Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Consciousness

Consciousness
(04-03-2020, 08:44 PM)Hussein Wrote:
(04-03-2020, 08:07 PM)trdsf Wrote: I make no assertion, I can read what it says.  Nowhere in that list was anything other than purely physical phenomena.
They are indeed physical. Perhaps by reading more about that theory, you can understand a falsifiable scientific theory can imply the existence of a universal consciousness.
I did a little more reading.  Still nothing but woo.

Quote:
Quote:I notice you don't bother answering me.  And I don't believe you have a physics background.  If there is an all-pervading field, tell me what keys I just corrected.  The field is everywhere.  Measure it.  Go on.  I'll wait.
This bit might help:
Quote:experiment and theory imply that unbounded fields, not bounded particles, are fundamental. This is especially clear for relativistic systems, implying that it’s also true of non-relativistic systems. Particles are epiphenomena arising from fields.
There are no particles, there are only fields, Art Hobson, American Journal of Physics. 81, 211 (2013); doi: 10.1119/1.4789885
The string theorists will be interested to know strings don't exist.

Quote:In terms of field theories, the keys you corrected are perturbations in fundamental fields that propagate throughout the universe. The information is theoretically measurable, but that's not feasible, at least for me.
Or for anyone else.  A perfect gas is used all the time in physics, but perfect gases don't exist in reality.  You're perfectly welcome to imagine these infinitesimally small wobbles in a universal electromagnetic field, but they're neither practical nor realistic.  What you're suggesting is that the human mind (brain + consciousness) is capable of detecting physical phenomena that nothing else can, and that very likely nothing else ever could.  That's dangerously close to special pleading, and isn't science.

Quote:
Quote:Wrong.  Those are not theories. I repeat: a theory explains a class of observations and makes definite predictions that are in principle falsifiable.
They are. Field theories of consciousness (implies universal consciousness), Integrated Information Theory (implies panpsychism).
IIT, the second theory, is commonly referred to as the "leading theory of consciousness".

Both theories:
(1) explain a set of observations, but the set is still too small, mainly due to our computational limitations, so none of the theories of consciousness are established yet.
(2) are falsifiable
I did read those articles.  Neither one says anything about "universal consciousness" and "panpsychism".  Those are wishful-thinking addons of yours, not theoretical models.

It's also worth taking notice of the fact that 'universal consciousness' is listed in Wikipedia as religion, and panpsychism as philosophy.  Neither one has the faintest hint of science to them; in fact, one of the objections to panpsychism is that it is neither provable nor falsifiable, and that is as explicitly not science as one may get.
"Aliens?  Us?  Is this one of your Earth jokes?"  -- Kro-Bar, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
The following 4 users Like trdsf's post:
  • Alan V, SYZ, Szuchow, Cavebear
Reply

Consciousness
(04-04-2020, 05:08 PM)trdsf Wrote: The string theorists will be interested to know strings don't exist.

Your approach of denying field theories and saying maybe string physicists are right to counter my argument suggests you are still not informed about the context of this discussion. 

You must be able to show field theories in which fundamental unbounded fields describe the reality, are in fact not scientific theories at all. This is how you can counter my argument, unfortunately, your statement about string theory shows you are still arguing something that I do not claim. I never claimed field theories are true, my argument relies on the fact that field theories are legitimate scientific theories

Quote:The string theorists will be interested to know strings don't exist.

String theory is not established. Because its falsifiability experiment is not feasible (the size of the required particle accelerator is too large). String physicists are working to introduce a feasible falsifiability experiment. 

So the existence of strings is not established.

Quantum field theories are decisively our current established theories, they have given us unbelievable accuracy and there is a clear consensus about them.

Again I repeat the quotation from Art Hobson:

Quote:experiment and theory imply that unbounded fields, not bounded particles, are fundamental. This is especially clear for relativistic systems, implying that it’s also true of nonrelativistic systems.

There is plenty of evidence today for physicists to come to a consensus supporting an all-fields view.
There are no particles, there are only fields, Art Hobson, American Journal of Physics. 81, 211 (2013); doi: 10.1119/1.4789885

Please stop denying direct quotations from legitimate scientific works. I do not claim what scientists say is true, my claim is that certain things are talked about in scientific literature, therefore they are legitimate scientific concepts, including fundamental unbounded fields. Your denials are irrelevant. 

Quote:Or for anyone else.  A perfect gas is used all the time in physics, but perfect gases don't exist in reality.  You're perfectly welcome to imagine these infinitesimally small wobbles in a universal electromagnetic field, but they're neither practical nor realistic.   

No, in field theories, unbounded fields are real things, they carry energy and momentum, read the above quotation, they are believed to be the only fundamental things.

Quote:What you're suggesting is that the human mind (brain + consciousness) is capable of detecting physical phenomena that nothing else can, and that very likely nothing else ever could. 

I never claimed they can be experienced. I said they can be measured, field theories suggest certain patterns in the EM field are associated with consciousness. Not every pattern in the field is to be experienced.

Quote:I did read those articles. 

You could simply search the term to find it, as I just did.

Quote:Neither one says anything about "universal consciousness"

It does:

Quote:Pockett suggests that the EM field comprises a universal consciousness
from the same Wikipedia page that I linked.

Panpsychism is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article, however, it is mentioned in their original article published in PLOS Computational Biology 2014 impact factor 4.428

Quote:Simple systems can be conscious: A “minimally conscious” photodiode

The previous section showed that activations and direct interactions between elements are not necessary to generate a MICS. Taking into account the axioms and postulates of IIT, we can now summarize what it takes to be conscious and give an example of a “minimally conscious system,” which will be called a “minimally conscious” photodiode.
...
It is instructive to consider the quality of experience specified by such a minimally conscious photodiode.
From the Phenomenology to the Mechanisms of Consciousness: Integrated Information Theory 3.0, Masafumi Oizumi et al, PLOS Computational Biology 2014

Yes, they claim a photodiode is conscious and has an experience, and this is one of the "leading theories of consciousness" published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Please stop denying the theory and realize that my argument only depends on such things merely being talked about in the scientific literature.

Quote:It's also worth taking notice of the fact that 'universal consciousness' is listed in Wikipedia as religion, and panpsychism as philosophy.  Neither one has the faintest hint of science to them; 

They are very far from established theories, all consciousness theories are, but they are theories, of course, you can't find any scientific references on those pages.
The following 2 users Like Hussein's post:
  • Alan V, Mark
Reply

Consciousness
(04-04-2020, 10:47 PM)Hussein Wrote: No, in field theories, unbounded fields are real things, they carry energy and momentum, read the above quotation, they are believed to be the only fundamental things.

I haven't been able to understand what you've been posting about fields well enough to comment.  Are fields even complex enough to carry information?  Since they are not targeted, it seems a rather poor way to transmit information.  

Somewhere I read a scientist once say that deciphering an EEG is like trying to understand what people in a city are thinking by measuring the heat given off by the buildings.  Could that perspective apply to fields as well?

(04-04-2020, 10:47 PM)Hussein Wrote: Yes, they claim a photodiode is conscious and has an experience, and this is one of the "leading theories of consciousness" published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Please stop denying the theory and realize that my argument only depends on such things merely being talked about in the scientific literature.

