusations of anthrpomorphization. They perhaps want to avoid being accused of saying that atoms fondly remember days of their youth in stars and regret they are now stuck in some cold asteroid a zillion miles from anywhere interesting. So instead of this kind of conscious experience we as humans are familiar with, they give the experiences of atoms, whatever they might be, a different name to distance them from us. I don't know. I haven't read much by people who are specifically pan-proto-psychists.
Yes, I think that is precisely correct. They use different terms to avoid precisely that confusion and if reading the various posts about consciousness is any indication it is a confusion worth trying to avoid.
I did enjoy your example about atoms, stars and asteroids.
Well, yes, people use different terms to try to avoid the confusion which goes with using "consciousness". I am not sure what you mean by the term "phenomenal consciousness" just as you would not be sure what I mean by panexperientialism or prehension. The general idea is that some form of mind or experience is widespread (if not ubiquitous) in nature and that human consciousness is just one of many forms of mind or experience in nature. As I alluded to before the human brain takes in much more experience of the world than we are "conscious" of.
A semantic difference in the use of the term experience. Many types of systems take in information about the environment and respond to it. You can call that proto consciousness if you wish but others are calling it awareness or experience.
If you are truly interested try searching for non conscious experience, or Whitehead on feeling or prehension. Different authors use the terms differently and we all have our favorites but in order to discuss these issues we have to have some common concepts to work with.
Whitehead on Feelings The Pinocchio Theory
(PDF) From Panexperientialism to Conscious Experience: The Continuum of Experience
Whitehead is fundamentally a monist although the fundamental unit of nature is an "event" or "occasion" these events have aspects which are temporal, physical and "experiential". What is meant by "experience" here is not the standard implication of the word and whitehead uses "feeling" or "prehension" interchangeably with this conception of non conscious experience. Part of nature is always hidden from empirical measurement and external observation or reductionism.
You fundamentally implied you are not a monist?
You also implied you limit any type of mental aspect to living forms?
So the gap between us is wide but not too wide for dialogue.
ps://bigthink.com/mind-brain/the-universe-may-be-conscious-prominent-scientists-state/#:~:text=Penrose%20doesn't%20go%20so,that%20gave%20rise%20to%20it.%E2%80%9D[/url]
https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/is-physicist-roger-penrose-a-tacit-panpsychist-5591b4a65fc5
I'd best not get into that here, it's completely different from whatever it is that Roger Penrose is describing. But I do agree that his 'proto-consciousness' seems pretty close to panpsychism, and also that it might be compatible with process philosophy.
ok, I will tell you a search for Penrose and monism or Penrose and panpsychism makes for some interesting and relevant reading on the topic.
BTW the abstract from Penrose and Hameroff paper
Conscious Events as Orchestrated Space Time Selections
What is consciousness? Some philosophers have contended that 'qualia', or an experiential medium from which consciousness is derived, exists as a fundamental component of reality. Whitehead, for example, described the universe as being comprised of 'occasions of experience'. To examine this possibility scientifically, the very nature of physical reality must be re-examined. We must come to terms with the physics of space-time - as is described by Einstein's general theory of relativity - and its relation to the fundamental theory of matter - as described by quantum theory. This leads us to employ a new physics of objective reduction: 'OR' which appeals to a form of 'quantum gravity' to provide a useful description of fundamental processes at the quantum/classical borderline (Penrose, 1994; 1996). Within the OR scheme, we consider that consciousness occurs if an appropriately organized system is able to develop and maintain quantum coherent superposition until a specific 'objective' criterion (a threshold related to quantum gravity) is reached; the coherent system then self-reduces (objective reduction: OR). We contend that this type of objective self-collapse introduces non-computability, an essential feature of consciousness. OR is taken as an instantaneous event - the climax of a self-organizing process in fundamental space-time - and a candidate for a conscious Whitehead-like 'occasion' of experience. How could an OR process occur in the brain, be coupled to neural activities, and account for other features of consciousness? We nominate an OR process with the requisite characteristics to be occurring in cytoskeletal microtubules within the brain's neurons (Penrose and Hameroff, 1995; Hameroff and Penrose, 1995; 1996). In this model, quantum-superposed states develop in microtubule subunit proteins ('tubulins'), remain coherent, and recruit more superposed tubulins until a mass-time-energy threshold (related to quantum gravity) is reached. At that stage, self-collapse, or objective reduction (OR) abruptly occurs. We equate the pre-reduction, coherent superposition ('quantum computing') phase with pre-conscious processes, and each instantaneous (and non-computable) OR, or self-collapse, with a discrete conscious event. Sequences of OR events give rise to a 'stream' of consciousness. Microtubule-associated proteins can 'tune' the quantum oscillations of the coherent superposed states; the OR is thus self-organized, or 'orchestrated' ('Orch OR'). Each Orch OR event selects (non-computably) microtubule subunit states which regulate synaptic/neural functions using classical signalling. The quantum gravity threshold for self-collapse is relevant to consciousness, according to our arguments, because macroscopic superposed quantum states each have their own space-time geometries (Penrose, 1994; 1996). These geometries are also superposed, and in some way 'separated', but when sufficiently separated, the superposition of space-time geometries becomes signifcantly unstable, and reduce to a single universe state. Quantum gravity determines the scale of the instability; we contend that the actual choice of state made by Nature is non-computable. Thus each Orch OR event is a self-selection of space-time geometry, coupled to the brain through microtubules and other biomolecules. If conscious experience is intimately connected with the very physics underlying space-time structure, then Orch OR in microtubules indeed provides us with a completely new and uniquely promising perspective on the hard problem of consciousness.
Science is about creating models to explain reality that have real predictive power
Philosophy is for those places in our knowledge where scientific models cannot be of ultimate use,because The subject matter is simply too complicated and is not easily reducible to scientific knowledge
From a scientific perspective we know what consciousness is in the ordinary usage of the word
But that's the problem because people can throw out fuzzy words that have vague meaning and then run wild with that.... and just create their own system of thought that relies on vague words, with vague meanings...
But ultimately it gets you nowhere and you just end up with a fuzzy bunch of words.
Well... at first it sounded good, but then I asked myself: is water vague? I don't think so. Water is H2O. So I don't think vagueness is an argument for consciousness being fundamental or so.
What do you think?
Protoconsciousness is a vague word... Often times what people mean by consciousness can be vague because at the end of the day it's an umbrella term that is used to mean different things... Like awareness or experience or feelings or thoughts or any other umbrella word...
It's like the holy Spirit is a vague concept! Chi is a vague concept! It's obvious people are just trying to imbue magic and superstition and supernatural elements into some sort of philosophy of consciousness or existence or whatever...
Life is a complex chemical reaction... Nothing more nothing less... Consciousness is the word we give to certain features of certain organisms...
Which features of which organisms?
I think you've picked an interesting example. Tables are large, and you can make small changes to a table without altering its tableness, so it becomes a vague matter as to when it ceases to be a table.
A water molecule is not like that, it's very small. It's not clear what changes could be made to a water molecule without risking altering its wateriness. I don't know enough chemistry to be able to argue it one way or another. The smaller we go, the more a single alteration affects the nature of the object, and the less vague its defining characteristics are.
Brains are typically said to be important to consciousness. But these are very much macro-objects, and their defining characteristics in terms of structure and function are very much vague.
Consciousness is often observed to not be vague. There are no intermediate stated where it is indeterminate as to whether x is conscious or not. Either there is something it is like to be x, or there is nothing. This presents a problem for the emergence of consciousness from brain structure and function.
If you want to just argue the philosopher jargon you've memorized, that is the same as religious jargon then go ahead but...
Consciousness... it's a vague word because ultimately life is transient and fleeting
Of course the normal definition is that someone is conscious if they can say they are and they can back it up with continued dialogue
And we normally think other complex organisms like primates and other mammals are probably conscious because they show similar abilities without being able to use human language... Like being able to pass the mirror test and all that
But seriously consciousness is just vague because it touches on our cultural conceptions which often are shrouded in superstition and a history of magical thinking
For a long time in history we thought life was a substance or an essence that was different than immaterial objects
But now we know that life is evolved complex chemistry. So consciousness is just the ability of certain organisms and that's completely a matter of definition and how we define the term and what we entail it to mean
But again most people are naturally duelists in their thinking and they think in terms of mind and matter as separate...
All organisms are constant flow of nerve impulses a constant metabolic happening. Consciousness is ultimately a human construct like intelligence or awareness or even beauty or health.
I mean come on if someone slowly loses their mental faculties does not like a moment where they're no longer conscious but we can kind of see that their organismic abilities are slowly diminishing
It's kind of like there's not a moment of death but we can kind of see it gradually happen and can tell when a person is beginning to turn to dust that they're probably not alive anymore
Indeed, nevertheless there is a fact of the matter whether they are or not, even if we don't know what that fact is.
Quoting Metamorphosis
It is also my view
Quoting Metamorphosis
I can't make sense of that.
Quoting Metamorphosis
That is indeed one definition (more or less) but there are several others - check a dictionary. This is not the definition typically used by philosophers of consciousness. Typically philosophers use (roughly) the first definition listed in dictionaries (at least most of the ones I've looked at).
Quoting Metamorphosis
Yes, the argument form analogy for other minds.
Quoting Metamorphosis
Maybe some concepts of consciousness are, I don't know. But phenomenal consciousness is not a vague concept. But it's a hot topic, lots disagree.
Quoting Metamorphosis
Did we? I don't know. But that's irrelevant to the topic of consciousness. I think you mean 'material objects'.
Quoting Metamorphosis
The word 'so' is doing an awful lot of hidden work there!
What ability of certain organisms is it? I'm interested in your definition.
Quoting Metamorphosis
Are they? How many of them are substance duelists, how many of them are property duelists, and how many are pistols at dawn dualists?
Quoting Metamorphosis
So consciousness could be destroyed by human consensus?
From whose point of view?
Quoting Metamorphosis
Certainly what people experience changes, including approaching death. But can you think of a state which is neither conscious nor non-conscious, but indeterminate as to which it is?
Life is an intricate and more complicated version of fire!
This is what all the evidence says... life is a complex chemical reaction!
The whole biosphere is basically an intricate feedback loop of chemical reactions!
So of course consciousness can be destroyed if the whole earth is destroyed by a giant meteor or whatever!
Again consciousness is just the ability of certain organisms!
Well actually consciousness is just a word but, it's describing certain evolved abilities!