Scientists have discussed all sorts of ideas about consciousness, since it's a relatively new field of study. Considering I have read discussions among philosophers about whether thermostats should be considered conscious, I think it would be helpful if you told us how "consciousness" was defined in discussions about fields.

I do agree that some philosophers and scientists take reductionistic ideas about consciousness quite seriously, but I think emergentist ideas are more promising.
The following 2 users Like Alan V's post:
  • Mark, Hussein
Reply

Consciousness
(04-04-2020, 11:42 PM)Alan V Wrote: I haven't been able to understand what you've been posting about fields well enough to comment.  Are fields complex enough to carry information?  Since they are not targeted, it seems a rather poor way to transmit information

[Image: Fibreoptic.jpg]
optical fiber

Yes, of course, they can reliably transmit information with the speed of light. Light (not just the visible spectrum) is the same as the electromagnetic field. So optical fibers essentially transmit information through the electromagnetic field.

Quote:Somewhere I read a scientist once say that deciphering an EEG is like trying to understand what people in a city are thinking by measuring the heat given off by the buildings.  Could that perspective apply to fields as well?

Indeed, the measurement of EEG is a direct measurement of the electromagnetic field (voltage, to be more accurate). The problem is, EEG measurements are easily contaminated by artifacts arising from muscle activity in the scalp or eye muscles. You can't be sure that the signal is related to the brain, there is a noise. 

In addition to that, the EEG output is the unified superposition of the field generated by all parts of the brain, it's difficult to decipher it, even if there isn't a noise. What they can do is to apply Fourier analysis and separate different frequency channels of the EEG patterns.

Quote:Scientists have discussed all sorts of ideas about consciousness.  Consciousness studies is a field which barely existed fifty years ago, but it has recently gone through rapid development.  Are the works you are referencing fairly current?

Version 3.0 of IIT was published in 2014. You can see here that many works have cited it since 2020. It can indicate that the theory is currently talked about in the literature. 

Some additional info about the status of the theory:

Quote:As of 2016, Tononi, IIT’s creator, runs the Center for Sleep and Consciousness at the University of Madison-Wisconsin. The Center has more than forty researchers, many of whom work in its IIT Theory Group. Koch, a major supporter of IIT, heads the prestigious Allen Institute for Brain Science. The Institute has links with the White House Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, as well as the European Human Brain Project (HBP).  IIT’s body of literature continues to grow, often in the form of publications associated with the Center and the Institute. 
From here

Field theories are not widely talked about. Here is the list of scientific works that have cited Pockett's theory since 2019. Not as popular as IIT.

Quote:Considering I have read discussions among philosophers about whether thermostats should be considered conscious, I think it would be helpful if you told us how "consciousness" was defined in such discussions.

You are right, definitions are very important, some define consciousness functionally, totally ignoring the subjective aspects. But IIT, defines consciousness in terms of experience, in fact, it claims subjective experience is the only thing that can be certainly known to exist:

Quote:Intrinsic existence: Consciousness exists: each experience is actual—indeed, that my experience here and now exists (it is real) is the only fact I can be sure of immediately and absolutely. Moreover, my experience exists from its own intrinsic perspective, independent of external observers (it is intrinsically real or actual).
...
The properties required of a conscious physical substrate are called the "postulates," since the existence of the physical substrate is itself only postulated (remember, IIT maintains that the only thing one can be sure of is the existence of one's own consciousness)
Wikipedia

Quote:I do agree that some philosophers and scientists take reductionistic ideas about consciousness quite seriously, but I think emergentist ideas are more promising.

Having a background in physics, I like to think of consciousness as something fundamental, and there are very beautiful parallels between the concept of fields in physics and consciousness. This work talks about combining the idea presented in IIT and field theories, that looks promising to me.

Emergentist approaches are in fact a lot more popular compared to fundamental theories, but I think they cannot address the binding problem adequately.
The following 1 user Likes Hussein's post:
  • Alan V
Reply

Consciousness
(04-04-2020, 10:47 PM)Hussein Wrote: They are very far from established theories, all consciousness theories are, but they are theories, of course, you can't find any scientific references on those pages.
There.

Right there.

You need to stop talking about them as though they are settled matters.  They're not.  Thank you for admitting that.  All you have is a woo-ful notion that you think supports the way you want the universe to be.

When you have something concrete, then I will care.

Until then, you really need to learn the difference between theory, hypothesis, and wishful thinking.
"Aliens?  Us?  Is this one of your Earth jokes?"  -- Kro-Bar, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
The following 2 users Like trdsf's post:
  • Cavebear, Szuchow
Reply

Consciousness
(04-04-2020, 02:50 PM)Alan V Wrote: ...
There exist many striking parallels between conscious creatures and societies, as you point out, but the question is whether such parallels are analogical or equal.  It may simply be that successful strategies in one area translate well into others, as @DLJ mentioned earlier concerning business management techniques.
...

Let me know if you want me to describe the parts of the 'Human Model' / 'Model Human' that relate to "self".  It may take some time though, because it's a chapter I haven't written yet.  

'Consciousness' however, is quite an easy one.
Reply

Consciousness
(04-05-2020, 03:59 AM)DLJ Wrote:
(04-04-2020, 02:50 PM)Alan V Wrote: ...
There exist many striking parallels between conscious creatures and societies, as you point out, but the question is whether such parallels are analogical or equal.  It may simply be that successful strategies in one area translate well into others, as @DLJ mentioned earlier concerning business management techniques.
...

Let me know if you want me to describe the parts of the 'Human Model' / 'Model Human' that relate to "self".  It may take some time though, because it's a chapter I haven't written yet.  

'Consciousness' however, is quite an easy one.

There's a whole thread about that and they contend in detail...
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply

Consciousness
(04-05-2020, 12:18 AM)Hussein Wrote: ...The problem is, EEG measurements are easily contaminated by artifacts arising from muscle activity in the scalp or eye muscles. You can't be sure that the signal is related to the brain, there is a noise. 

[Image: 3-s2.0-B978012801238310889X-f10889-09-97...8290.jpg?_]

Artefact detection. An automated mask can be used to generate an
index of EEG quality and to exclude contaminated periods of EEG from
analysis. The annotation of artefact on 1 h of multichannel EEG is in
black and artefacts are in blue.



In most applications of automated EEG analysis, the length of the EEG recording permits the use of
artifact detection and rejection  rather than artifact removal. This may also be diagnostically sound as
clinical decisions based on the analysis of the EEG should be made on artifact-free EEG.
Nathan Stevenson, Anton Tokariev, in Encyclopedia of Biomedical Engineering, 2019

(BTW, the word is spelled as "artefact"  from the Latin phrase arte factum from ars=skill + facere=to make)
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 3 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Hussein, Alan V, DLJ
Reply

Consciousness
(04-05-2020, 03:59 AM)DLJ Wrote:
(04-04-2020, 02:50 PM)Alan V Wrote: ...
There exist many striking parallels between conscious creatures and societies, as you point out, but the question is whether such parallels are analogical or equal.  It may simply be that successful strategies in one area translate well into others, as @DLJ mentioned earlier concerning business management techniques.
...