Anyway I have tons of times where I'm between consciousness. I have all sorts of brain farts and mental noise and all that... it's not really consciousness it's just mind poop...
Anyway someone said two heads are better than one! And then someone else said that it's not that two heads are better than one it's that two heads are needed for one! Or we need social interactions to create a socially aware human being...
And really what we mean by consciousness is just the ability to be in harmony with a social project... After all language and perception and communication are largely social...
Anyway you seem to have an abstract vague notion of consciousness as being something more than material... But there is no evidence for that! And there are mountains and mountains of evidence to show that life and consciousness and every other aspect of living experience is simply chemical reactions!
If you have any evidence to the contrary I suggest you go win your Nobel prize but dead men tell no tales and words don't feed starving babies! Without oxygen and glucose none of this conversation would be happening and we are all built on chemicals and there is no evidence that ultimately we are anything more than intricate chemistry
And I think this is the simplest explanation that fits the evidence
But what is your explanation for both?
Before you speak investigate how certain terms are used within given fields. Consciousness is not regarded as you define above by anyone with some reasonable scientific background. You maybe mistyped? You mean self-conscious above with is not consciousness.
Conscious states vary. In neuroscience consciousness can mean slightly different things depending on what is being discussed. Generally consciousness is some form brain state of that encapsulates dreaming whereas being put under may sometimes be referred to as a non-conscious state.
Penrose simply states that the physical mechanisms of the brain - as understood superficially - are more than mere computations. The problem then remains how is this can be . Penroses view on this is along the lines that Quantum Mechanics is (at its base) wrong.
The Emporers New Mind is a very, very old book. It is certainly not the best reference point to understand his current opinions on consciousness now.
Like I said consciousness is a word that people use and like any word it can mean different things in different situations
What's your level of scientific study? What do you have your PhD in? Bottom line is people are imaginative inventive creatures that like to just make stuff up, like to talk, and like to just say creative stuff
But we have incredibly sophisticated body of knowledge that tells us what life is, life is complex chemistry that evolved over billions of years
Like I said, consciousness is a word and like any word it can mean different things in different contexts. But whatever it is, it is an evolved ability of certain organisms. And therefore it relies on chemical arrangements of atoms and molecules
When a person gets Alzheimer's and begins to lose their ability to be conscious, it is because their brain is deteriorating. The same thing if someone has a stroke or someone has an injury
The ability that any organism has to move around and act in the world is based on chemistry. And when the chemistry is damaged functioning is also damaged
Bottom line is if you think you have a better definition or a better understanding why don't you present it and also present some evidence to back it up. Because is kinda obvious if you deprive a brain of oxygen it will die and begin decaying and will no longer be conscious. This is what all the science says. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
I think a lot of people like to just live in fantasyland and throw out religious like mumbo jumbo because it makes them feel good and it makes them feel special and it is the history of human happenings
But there is no evidence to support any of that. Like I asked the other guy what is your definition of life? How do you explain it? How do you explain the fact that certain organisms seem to be self-aware and seem to be able to communicate in complex ways with regard to self and environment?
It is obvious that it is evolved chemistry to anyone that holds degrees in biology or neuroscience... but of course the philosophers want to go on and on and want to make a living off the gullible just like religious people want to tell their stories to the gullible...
Show me some explanations and evidence?
As you sit there and type on your computer give me one shred of credible evidence that you are anything more than complex chemistry?
You guys are hypnotizing yourself with pedantic nonsense!
You two should be friends.
Actually, I don't think I'm anything more than organic chemistry, except maybe space as well. But as a panpsychist I think all chemistry is conscious. My evidence for this is that I am conscious.
I don't think you've quite grasped the point about non vagueness. Your brain farts and such are experiences and therefore do not constitute states that are indeterminate as to whether or not they are conscious.
Quoting bert1
I will read his comments and if his reasoning is based on the principles of Methodological Naturalism then he will be appreciated.
Quoting bert1
-I don't understand your point because you are saying that you aren't anything more than two abstract concepts (Chemisty or space).
Chemical processes are a basic condition necessary for our physical existence. Depending from the scale we choose to observe this phenomenon our description also changes. From a molecular to the scale of biological systems and behavior we can identify many different processes responsible for our existence.
Quoting bert1
-You are committing a logical error. Your position SHOULD be induced by your premises. Its shouldn't be your conclusion product of a tautology.
Quoting bert1
Being conscious can only be evidence of the ability of a biological process(you) to be conscious.
Arguing from the general to the specific is a fallacy and its in direct conflict the the most successful Scientific paradigm.
Our practice to remove Agency from nature was the single most important thing we ever did to enable the run away success of our epistemology.
Advanced high level features are contingent to specific Low Level Mechanisms. We learned about this rule ages ago when many philosophers and scientists derailed our epistemic advances by assuming Advanced high level features existing in nature. i.e. Phlogiston, gods, life, ghosts, Miasma etc.
Science has verified that such advanced features are enabled by Structure and Function (process). This is true for Combustion,Wetness, life, consciousness etc.
In order to overturn this Paradigm you will have to offer far more convincing evidence than "your self being conscious".
Quoting bert1
-I can not find any earlier comments of mine in this thread so I don't think your comment is relevant to my thesis on the subject..at least I don't understand your point. If not, please elaborate.