Let me know if you want me to describe the parts of the 'Human Model' / 'Model Human' that relate to "self".  It may take some time though, because it's a chapter I haven't written yet.  

'Consciousness' however, is quite an easy one.

I did purchase the book you recommended, and it's in my pile.  But lately I've been too distracted by coronavirus news to do any serious reading.
The following 3 users Like Alan V's post:
  • Mark, Dānu, DLJ
Reply

Consciousness
(04-05-2020, 10:18 AM)SYZ Wrote: (BTW, the word is spelled as "artefact"  from the Latin phrase arte factum from ars=skill + facere=to make)

I Googled "artefact" and couldn't find support for it.  "Artifact" with an "i" can mean "something observed in a scientific investigation or experiment that is not naturally present but occurs as a result of the preparative or investigative procedure."
Reply

Consciousness
(04-05-2020, 03:49 AM)trdsf Wrote: You need to stop talking about them as though they are settled matters.

It appears you still don't know what was being discussed.  Facepalm Nobody was advocating any theories and nobody claimed any theory of consciousness is established.

Anyone with a basic familiarity with modern science should know the nature of consciousness is not a settled matter.

Quote: They're not.  Thank you for admitting that.  All you have is a woo-ful notion that you think supports the way you want the universe to be.

Quote:When you have something concrete, then I will care.

I doubt you would care. From your first post, you started denying everything without any real knowledge about them, and you continue to do so, including:

1. Denial of quantum field theories by saying fields are not realistic Facepalm and citing string theory, while the string theory is not established at all 

Which is ridiculous, because field theories are at the peak of scientific accuracy, "the jewel of physics" according to Feynman.

Quote:it has been described as a theory with a level of elegance that is characteristic of one that represents a fundamental truth.
Wikipedia

2. Denial of field theories of consciousness  by saying universal consciousness is "nothing but woo" (if A->B, by rejecting B you also reject A)

While Pockett explicitly mentions in her book a universal consciousness is an implication of the field nature of consciousness

3. Denial of integrated information theory by saying panpsychism is "nothing but woo" (if A->B, by rejecting B you also reject A)

While the authors explicitly mentioned in their published paper that simple systems can be conscious, including a photodiode.

If you want to deny a scientific theory falsify it using evidence. 

Quote:Until then, you really need to learn the difference between theory, hypothesis, and wishful thinking.

I don't think I need to notice that. I only talked about scientific theories, and after many repetitions and clarifications, I no longer believe you are simply misunderstood, so I think you just feel the need to say something to imply your irrational denials have a point. They don't have any point other than demonstrating your denialism.

Quote:In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth.
Reply

Consciousness
(04-05-2020, 11:42 AM)Alan V Wrote: I Googled "artefact" and couldn't find support for it.  "Artifact" with an "i" can mean "something observed in a scientific investigation or experiment that is not naturally present but occurs as a result of the preparative or investigative procedure."

It was also interesting for me, found this:

Quote:In natural science and signal processing, an artifact or artefact is any error in the perception or representation of any information, introduced by the involved equipment or technique(s).
Wikipedia

Quote:In British English, artefact is the main spelling and artifact a minor variant.[152] In American English, artifact is the usual spelling. Canadians prefer artifact and Australians artefact, according to their respective dictionaries.[153] Artefact reflects Arte-fact(um), the Latin source.[154]
Wikipedia
The following 2 users Like Hussein's post:
  • Alan V, Cavebear
Reply

Consciousness
(04-05-2020, 02:10 PM)Hussein Wrote:
(04-05-2020, 03:49 AM)trdsf Wrote: You need to stop talking about them as though they are settled matters.
It appears you still don't know what was being discussed.  Facepalm Nobody was advocating any theories and nobody claimed any theory of consciousness is established.
Bull.  You've been talking about these as if they're the way things are.  You're welcome to accept them as beliefs, hypotheses, whatever -- but you need to back down on your absolutes.  You cannot say there is a universal field.

Denialism?  I recommend a mirror.
"Aliens?  Us?  Is this one of your Earth jokes?"  -- Kro-Bar, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
The following 1 user Likes trdsf's post:
  • Cavebear
Reply

Consciousness
(04-05-2020, 07:56 PM)trdsf Wrote:
(04-05-2020, 02:10 PM)Hussein Wrote:
(04-05-2020, 03:49 AM)trdsf Wrote: You need to stop talking about them as though they are settled matters.
It appears you still don't know what was being discussed.  Facepalm Nobody was advocating any theories and nobody claimed any theory of consciousness is established.
Bull.  You've been talking about these as if they're the way things are.  You're welcome to accept them as beliefs, hypotheses, whatever -- but you need to back down on your absolutes.  You cannot say there is a universal field.

Denialism?  I recommend a mirror.


(My bolding.)  Well you heard it that way.  Of course communication takes two parties.  Could be you heard what you expected a theist would say.  I believe he isn't who you had in mind.
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
The following 1 user Likes Mark's post:
  • Hussein
Reply

Consciousness
(04-05-2020, 07:56 PM)trdsf Wrote: Denialism?  I recommend a mirror.

I mentioned denialism because it appeared to me it is uncomfortable for you to accept religious concepts (such as universal consciousness and panpsychism) are being taken seriously in some legitimate scientific theories. You started attacking even the most established theories of physics and scientific quotations to reject that idea.

No offense was meant.
Reply

Consciousness
(04-05-2020, 08:51 PM)Mark Wrote:
(04-05-2020, 07:56 PM)trdsf Wrote:
(04-05-2020, 02:10 PM)Hussein Wrote: It appears you still don't know what was being discussed.  Facepalm Nobody was advocating any theories and nobody claimed any theory of consciousness is established.
Bull.  You've been talking about these as if they're the way things are.  You're welcome to accept them as beliefs, hypotheses, whatever -- but you need to back down on your absolutes.  You cannot say there is a universal field.

Denialism?  I recommend a mirror.
(My bolding.)  Well you heard it that way.  Of course communication takes two parties.  Could be you heard what you expected a theist would say.  I believe he isn't who you had in mind.
He has been coming across (to me, if you like) as presenting these things as if they are the current understanding, rather than as some hypotheses that have been floated, and then insisting that I accept them as if they were the current theories.  I am under no obligation to accept a hypothesis, and I disagree with his assertion that these metaphysical constructs are implied by them.
"Aliens?  Us?  Is this one of your Earth jokes?"  -- Kro-Bar, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
The following 1 user Likes trdsf's post:
  • Cavebear
Reply

Consciousness
(04-05-2020, 10:48 PM)Hussein Wrote:
(04-05-2020, 07:56 PM)trdsf Wrote: Denialism?  I recommend a mirror.

I mentioned denialism because it appeared to me it is uncomfortable for you to accept religious concepts (such as universal consciousness and panpsychism) are being taken seriously in some legitimate scientific theories. You started attacking even the most established theories of physics and scientific quotations to reject that idea.

No offense was meant.
No offense was taken, and I did no such thing as to deny science.  I denied your assertion that these metaphysical constructs are implied by science, not science itself, and your conflation of concepts like 'quantum field' and 'electromagnetic field' with 'conscious EM field'.  I have no problem with quantum fields and electromagnetic fields.  I do have a problem with the idea of a "field" of "universal consciousness".  Personally, I'm inclined to Douglas Hofstadter's position that consciousness is an emergent property of the complex patterns produced by the electrical currents produced in the human brain, and that without the physical layer that is the brain, there is no abstract layer we call the mind.  The idea of some sort of unified field of consciousness that exists unto itself strikes me as about as sensible as trying to run a Linux cluster on nothing but air molecules, and about as tenable as luminiferous æther theory.

Also, your attempt at logic fails because the assertion that my denial of 'B' denies 'A' is false.  B may well be false, independently of whether A is true.  Scientific proposals are not propositional logic.  Twenty five years ago, you could have said A) The universe began in a Big Bang, therefore B) the expansion of the universe is happening at a decelerating rate -- and virtually no one would have disagreed with you.  Well, funny thing, B turned out to be false but A is still valid.

And yes, I do reject as non-scientific ideas about diodes having consciousness, unless you want to reduce 'consciousness' all the way down to mean 'ability to interact with a signal', in which case consciousness ceases to have any meaning, as every interaction can then be called a conscious one.
"Aliens?  Us?  Is this one of your Earth jokes?"  -- Kro-Bar, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
The following 2 users Like trdsf's post:
  • Hussein, Cavebear
Reply

Consciousness
(04-05-2020, 11:35 PM)trdsf Wrote: and your conflation of concepts like 'quantum field' and 'electromagnetic field' with 'conscious EM field'

These are not conflations. The classical electromagnetic field is reformulated as a quantum field in modern theories, so they can work with it in the quantum realm. And some people have suggested the physical substrate of consciousness is the electromagnetic field, in the modern sense.

The big difference of modern fields is that they are fundamental, they are not 'generated' by particles like the classical ones, they simply exist, particles are nothing but ripples in these fields. So an electron is a small ripple in the electron field, the photon is a small ripple in the EM field, and we are bigger and very complex ripples or even waves in the fundamental fields:

Quote:But quanta are not particles; they are excitations of spatially unbounded fields. Photons and electrons, along with atoms, molecules, and apples, are ultimately disturbances in a few universal fields.
There are no particles, there are only fields, Art Hobson, American Journal of Physics. 81, 211 (2013); doi: 10.1119/1.4789885

Quote:I do have a problem with the idea of a "field" of "universal consciousness".

It's not a new field, it's the same as the electromagnetic field, some have introduced a 'field of consciousness' in the past, nothing scientific. 

And the 'universal' thing is nothing woo IMO, it needs a change of perspective to make sense. Pockett suggests the experiencer is the EM field, the content of experience are complex EM patterns caused by the brain, but the perceiver is the field. So all experiences are being perceived by the field. Philosophically, it makes sense for me, as I think more than one perceiver is inconsistent, that's one of the reasons I like this theory.  

Quote:Personally, I'm inclined to Douglas Hofstadter's position that consciousness is an emergent property of the complex patterns produced by the electrical currents produced in the human brain, and that without the physical layer that is the brain, there is no abstract layer we call the mind.

That's currently a respected and popular position. 

Quote:The idea of some sort of unified field of consciousness that exists unto itself strikes me as about as sensible as trying to run a Linux cluster on nothing but air molecules, and about as tenable as luminiferous æther theory.

An invisible consciousness field is an old idea, never found its way into science. The EM theories do not introduce a new field. They are talking about the same electromagnetic field. wi-fi, radio waves, microwaves, GPS, telecommunication, optical fibers, etc. they are all waves in the EM field. They suggest experiences are also patterns in this field. 

It's like running a Linux cluster on virtual machines, the medium is soft (the field) not hard (the brain).

Quote:Well, funny thing, B turned out to be false but A is still valid.

That's a good point, but they added a whole lot of dark matter and dark energy to fix A.  95% of the universe  hobo
 
Quote:And yes, I do reject as non-scientific ideas about diodes having consciousness, unless you want to reduce 'consciousness' all the way down to mean 'ability to interact with a signal', in which case consciousness ceases to have any meaning, as every interaction can then be called a conscious one.

No, they exactly mean the diode has a subjective experience. I think it was clear in the quotations from their paper. Why non-scientific? It's published in a good scientific journal and is a well-received theory, they published a paper in 2016 in Nature reviews neuroscience (top journal in neuroscience by a large gap) and they explained some amazing predictions of the theory about the brain and consciousness. 

They can explain exactly what parts of the brain are related to consciousness and what behaviors of neurons are most related, and exactly what kind of stimulation can cause bigger differences in consciousness and so on. 

In short, they measure something they call Φ, or amount of integrated information in a system. If the parts of the system are interconnected enough (like the brain), it will have a high value of Φ. The portion of the system that gives the highest value of Φ is conscious. They analyze all the sub-sets of the conscious systems, those sub-sets that are more integrated (higher value of φ-small phi is used for concepts) form a 'concept'. These concepts together create the unified conscious experience. 

By using this scheme, they can figure out the subsystem in the brain that is responsible for consciousness (parts of the cortex). They can also explain the "intensity of consciousness" by measuring the value of Φ, during dreamless sleep it gets close to zero for example.

They also make some amazing predictions about how various concepts are formed in our neural network and how different concepts are related.

In their Nature article, they say:

Quote:Intriguingly, IIT allows for certain simple systems such as grid-like architectures, similar to topographically organized areas in the human posterior cortex, to be highly conscious even when not engaging in any intelligent behaviour. Conversely, digital computers running complex programs based on a von Neumann architecture would not be conscious, even though they may perform highly intelligent functions and simulate human cognition. 
Integrated information theory: from consciousness to its physical substrate, Nature Reviews Neuroscience volume 17, pages 450–461 (2016)

Their theory works, but it allows simple systems to be conscious as well, it doesn't mean it's non-scientific. It's just weird, like quantum mechanics or relativity. It's still not there to be a breakthrough, but some think it's getting close.
Reply

Consciousness
(04-06-2020, 03:14 AM)Hussein Wrote:
(04-05-2020, 11:35 PM)trdsf Wrote: and your conflation of concepts like 'quantum field' and 'electromagnetic field' with 'conscious EM field'
These are not conflations. The classical electromagnetic field is reformulated as a quantum field in modern theories, so they can work with it in the quantum realm. And some people have suggested the physical substrate of consciousness is the electromagnetic field, in the modern sense.
'Some people'.  I reiterate, hypothesis, and not one I am obliged to take seriously.

Quote:The big difference of modern fields is that they are fundamental, they are not 'generated' by particles like the classical ones, they simply exist, particles are nothing but ripples in these fields. So an electron is a small ripple in the electron field, the photon is a small ripple in the EM field, and we are bigger and very complex ripples or even waves in the fundamental fields:

Quote:But quanta are not particles; they are excitations of spatially unbounded fields. Photons and electrons, along with atoms, molecules, and apples, are ultimately disturbances in a few universal fields.
There are no particles, there are only fields, Art Hobson, American Journal of Physics. 81, 211 (2013); doi: 10.1119/1.4789885

Again, hypothesis.  One paper doth not a new reality make.