As for evidence you want evidence of what sort from a theoretical physicist exactly? Logical proofs? Exactly why do you think Penrose is some kind of woo woo wizard or something. Are you trying to embarrass yourself or just flying off the handle for no reason.
Either way, if that is your cool calm and collected response (that had a good deal of charity in it) then go bother everyone else but me with weird rants.
This is why I barely look on this site anymore too many reactionary comments and responses.
Bye bye
Sorry, that was directed at Metamorphosis.
Actually, I don't think I'm anything more than organic chemistry, except maybe space as well. bert1
-I don't understand your point because you are saying that you aren't anything more than two abstract concepts (Chemisty or space).
Chemical processes are a basic condition necessary for our physical existence. Depending from the scale we choose to observe this phenomenon our description also changes. From a molecular to the scale of biological systems and behavior we can identify many different processes responsible for our existence.
But as a panpsychist I think all chemistry is conscious. bert1
-You are committing a logical error. Your position SHOULD be induced by your premises. Its shouldn't be your conclusion product of a tautology.
My evidence for this is that I am conscious. bert1
Being conscious can only be evidence of the ability of a biological process(you) to be conscious.
Arguing from the general to the specific is a fallacy and its in direct conflict the the most successful Scientific paradigm.
Our practice to remove Agency from nature was the single most important thing we ever did to enable the run away success of our epistemology.
Advanced high level features are contingent to specific Low Level Mechanisms. We learned about this rule ages ago when many philosophers and scientists derailed our epistemic advances by assuming Advanced high level features existing in nature. i.e. Phlogiston, gods, life, ghosts, Miasma etc.
Science has verified that such advanced features are enabled by Structure and Function (process). This is true for Combustion,Wetness, life, consciousness etc.
In order to overturn this Paradigm you will have to offer far more convincing evidence than "your self being conscious".
Demanding an argument against a universal negative is irrational at best.
After all Penrose openly disagrees with Hameroff 's woo woo interpretations not to mention the unscientific practice to place a High Level Feature in a fundamental role independent of a lower level mechanism in nature. . We are back in the ring....fighting vs Phlogiston, Miasma, Orgone energy .
That is pseudo philosophy founded on pseudo Scientific conclusions.
Let me explain some basic things.
Consciousness is a high level feature produced by the function of specific biological systems...so its biology.
Penrose is a Physicist. Physics do not study the Necessary and Sufficient conditions under which the phenomenon occurs and can be tested, affected and manipulated.
Looking for answers about consciousness in Physics is like asking Biologists to weigh in on which quantum interpretation is correct. That is not reasonable.
1.Proto-consciousness is the label of an interdisciplinary attempt to identify necessary brain mechanisms in the smallest of scales(quantum).
2. It isn't,Identifying computational phenomena in a quantum scale can only describe the role of matter in the overarching phenomenon of Consciousness.
2. Proto-consciousness refers to quantum processes that may play role in the ability of the brain to produce conscious states.(like photosynthesis in plants,bird navigation etc) You wont find that word in real Neuroscientific Publications because conscious states are an emergent result of all those processes together so identifying every specific function of a small part is not helpful.
"matter"? Are you suggesting that it is useful to call all high level features of matter and their individual mechanisms "matter''?( Digestion, Mitosis, Photosynthesis, Conductivity, Disease,Liquidity etc etc).
Where is the instrumental value in that practice?
Any modern author trusts that his audience won't "creating" entities from a label/name tag.
In the medieval era people used to make up substances like Phlogiston,Panacea,Élan vital etc in order to explain the qualities of an observed phenomenon. Thanks to Science we now know better not to come up with magical agents/substances and we describe phenomenon through the functions of observable processes.
Sure, I was responding casually to @Metamorphosis who accused me of thinking I was made of magic spirit or something instead of plain ol' chemistry. And I was reassuring him that I do think I'm made of chemistry, with the caveat that all chemistry is conscious.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
My panpsychism is the conclusion to a bunch of premises. I just haven't given them here. I have done so at length in the past on this forum, and everyone is bored of me doing so, apart from you, so maybe I'll do it again just to annoy everyone. No right now though I don't have time.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
No, that's wrong.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I'm arguing from the specific (me) to the general (everything). That's a different fallacy, no doubt, I'm sure someone will point it out in a minute. 3....2....1....
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Luckily for nature it's agency is still there regardless of what we think about it. Yay for realism.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Sure, in many many ways. Just not with regard to consciousness.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I won't accomplish anything, I'm too puny and my dick is too small. But there is plenty of support for panpsychism across fields, including neuroscience. But if you're interested here is one short argument:
1) 'Consciousness' is not vague
2) The structure and function of systems generally thought to realise/cause/be (pick your verb) consciousness are sufficiently complex to be highly vague.
3) Therefore there is unlikely to be non-arbitrary way to decide at what point in the development of these systems consciousness emerges.
4) It is far more likely that consciousness does not emerge
5) Nevertheless consciousness exists (I know it does in me, that's the datum of evidence)
6) Therefore panpsychism
Another one:
There are three possibilities: eliminativism, emergence or panpsychism
All of these are problematic.
Eliminativism is false because I am conscious.
Emergentism is false for a number of reasons depending on the version of it. E.g. functionalism is false because it has no answer to 'Why can't that happen in that dark?'
Panpsychism is the least problematic and is the only theory standing, even though that has problems too (the combination problems most famously).
Therefore, provisionally, panpsychism
That's a very quick and dirty overview from my perspective.
I'm hoping to bring him into the fold a little. If he carries on like that he'll be banned eventually, but we all have to start somewhere.
EDIT: no doubt I'll be banned someday. I'll get so enraged I'll commit suicide by mods.
I would appreciate that and I would ask for forgiveness from everyone else...= )
Quoting bert1
Of course it's not wrong. If you generalize a quality just because of your condition its a text book fallacy.
You should be able to demonstrate that extraordinary claim, not assume it.
Your ability to collect stimuli through your sensory system, to be fed in parts of your brain and being processed while the quality of your conscious states are being affected by your previous experiences point to specific physical mechanisms and processes and not to some kind of a "Phlogiston" type of philosophical artifact.
-"Quoting bert1"
-Yes that's also a fallacy of composition.
Quoting bert1
Agency needs to be demonstrated not assumed. Your premises need to arrive to the conclusion...not to start from it.
Quoting bert1
Special pleading is a fallacy....how about digestion...why don't you argue about that, after all we find neurons in our guts...
Quoting bert1
-No you won't find Panpsychism as a conclusion in a since publication of neuroscience. Try
https://neurosciencenews.com/?s=panpsychism
Quoting bert1
It depends from your definition of "Consciousness".
Quoting bert1
-Again you will need to define consciousness and what vagueness has to do with the phenomenon.
Quoting bert1
-I am not sure that you use the word "consciousness" in a meaningful scientific way....but to be sure, I will have to listen to your definition.
Quoting bert1
-Its a fact that conscious states emerge from the function of the ARAS and the ability of the Central Lateral thalamus to introduce content to any stimuli that has met the threshold of attention, by connecting to areas of the brain responsible for Logic, memory, symbolic language, emotions,pattern recognition, prediction etc.
So I don't know how you arrive to a statistical possibility (more likely).
What is your science behind that statement?
Quoting bert1
-Consciousness is a state, its real but it doesn't exist as an entity on its own. It;s the emerging result of an on going process like life, digestion, combustion. When the conditions are right they just manifest in reality.
This is why a dead individual or a rock can't avoid cars or rolling down a hill or develop a mental state of worrying or suffering while experiencing the event.
-"6) Therefore panpsychism"
-this conclusion isn't implied from your previous statement.
I would like to listen to your definition of Consciousness and why "vagueness" is or isn't a meaningful quality for the phenomenon.
Quoting bert1
-I am not interested in Philosophical worldviews.
I am interested in descriptions.
Emergence is an observable phenomenon by science. Complexity in function and structure produce new high level features. By altering the system we either alter the quality of the feature or we end its emergence.
Introducing a magical agent/substance that suspiciously enough has the same properties with the phenomenon we are trying to understand is intellectually lazy, medieval pseudo philosophy and epistemically useless.
That isn't new. You are suggesting an unfalsifiable Magical Agent to be the cause....like God, Miasma, Phlogiston etc were used to explain physical phenomena. You are using a bigger mystery to explain a smaller one and you fail because can't demonstrate, describe, explain or offer predictions.
This is Pseudo Philosophy at best.
We don't have(or observe) Advanced features wondering around the world...waiting when to jump on process and enjoy a ride. At least Logic and the Null Hypothesis advises us to reject that claim until evidence can falsify our initial rejection/Default Position. And no comparing Pseudo philosophical worldvies (like eliminativism, emergence or panpsychism) doesn't change the Default Position on the subject.
At least we got rid off this theology and this is what enabled the growth of our epistemology.. This is the reason why our Philosophy became instrumentally valuable and was finally able to serve its goal. (to produce wise claims about our world).
Saying that everything is conscious...is a useless pseudo philosophical claim. We can not use it, to understand why i.e. a rock won't avoid my kick or why a blind fish will end in the mouth of his predator. Its USELESS and unfalsifiable, it can not offer wisdom that can inform our thoughts or actions in this world. The only serving purpose is its role as a comforting Death Denying Ideology.
You just render an aspect of your self immortal.
Philosophy is an exercise in frustration, not the pursuit of happiness and comfort.
But you're an emergentist! And a functionalist as far as I can tell. These are philosophical positions. You haven't escaped into science.
Stop hoping! :lol:
Quoting bert1
:lol: :lol: :lol: You guys spent tons of virtual paint only to argue if that's philosophy or science? Judging by the quantity, I thought you guys have solved the hard problem together. You didn't even start :lol:
bert1, I've recently had this type of debate and I think this is a trend. From a philosophical point of view, they kind of realize one cannot defend materialism. So here's what they do: they deflect the topic into the scientific realm, falsely implying:
a. that this is science, not philosophy
b. science is all-powerful
c. science hasn't proven yet that consciousness is fundamental, therefore we shouldn't believe that
Then, they come back to philosophy and say:
d. therefore, materialism must be true
I don't reject claims because I assume them to be false. I only reject them as irrational since they are not objectively verify.
Emerge is observable in our world. i.e. a previously excited electron allows the emergence of a particle (photon). I can not deny this ability of Nature to produce phenomena just because I don't understand "why" . I just need all existential claims to meet the same high standards(like that of a photon) before I accept it.