Quote:
Quote:I do have a problem with the idea of a "field" of "universal consciousness".
It's not a new field, it's the same as the electromagnetic field, some have introduced a 'field of consciousness' in the past, nothing scientific.
Yes, exactly, the 'field of consciousness' is nothing scientific.

Quote:And the 'universal' thing is nothing woo IMO, it needs a change of perspective to make sense. Pockett suggests the experiencer is the EM field, the content of experience are complex EM patterns caused by the brain, but the perceiver is the field. So all experiences are being perceived by the field. Philosophically, it makes sense for me, as I think more than one perceiver is inconsistent, that's one of the reasons I like this theory.
I can see my way clear to that as an idea, absent the further suggestion of universality.  In a way it's not too different from the Hofstadter idea of consciousness as an emergent property.  I just think it goes too far.  The electromagnetic field of the bioelectric currents of the brain exists, but that's a side-effect, not an active "player" (so to speak) in consciousness.

In order for there to be a single consciousness, you require the brain to be a much finer sensor of phenomena than is even theoretically possible.  You imply a connection with every other consciousness in the universe; this certainly violates Relativity.  The hard limit of c applies to any 'ripples' in an electromagnetic field as well.  Also, you ignore the problem of signal degradation.  They can just barely watch YouTube real-time on the International Space Station, and I'm supposed to share a consciousness with an alien two billion light years away?  It is nonsensical on that basis alone.

I'm also not enamored of the necessity of the 'perceiver', certainly not in the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM.  The far side of the moon is still there, even though we don't have anyone there to observe it.  It's not in some sort of superposition state awaiting a consciousness to observe it and collapse its wave function, and strays far to close to the strong anthropomorphic principle (to which I object most vehemently).  The logical conclusion of the Copenhagen Interpretation is that the universe existed in a sort of quantum haze until some sort of consciousness evolved to observe it and collapse its state, which I regard as absurd on the face of it.

I prefer the Dirac/Feynman view of an 'interpretationless' interpretation of QM, often boiled down to the phrase, "Shut up and calculate!"

Quote:
Quote:Personally, I'm inclined to Douglas Hofstadter's position that consciousness is an emergent property of the complex patterns produced by the electrical currents produced in the human brain, and that without the physical layer that is the brain, there is no abstract layer we call the mind.
That's currently a respected and popular position. 
It took me about five readings of The Mind's I to wrap my brain around it.  I love Hofstadter (Gödel, Escher, Bach made a deep and profound impact on me) but wow, he's like jolokia peppers for the brain: it burns, but it's a good burn.

Quote:
Quote:The idea of some sort of unified field of consciousness that exists unto itself strikes me as about as sensible as trying to run a Linux cluster on nothing but air molecules, and about as tenable as luminiferous æther theory.
An invisible consciousness field is an old idea, never found its way into science. The EM theories do not introduce a new field. They are talking about the same electromagnetic field. wi-fi, radio waves, microwaves, GPS, telecommunication, optical fibers, etc. they are all waves in the EM field. They suggest experiences are also patterns in this field. 

It's like running a Linux cluster on virtual machines, the medium is soft (the field) not hard (the brain).
But there's no reason to imbue EM fields with consciousness.  There are patterns in clouds and in Mandelbrot sets -- they're not conscious.

And virtual machines still require a physical layer to run on.  You can run a Linux server on a virtual machine on a virtual machine on a virtual machine if you like -- the bottom layer still requires a physical layer.  It can't be 'turtles all the way down', it always stops on a physical layer.  Even distributed computing requires the physical layer, even though the individual units change -- and all of those have to be managed at one central location, be it a single machine or a cluster.  And even decentralized distributed projects like BitCoin have no existence without a physical layer.

Quote:
Quote:Well, funny thing, B turned out to be false but A is still valid.
That's a good point, but they added a whole lot of dark matter and dark energy to fix A.  95% of the universe  hobo 
No.  Dark matter and dark energy are there to explain the new B.  And really, they're best thought of as placeholder terms.  We don't know what dark matter and dark energy are yet; those are areas of active research.  We just know there has to be something there because we can measure their effects -- the accelerating expansion.

And again, scientific theories are not propositional logic.
 
Quote:
Quote:And yes, I do reject as non-scientific ideas about diodes having consciousness, unless you want to reduce 'consciousness' all the way down to mean 'ability to interact with a signal', in which case consciousness ceases to have any meaning, as every interaction can then be called a conscious one.
No, they exactly mean the diode has a subjective experience.
.
.
.
Their theory works, but it allows simple systems to be conscious as well, it doesn't mean it's non-scientific. It's just weird, like quantum mechanics or relativity. It's still not there to be a breakthrough, but some think it's getting close.
I will await that breakthrough before taking it seriously.  A diode is a circuit element, not a circuit.  A diode passes current in one direction; no matter how many times you run current through it the other way, you'll never teach one to run current that direction.  You'll just fry diodes.

And Relativity is pretty straightforward.  So is QM, if you don't mind a little uncertainty.  The math is headache-inducing, I'll grant that.
"Aliens?  Us?  Is this one of your Earth jokes?"  -- Kro-Bar, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
The following 2 users Like trdsf's post:
  • Hussein, Cavebear
Reply

Consciousness
(04-06-2020, 08:56 AM)trdsf Wrote: 'Some people'.  I reiterate, hypothesis, and not one I am obliged to take seriously.

It's more than a hypothesis because they explain a limited range of observations using their EM theory and make some falsifiable predictions. I would say, it's immature, and certainly not an established theory.  

This is what they say about their own theory:

Quote:McFadden acknowledges that his theory—which he calls the "cemi field theory"—is far from proven but he argues that it is certainly a legitimate line of scientific inquiry. His article underwent peer review before publication.
Wikipedia

And yes, you are not rationally obliged to accept this position, you are welcome to maintain your emergentist understanding or don't accept any positions at all since the subject is far from being settled.

My objection, however, is to your denial of such theories. You can't simply deny a theory because it has unexpected and nonmainstream implications. You need more than that to reject a theory, for example, by offering an alternative theory that makes better predictions. "nothing but woo" does not falsify a theory and is disregard of science. 

Quote:
Quote:But quanta are not particles; they are excitations of spatially unbounded fields. Photons and electrons, along with atoms, molecules, and apples, are ultimately disturbances in a few universal fields.
There are no particles, there are only fields, Art Hobson, American Journal of Physics. 81, 211 (2013); doi: 10.1119/1.4789885

Again, hypothesis.  One paper doth not a new reality make.

No, certainly not "just a hypothesis". With the latest discovery of Higgs boson, quantum field theory is our state of the art standard. The peak of accuracy and elegance in science. They can't unify gravity with other fields, so it's certainly not the final station, but that's the best thing we have.

So I think anyone is rationally obliged to accept consequences of quantum field theory: Unbounded fields are fundamental to reality, not bounded objects or particles. In Hobson's words, all objects are "ultimately disturbances in a few universal fields". The physical is no longer solid, bounded objects. The physical is a few universal fields. Newtonian conceptions of reality must be abandoned. 

Quote:Unruh Effect

Quantum field theory predicts that an accelerating observer in vacuum sees quanta that are not there for an inertial observer of the same vacuum. More concretely, consider Mort who moves at constant velocity in Minkowski space-time, and Velma who is uniformly accelerating. If Mort finds himself in the quantum vacuum, Velma finds herself bathed in quanta---her “particle” detector clicks. 

If particles form the basic reality, how can they be present for the accelerating Velma but absent for the nonaccelerating Mort who observes the same space-time region? But if fields are basic, things fall into place: Both experience the same field, but Velma's acceleration promotes Mort's vacuum fluctuations to the level of thermal fluctuations. The same field is present for both observers, but an accelerated observer views it differently. 
There are no particles, there are only fields, Art Hobson, American Journal of Physics. 81, 211 (2013); doi: 10.1119/1.4789885

Yes, particles or quanta or localized objects, in general, are observer dependant, an inertial observer will see no particles in vacuum, and an accelerating observer can find himself in a sea of particles. The real stuff is the fields.

It seems the Unruh effect has been experimentally observed.

On a side note, there is no absolute vacuum, there are always small quantum fluctuations in the fields (quite like the very small waves on the surface of a calm sea), but not with enough energy to give rise to particles, so we can't observe anything in a vacuum. An accelerating observer sees those quantum fluctuations stronger relative to himself, to the extent that he starts to see particles. While the stationary observer does not see any particles at all. So it seems particles do not have observer-independent existence. 

Quote:I can see my way clear to that as an idea, absent the further suggestion of universality.  In a way it's not too different from the Hofstadter idea of consciousness as an emergent property.  I just think it goes too far.  The electromagnetic field of the bioelectric currents of the brain exists, but that's a side-effect, not an active "player" (so to speak) in consciousness.

Yes, that's the main difference. EM theories regard those 'side-effects' as the actual substrate of consciousness. From that perspective, the brain is the stone that you throw into the water, the patterns on the surface of the water is the experience. If you can create those patterns with any other means, without a brain, you would have the same experience. 

Quote:They can just barely watch YouTube real-time on the International Space Station, and I'm supposed to share a consciousness with an alien two billion light years away?  It is nonsensical on that basis alone.

Yes, you are right, the principle of locality does not allow it. But that's not what the EM theory says, you draw some circles (individual experiences) on an unbounded paper (EM field), those circles are discrete and locality does not allow them to be unified, so individual experiences remain local.

If, as you believe and Hofstadter says, consciousness is an emergent property of circles, consciousness would also be local and universal consciousness wouldn't be possible,  

But if the EM theory is right and our experiences are patterns in the EM field, consciousness would be the underlying paper, NOT a property of circles, so it can be said the unbounded paper itself is conscious and is experiencing all the circles, in this perspective, there is no need for the circles to be informed about each other and universal consciousness doesn't violate relativity.

Quote:The logical conclusion of the Copenhagen Interpretation is that the universe existed in a sort of quantum haze until some sort of consciousness evolved to observe it and collapse its state, which I regard as absurd on the face of it.

I also think those are pseudoscientific fantasies. 

Quote:I prefer the Dirac/Feynman view of an 'interpretationless' interpretation of QM, often boiled down to the phrase, "Shut up and calculate!"

That's a reasonable line of thinking. Mysteries tend to be understood as we progress. I think the measurement problem and the unknown nature of collapse will be known in the natural course of science, subjectivistic interpretations are not necessary. 

Quote:It took me about five readings of The Mind's I to wrap my brain around it.  I love Hofstadter (Gödel, Escher, Bach made a deep and profound impact on me) but wow, he's like jolokia peppers for the brain: it burns, but it's a good burn.

I respect the polymath, but ultimately he doesn't give a clear answer to the question of "who am I?", "I'm a strange loop" is not my answer. You seem to be more familiar with his works, do you think he gives a sufficient answer to that question?

Quote:But there's no reason to imbue EM fields with consciousness.  There are patterns in clouds and in Mandelbrot sets -- they're not conscious..  

No, EM consciousness theories are not unsubstantiated as you seem to think, our experience is demonstrated to be highly correlated with EM fields, there is a bunch of evidence that external EM fields affect our experience, they use it to cure people for example. You can say the external EM field affects the neurons and in turn, they affect consciousness, it's just a matter of how you interpret the evidence, still, there is not enough evidence to differentiate the theories. 

Quote:And again, scientific theories are not propositional logic.

They certainly are not, but if you reject the implication of a theory you must have evidence against it, like the observation of accelerating expansion of the universe that rejected the initial implication of the big bang theory. Do you have any evidence against panpsychism or universal consciousness?

Quote:A diode is a circuit element, not a circuit.  A diode passes current in one direction; no matter how many times you run current through it the other way, you'll never teach one to run current that direction.  You'll just fry diodes

It's a photodiode, it receives inputs from outside (light), when there is enough light, it produces current. You can see the minimally conscious system below. 


[Image: REUI4Nj.jpg]
Figure 19. Quantity and quality of experience of a “minimally conscious” photodiode.

(A) The minimally conscious photodiode DP consists of detector element D and predictor element PD receives two external inputs and has a threshold ≥2. All connections have weight 1. (B) P serves as a memory for the previous state of D and its feed-back to D serves as a predictor of the next external input by effectively decreasing the threshold of D. ( C ) The MICS specified by the minimally conscious photodiode. D and P both specify a first order concept about the other element. (D) A minimally conscious thermistor or a minimally conscious blue detector with the same internal mechanisms as the minimally conscious photodiode generate the same MICS and therefore have the same minimal experience.

From the Phenomenology to the Mechanisms of Consciousness: Integrated Information Theory 3.0, Masafumi Oizumi et al, PLOS Computational Biology 2014
Reply

Consciousness
@Hussein

Do you realize that mechanical and chemical reactions are not the same as conscious reactions? Do you understand that evolved unconscious mechanisms can process information without consciousness being involved, even in human brains?

Considering a photodiode potentially conscious is similar to thinking a thermostat might be conscious. Yes, you have a mechanical object responding to external conditions in such a way as to process information, but they are both designed and interpreted by humans. They don't do the interpreting themselves. For instance, if it's too hot in my living room, I set the thermostat lower. I am having the subjective state of being too hot, not the thermostat. The thermostat would "happily" keep the furnace running when it's too hot.

The difference between conscious and unconscious/chemical/mechanical processes is more subtle than that. Yes, scientists still argue about such ideas, but how likely is it that a thermostat is conscious? If you define "consciousness" so that such things are conscious, then we need another word to discriminate between that and what humans have.
The following 2 users Like Alan V's post:
  • Mark, Cavebear
Reply

Consciousness
(04-08-2020, 01:41 PM)Alan V Wrote: @Hussein

Do you realize that mechanical and chemical reactions are not the same as conscious reactions?  Do you understand that evolved unconscious mechanisms can process information without consciousness being involved, even in human brains?  

Yes exactly, IIT also predicts non-conscious systems are capable of complex information processing. In fact, according to IIT, we can emulate human behavior using a non-conscious system. But we can have very simple conscious systems, without any intelligent behavior.