Quoting bert1
-I am a Methodological Naturalist. Methodological Naturalism(MN) is not a Philosophical Worldview but an Epistemic Acknowledgement. My claims end where my ability to observe and verify ends. My current accepted Scientific knowledge is Tentative and based on what we can currently observe and falsify. That limits me within this realm forcing me to reject any indemonstrable realms or agents.
The time to discard MN is when our Epistemic Acknowledgement includes new realms and alternative scientific paradigms that include the supernatural.
Emergence in Science is nothing more than a Classification label of phenomena with observable differences between their mechanisms and their properties....nothing magical there.
If you do not like this idea that is your choice. Not liking something should not really be a singular guiding principle when tackling any complex problem.
Then why are you disregarding both on your reply to me about Penrose? His thought is based PURELY on logic and known physical mechanisms.
Quoting I like sushi
-It doesn't have to do with personal preference. It has to do with the need to Demarcate Philosophy and Science from pseudo philosophy and nonsense.....that's all.
Hiding magic in QM and then pointing to it as if it is the answer to a problem...well that's not a solution.
Studying the relevant discipline that studies the phenomenon is the only way.
Quoting I like sushi
Because a philosophical speculation of a physicist on a biological problem is not SCIENCE.
Yes his speculation is based purely on logic and knowledge of physical mechanisms but it isn't based on Neuroscience.
Theoretical Physicists keep polluting all discipline around them with unfalsifiable speculations and crackpots like Hameroff keep making money by selling books to the ignorant and gullible.
As I wrote above, a quantum mechanism (or more) may play a role in our ability to consciously attend organic /environmental stimuli but it can never be the sole answer for this emergent property of a complex biological structure.
Sure, and if you think consciousness has emerged from the structure and function of brains, then you are an emergentist with regard to consciousness, as I said. Just like digestion is nothing other that a function of guts. Is that right?
ITs a matter of reasoning, and to reject an existential claim until you are in a position to falsify your rejection. Its Logic 101(Null Hypothesis).
Areas and functions of the brain are Necessary and Sufficient in explaining our conscious states. The time to assume something different is only after the identification a different source as necessary and sufficient.
If you come with objective evidence I will happily shift my current tentative position.
Now Consciousness thoughts are the result of the Central Lateral Thalamus's function. The ability of this areas to bring together previous experiences(memories), reason emotions to feelings, apply symbolic value, reasoning , pattern recognition, intelligence etc etc etc from different areas of the brain is how the content emerges in our states. Different stimuli trigger different connections resulting to the formation of our conscious content.
This is what we observe and verify and we don't really need a magical source for the phenomenon.
Maybe, I don't know! I try to assume good faith where I can. If people start guessing at agendas in discussions they stop actually responding to what people actually say. Like @Nickolasgaspar keeps mentioning magic as if I've been pushing it when I've never actually mentioned it. A bit like a court's job is not to ascertain the will of Parliament, but to work out what the words of parliament mean (or something, I may have misquoted that).
Emotions (reasoned in to feelings)are the basis of our conscious state (Mark Solmes- Theory of consciousness). A stimulus caused by a particle (odorants) triggers our brain to interpret the meaning and implications of that external cue (our brains have evolved as predictions machines elevating our chances of survival /Anil Seth).
The interpretation of the stimulus is achieved through the introduction of additional properties of mind (pattern recognition, memory, symbolic language, emotion) in our conscious state. Brain function is responsible for the content of our state. I don't know what you mean by the statement "Is the feeling we get when we smell a rose the result of a neural function? Or is it the same thing as a neural function?"
It's not a statement, it's two questions. I'm trying to get clear in my head what you think the relationship is between the experience of smelling a rose and what happens in the brain. Is the experience the same thing as events in the brain, which we simply call smelling a rose? Or is it a product of events in the brain? Or something else?
I'll use an analogy which I hope will help. Is digestion the product of action of the gut? Or is it just the name we give to an action of the gut?
Is consciousness a product of brain function? or is it just the name we give to some kinds of brain function?
The the experience of smelling a rose produced, or caused by brain function? Or is it just the name we give to a particular brain function? Or what?
Do you see what I'm asking?
The study of consciousness is an Interdisciplinary case. You can observe consciousness like any other property in nature (conductivity, combustion, liquidity, rigidity etc etc). We are able to quantify the phenomenon(Anil Seth) and we even have the technology to decode complex conscious thoughts by just reading brain scans.
https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/news/news-stories/2017/june/brain-decoding-complex-thoughts.html
I don't really understand your question so I think an Academic Mooc on consciousness is the best way to find your answer.
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/what-is-a-mind
Maybe a definition of the word "experience" would help the discussion.
But kicking a football is not the same thing as the window smashing.
On the other hand, the action of the gut doesn't cause digestion.
The action of the gut is digestion.
So what should we say with consciousness?
Does some brain activity cause consciousness?
Or is some brain activity the same thing as consciousness?
I'm not sure how else to ask the question. There may be a language barrier issue perhaps. Can anyone else help?
-Materialism , Idealism, Occasionalism, Solipsism,Bananism etc are all indefensible Metaphysical Worldviews. All unfalsifiable views on Ontology are nothing more than Pseudo Philosophy.