Quote:Considering a photodiode potentially conscious is similar to thinking a thermostat might be conscious.  Yes, you have a mechanical object responding to external conditions in such a way as to process information, but they are both designed and interpreted by humans.  They don't do the interpreting themselves.  For instance, if it's too hot in my living room, I set the thermostat lower.  I am having the subjective state of being too hot, not the thermostat.  The thermostat would "happily" keep the furnace running when it's too hot.

I think you are talking about environmental awareness, according to IIT, consciousness is irrelevant to environmental awareness. Completely isolated systems (without any inputs from the environment) can be highly conscious without preforming any intelligent behavior. Consciousness is defined as having qualia or subjective experiences. 

Again this is all according to IIT, not my understanding, I don't advocate the theory, however, I don't think the theory can be rejected on objective grounds. If you think it can be rejected, I would be interested to know why.

According to IIT, the photodiode does not interpret the light, it has no understanding of light. It is only capable of experiencing a single quality:

Quote:In all the above cases, the experience might be described roughly as ‘‘it is like this rather than not like this’’, with no further qualifications.

"this" is the only quality that the photodiode experiences, from our wider perspective, it's the electrical current being generated by the photodiode. 

Again I think you might need to consider IIT does not define consciousness in terms of intelligent behavior or environmental awareness, it's only about subjective experiences.

Quote:The difference between conscious and unconscious/chemical/mechanical processes is more subtle than that.  Yes, scientists still argue about such ideas, but how likely is it that a thermostat is conscious?

Consciousness is having subjective experiences/qualia, I think this definition is reasonable and consciousness should not be conflated with awareness. According to this definition, consciousness has nothing to do with demonstrating complex and intelligent behaviors. 

So I don't see any reason to believe the nature of consciousness in humans must be essentially different from possible consciousness in simple systems. 

Quote: If you define "consciousness" so that such things are conscious, then we need another word to discriminate between that and what humans have.

We have, environmental awareness and intelligence are adequate terms to discriminate humans from possible simple conscious systems.

I think IIT is interesting, but I do not advocate it, so please do not take it as my personal opinion. I'm trying to present what I understand from a very interesting theory that makes amazing predictions about consciousness and the human brain. Also, it might be interesting for atheists in particular, because it provides a theoretical framework to objectively explore panpsychism.
Reply

Consciousness
(04-08-2020, 12:05 PM)Hussein Wrote:
(04-06-2020, 08:56 AM)trdsf Wrote: 'Some people'.  I reiterate, hypothesis, and not one I am obliged to take seriously.
It's more than a hypothesis because they explain a limited range of observations using their EM theory and make some falsifiable predictions. I would say, it's immature, and certainly not an established theory.
And this is my point exactly.  If it's not established theory, it's a hypothesis, a proposal, a conjecture, take your pick.

Quote:And yes, you are not rationally obliged to accept this position, you are welcome to maintain your emergentist understanding or don't accept any positions at all since the subject is far from being settled.

My objection, however, is to your denial of such theories. You can't simply deny a theory because it has unexpected and nonmainstream implications. You need more than that to reject a theory, for example, by offering an alternative theory that makes better predictions. "nothing but woo" does not falsify a theory and is disregard of science.
Until such a proposal is demonstrated, I can reject a hypothesis for any reason I choose, and it is perfectly legitimate to do so.  I may not dismiss observations that have been confirmed, but I can dismiss conjecture for any reason I like.

Quote:No, certainly not "just a hypothesis". With the latest discovery of Higgs boson, quantum field theory is our state of the art standard. The peak of accuracy and elegance in science. They can't unify gravity with other fields, so it's certainly not the final station, but that's the best thing we have.

So I think anyone is rationally obliged to accept consequences of quantum field theory: Unbounded fields are fundamental to reality, not bounded objects or particles. In Hobson's words, all objects are "ultimately disturbances in a few universal fields". The physical is no longer solid, bounded objects. The physical is a few universal fields. Newtonian conceptions of reality must be abandoned.
Newtonian 'reality' was abandoned over 100 years ago with the advent of General Relativity -- but Newtonian physics is still good enough that it can get you to the moon and beyond.  But while Newtonian physics is enough to put a GPS satellite into orbit, you can't make it work without relativity.

And again, you're quoting Hobson as if he's the final word on the matter.  You really need to back off on treating this as the theoretical model rather than a theoretical model.  As you have admitted, it's not a settled matter.

This is really my core objection to your position: you appear to believe that this is the only model that is worth taking seriously and can't seem to accept that not everyone agrees.

You've already said that the field approach appeals to you philosophically.  Why are you so surprised that other people with other philosophies draw other conclusions for perfectly valid reasons?

I don't really care what you believe.  I only care when you expect me to believe it too, for your reasons rather than my reasons.  Bluntly put, your reasons aren't good enough for me.  It strikes me that you have latched on to this proposal because it lines up with what you want to believe about the universe.  That's fine, that's your decision to make.  Myself, I expect that observable phenomena will ultimately have an explanation based in physical reality, and until that comes along, I vastly prefer "I don't know" to "Well, it might be this".  If it is ever the case that a conscious free-floating field is demonstrated, I will accept that as part of physical reality.  Until then, I am under precisely zero obligation to take it seriously.

True story here: I have been fascinated by astronomy, cosmology, the universe literally for as long as I can remember.  When I was quite young (late 60s), the popular science books geared for children treated Big Bang theory and Steady State theory as rival theories of the universe -- it actually had been more or less settled in favor of the Big Bang by then, but that hadn't quite filtered down to children's science books.  As it happened, I preferred Steady State theory because it seemed simpler, more elegant, and made more "sense" than 'everything' coming out of 'nothing'.

And I can remember my reaction when I finally read something that explained the Penzias and Wilson observation and how that confirmed Big Bang theory.

I was a little disappointed to be wrong, but I was much happier to know the right answer.

So I'm perfectly willing to change my mind, but it's going to require confirmed observations, and this idea of a 'universal consciousness', again, has none.  All it is, is looking at a couple observations, and saying, "Well, it might be this."  That's not a theory.  That's a conjecture.  You're free to take it seriously if you like.  I am under no obligation to.

Quote:On a side note, there is no absolute vacuum, there are always small quantum fluctuations in the fields (quite like the very small waves on the surface of a calm sea), but not with enough energy to give rise to particles, so we can't observe anything in a vacuum. An accelerating observer sees those quantum fluctuations stronger relative to himself, to the extent that he starts to see particles. While the stationary observer does not see any particles at all. So it seems particles do not have observer-independent existence.
We already know that an accelerating observer observes things differently than a (relatively) stationary one.  That's fundamental to General Relativity.  All that implies is that there's a different frame of reference for the observer, not that there's anything special about the observer per se.

Quote:
Quote:I can see my way clear to that as an idea, absent the further suggestion of universality.  In a way it's not too different from the Hofstadter idea of consciousness as an emergent property.  I just think it goes too far.  The electromagnetic field of the bioelectric currents of the brain exists, but that's a side-effect, not an active "player" (so to speak) in consciousness.
Yes, that's the main difference. EM theories regard those 'side-effects' as the actual substrate of consciousness. From that perspective, the brain is the stone that you throw into the water, the patterns on the surface of the water is the experience. If you can create those patterns with any other means, without a brain, you would have the same experience.
That is one monumental if, and that is a limb out upon which I do not go.  There is no known process that will support the kind of complexity that appears to be required for consciousness without a physical substrate upon which it can operate.  Even virtual machines have to have a physical layer somewhere; you can't run a Beowulf cluster on an electromagnetic field.