Quoting Eugen
-Actually the study of a biological phenomenon is by definition a job for science. After all Science (Natural Philosophy) is nothing more than Philosophy with a empirical methodology on naturalistic principles.(Methodological Naturalism)
Quoting Eugen
-Strawman. Science is, currently the most credible way we have to produce and to verify the quality of our knowledge.
Quoting Eugen
-Shifting the burden and poisoning the well fallacy...plus its the statement is contradictive.
"To be conscious is to be aware (of something.) One can not be aware without something to be aware of. In other words, a consciousness without anything to be conscious of is not a consciousness. Nor can a consciousness be aware of itself and claim to be independent of existence, because if a consciousness is aware of itself, then it must itself exist and be an existent."
Quoting Eugen
-Therefore Methodological Naturalism...meaning that you accept a claim AFTER it has been verified to be true without making up invisible realms and agents.
Quoting bert1
-So you are suggesting something that resembles magic ...but you have issues with the label used ?
Whether we are right or wrong is irrelevant or better...meaningless. What we should all value is whether our positions are in agreement with current available facts and the basic Rules of Logic.
Is our position in conflict with the Null Hypothesis, is it based on a fallacy, do we reproduce unnecessary entities , is our epistemology out of date?
If any of the above are true then our position is irrational (not necessary wrong).
I'm not suggesting any magic as far as I am aware. But it seems you think I am.
Can you explain the Ontology of Consciousness?
Can you point out the differences between a conscious and unconscious entity and how they can be distinguished?
No more magical than saying particles have mass or charge. It's just another property of matter.
lol why they are magical when those properties are quantifiable. You need to do better man.... Can you offer us a method by which you can demonstrate and quantify the conscious states of a rock similar to the methods we use to quantify the mass and charge of a particle?
I don't think they are magical.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
No, consciousness is not quantifiable. It does not admit of degree. X is either conscious or not, there is no middle.
ok thats good to know. So your point was that consciousness is a property of particles. How can you demonstrate that?
Quoting bert1
Well in science we have ways to quantify our conscious states. Anil Seth explains the metrics of the quantification processs.
The minimum requirement for a conscious state is the arousal of the Ascending Reticular Activating System.
Different stages of sleep allow different qualities of consciousness.
A waking up state is limited compared to a fully alert state or a tired brain or an intoxicated brain.
All these different statements can be quantified by studying specific characteristics of brain function.
Also if matter, elementary matter, is a little bit conscious, is it also a little bit intelligent, a little bit emotional, a little bit curious,...
Don't you get a much simpler and better explanation by just understanding it as matter evolving in complexity...
We can also see it fade in and out during sleep, deep sleep, anesthesia, drugs...
Consciousness isn't a thing, it's not a quality, it's a developed biological capacity...
But magical thinking is part of human nature and we have a huge history of superstition and legends... So people will try to continue to push the idea of the sacred or the transcendent or something supernatural... And people have gravitated to consciousness because it's quite nebulous because it's the convergence of billions of cells with trillions upon trillions of connections...
What is experiened changes. That experience happens at all doesn't change. If a system has an experience at all, no matter what it is an experience of, then it is conscious. The presence or absence of experience, of whatever content, is a binary. There isn't anything in between consciousness and non-consciousness, in the same way that there isn't anything in between 7 and less-than-7.
Quoting Metamorphosis
Again, it doesn't matter how dim the experience gets, it's still experience.
By showing the alternatives are worse. Panpsychism is the worst theory of consciousness apart from all the others.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
The examples you give are of differing content of consciousness, from unfocused and fuzzy, to sharp, or something like that. They are all conscious states.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
OK, how do you know that?
I don't think so, no. You just get more problems. Why do some complexities result in or instantiate consciousness, while others don't?
-You are talking about a claim saying that particles posses a specific High level feature. That needs to be demonstrated independently from the aesthetics of other claims. You need to demonstrate it by explaining how a world would look where particles do not posses that ability and then point to a methodology capable to falsify your claim. Can you really do that?
Well a claim should rise and fall on its own merits.
The way you suggest has no credit.
Quoting bert1
Yes they are conscious states with different qualities (intensities) We can quantify them by measuring specific metrics in brain function. By doing that we can introduce our theories in the real world, produce Meaningful Predictions, Accurate Predictions and Technical Applications resulting to the improvement of different conditions.
This is the difference between a new age theology and an actual Theoretical Model of Science.
Quoting bert1
I study Neuroscience....
If one of you has heard or seen Penrose or Hameroff defining proto-consciousness, or if one of you has enough developed skills to deduce with certainty what proto-consciousness is in Penrose and Hameroff's views, then you're welcome to post your thoughts.
Materialism vs non-materialism is another topic guys.
Sorry, I'll stop!
Bert believes that proto consciousness is located in particles(at least this is what I understood from his arguments). I challenged his belief by demanding the same evidence I would ask from a claim for gods or dragons or hobbits or smurfs. The only way we can be off topic is if Bert doesn't talk about proto consciousness.
Now Penrose and Hameroff 's proto-consciousness is an old artifact found in a 30years old failed "theory" that has never been supported...or even mentioned by the wealth of findings and publications in cognitive science.
Why do you thing this idea can make us wiser on the topic? After all this is what Philosophy is all about, to produce wisdom!
What is the epistemology that in your opinion justifies a philosophical discussion on a made up substance/entity/agent? 30 years ago two false authorities made this existential claim...is it enough to accept it on face value? Aren't we suppose to evaluate our epistemology before using it as a foundational stone in an inquiry?
I am not saying you shouldn't , I am only trying to understand your standards.
Blah blah blah... I don't even bother reading the rest. This OP has a clear formulated question. Answer it or leave the OP. I'm not interested in your theories, views on reality, opinions, etc.
You accused me for arguing in favor of Materialism and I had to inform you about my position(MN) and how it conflicts with all Metaphysical Worldviews.
I explained to you how my conversation with Bert was on topic since I was asking him to demonstrate his belief in proto consciousness being a property of particles.
Now you attempt to force specific rules in this platform by limiting all post to the questions in the OP ?
I thought we were done with your questions when I addressed them and your final answer was , I quote:"In principle, I cannot disagree with your answer, i.e. Penrose is actually referring to matter. Thank you! "
After all, asking Bert about the ontology of the mental properties of particles is relevant to your question : 1. What is proto-consciousness?
If you are not interested in other peoples' theories, views on reality and opinions then why are you posting comments in a public forum where people share views and opinions?
What is your goal? Did you expect an echo chamber for comforting messages to bump around? This is not what philosophy is all about. As I stated before, its an exercise in frustration, not the pursuit of happiness.
Let me know if you are willing to challenge your beliefs in a civilized discussion.
I don't have a clear view on what Penrose and Hameroff mean when they mention proto-consciousness.
Thank you for sharing your opinions!
In one of your threads I illustrated your errors in your philosophy by pointing academics with their names who share similar concerns.
Without wasting more time on that I proceeded to some basic questions which you are not willing to answer. In my conversation with Bert I was asking question on why he believes in proto consciousness when its an unfalsifiable "artifact".
Quoting Eugen
From a scientific perspective the concept of proto-consciousness is also closed not because we don't understand it but because Logic (Parsimony, Null Hypothesis, Burden of Proof, Demarcation etc) and current data render the idea..."not even wrong"(Wolfgang Pauli).
I wish for a better future interaction.
Try reading/listening to his recent thought on this matter. To repeat, his position is (via Godel) that the brain does not merely compute and that reason therefore dictates that something else is going on. When someone says they do not have an answer it does not mean they believe in fairies.
You will need to quote that part if you want me to accept your objection. If not, I can only assume you are trying to dodge a corner there. Please copy where I am trying to strawman you and why you think that.
Quoting I like sushi
As I told you in my initial post , I won't listen to a Biologist talking about QM, so I won't do that for Penrose when he talks about Biology.
Quoting I like sushi
-So you want me to accept Penrose's statement when we have already observe quantum computation in Plants???
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-it-comes-to-photosynthesis-plants-perform-quantum-computation/
Quoting I like sushi
-Correct, this is why I respect Penrose's efforts but I don't waste my time on his philosophical takes while I ridicule Hameroff's pseudo scientific conclusions.
First it was consciousness and now it is experience... Those are just words... Life is a complex evolving chemical process...
Zygote doesn't have consciousness, and it doesn't have experience, but it's part of the continuum of life on this planet...
But even life doesn't have any clear edges as they will always be boundary conditions that are beyond any clear definition...
We get a better understanding of the world without muddying the waters the way you are by overcomplicating things...
For the sake of it. There you go. Neither myself nor Penrose makes any such claim. His point was - to repeat again - that what the brain does is more than mere computations (authority Godel).
I literally have nothing more to say and have said nothing more than this (three times now I think?).
-How such a generalization can ever be helpful in figuring out what the brain does?? My motor bike does more than taking me to my work and back....does that provide any information about my additional activities with it??
I mean if someone wonders how a "deepity" sounds...its right there!
So we can agree that neither Hameroff or anyone else can use Penrose's ideas to say anything about our brains functions and emergent properties.
Can we agree that the best way to learn anything about the brain is by studying neuroscience?
So here is the important question: Why does this thread exists when neither you or the author of the thread think much about Penrose /Hameroff's ideas?
I am seriously puzzled....
Btw I never accused you for saying anything of the above. My critique on Penrose is legit. He is a physicist and without an updated knowledge he tries to say what brain does or doesn't.(or does more).
Anyway, bored now. This is going nowhere fast.
Please stop hiding behind that word...this is NOT the main or single claim of the theory.
Check the references in the Wikipedia page. read the abstract , it will help you understand my objection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction
If this consciousness is in fact pure energy unrelated to matter then the relation of it to matter remains a ripe area for scientific study.
Any block or unit of matter has energy in it but its contained in matter such as a log of wood.
To use the log of wood metaphor burning it releases its contained energy and entropy which after burning weRe unable to collect the fire that was unleashed from.
To state that there is a proto/consciousness seems to me linguistically redundant at best it would be better to refer to it as pure awareness and interaction with matter which is also energy as per Einstein
Quoting I like sushi
QM mechanisms are in every Biological System....there is this thing called Quantum Biology, the study of these phenomena.
I rest my case.
btw when you talk to Penrose, give him this paper.
Our Brains Use Quantum Computation
https://neurosciencenews.com/brain-quantum-computing-21695/