Quote:
Quote:They can just barely watch YouTube real-time on the International Space Station, and I'm supposed to share a consciousness with an alien two billion light years away?  It is nonsensical on that basis alone.
Yes, you are right, the principle of locality does not allow it. But that's not what the EM theory says, you draw some circles (individual experiences) on an unbounded paper (EM field), those circles are discrete and locality does not allow them to be unified, so individual experiences remain local.

If, as you believe and Hofstadter says, consciousness is an emergent property of circles, consciousness would also be local and universal consciousness wouldn't be possible,  

But if the EM theory is right and our experiences are patterns in the EM field, consciousness would be the underlying paper, NOT a property of circles, so it can be said the unbounded paper itself is conscious and is experiencing all the circles, in this perspective, there is no need for the circles to be informed about each other and universal consciousness doesn't violate relativity.
Again, another monumental if, and one I have no reason to accept even provisionally; I genuinely don't care what the EM hypothesis says until there are some concrete demonstrations.  We have evidence of fields and we have evidence of consciousness.  We do not have evidence of conscious fields, period.

Quote:
Quote:I prefer the Dirac/Feynman view of an 'interpretationless' interpretation of QM, often boiled down to the phrase, "Shut up and calculate!"
That's a reasonable line of thinking. Mysteries tend to be understood as we progress. I think the measurement problem and the unknown nature of collapse will be known in the natural course of science, subjectivistic interpretations are not necessary.
There, we can agree.  The goal in scientific research is to approximate objectivity as best as possible -- as much as possible, a scientist should poke his or her own 'I' out.  Wink

Quote:
Quote:It took me about five readings of The Mind's I to wrap my brain around it.  I love Hofstadter (Gödel, Escher, Bach made a deep and profound impact on me) but wow, he's like jolokia peppers for the brain: it burns, but it's a good burn.
I respect the polymath, but ultimately he doesn't give a clear answer to the question of "who am I?", "I'm a strange loop" is not my answer. You seem to be more familiar with his works, do you think he gives a sufficient answer to that question?
It is an answer, but I can see where someone might not consider it a satisfying one.  I'm not entirely sure how satisfied I myself am with it, but it seems reasonable to me on the basis of not trying to add things that aren't explained physically at some level.  Simply put, it's an open question and an active field of research.

And personally, I'm just fine with "We don't know yet" as an answer.  That's what drives research in the first place.  If I had to describe scientific inquiry in one sentence, it would be "I don't know; let's find out."

Quote:
Quote:But there's no reason to imbue EM fields with consciousness.  There are patterns in clouds and in Mandelbrot sets -- they're not conscious.
No, EM consciousness theories are not unsubstantiated as you seem to think, our experience is demonstrated to be highly correlated with EM fields, there is a bunch of evidence that external EM fields affect our experience, they use it to cure people for example. You can say the external EM field affects the neurons and in turn, they affect consciousness, it's just a matter of how you interpret the evidence, still, there is not enough evidence to differentiate the theories.
Of course an external electromagnetic field affects the brain, the brain is in part a bioelectric system, and we know that a) electric currents generate magnetic fields and b) moving magnetic fields generate electric currents.  But that's a purely physical process.  The intelligence is in the technician conducting (for example) transcranial magnetic stimulation, not in the device physically generating the magnetic field.

Quote:
Quote:And again, scientific theories are not propositional logic.
They certainly are not, but if you reject the implication of a theory you must have evidence against it, like the observation of accelerating expansion of the universe that rejected the initial implication of the big bang theory. Do you have any evidence against panpsychism or universal consciousness?
False.  You need to prove your position, not require me to disprove it.  That's called 'shifting the burden of proof'.  Also, you're still trying to treat scientific theory as propositional logic and as you just admitted, they are not.  Also also, you're still conflating theory with hypothesis and conjecture.  The conclusion 'universal intelligence' is not supported by the evidence, it is merely conjectural.

Quote:
Quote:A diode is a circuit element, not a circuit.  A diode passes current in one direction; no matter how many times you run current through it the other way, you'll never teach one to run current that direction.  You'll just fry diodes
It's a photodiode, it receives inputs from outside (light), when there is enough light, it produces current. You can see the minimally conscious system below.
No, and no, and no.  The photodiode is reacting in a purely physical manner.  Put in light of x candela, generate y volts.  The photoelectric effect is a well-understood phenomenon.

And again, try running current backwards through a diode and all you'll do is fry diodes.  You'll never teach one to handle current going the wrong way.
"Aliens?  Us?  Is this one of your Earth jokes?"  -- Kro-Bar, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
The following 2 users Like trdsf's post:
  • Hussein, Alan V
Reply

Consciousness
(04-08-2020, 01:41 PM)Alan V Wrote: Do you understand that evolved unconscious mechanisms can process information without consciousness being involved, even in human brains?


There is an unfortunate confusion of attributes which fall under "consciousness".  If we ask "is the patient conscious" we mean something like "are they in a waking state"?  But there are aspects of consciousness going on also when we sleep, and we tend not to be aware of those .  In common speech I could have said "tend not to be conscious of those" at the end of the last sentence, and that further exemplifies the division of consciousness between states in which we are aware and others in which we are not.  At that point one might want to ask who the "we" is that is aware, and if there is some sort of awareness going, whose is it if it is not the person said to be asleep.

The other aspect of consciousness mentioned is that of "information processing" which is a capacity shared by people, dogs, other animals, thermostats and computers.  But it is interesting to note that information can be processed by human consciousness both with and without awareness.  We may take a consciously aware interest in the processing of information, but much more is always being processed outside of anything we are aware of.  In fact, unlike the information which may get processed in a thermostat or a computer, information can be evaluated for urgency and relevance to us in the processing that takes place within human consciousness but absent our awareness.  I think that is where AI and human consciousness must part company.
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
The following 1 user Likes Mark's post:
  • Alan V
Reply

Consciousness
(04-08-2020, 03:59 PM)trdsf Wrote: I don't really care what you believe.  I only care when you expect me to believe it too, for your reasons rather than my reasons.  Bluntly put, your reasons aren't good enough for me.  It strikes me that you have latched on to this proposal because it lines up with what you want to believe about the universe.  That's fine, that's your decision to make.  Myself, I expect that observable phenomena will ultimately have an explanation based in physical reality, and until that comes along, I vastly prefer "I don't know" to "Well, it might be this".  If it is ever the case that a conscious free-floating field is demonstrated, I will accept that as part of physical reality.  Until then, I am under precisely zero obligation to take it seriously.

Panpsychism is decidedly not parsimonious.  About the only thing it has going for it, that I can see, is its appeal to reductionists, and I'm not a reductionist.  But even then, you have to reify consciousness to take panpsychism seriously.  If you see consciousness as an emergent property of certain complex, evolved biological systems, rather than as some basic substance, there's no reason to go there.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)