proto-consciousness field theory

[Belz...]

Get over yourself. Nobody is angry at you. You haven't said anything of substance to get angry at.

We're just as always perplexed by someone who says... nothing and acts as if they're Mister Miyagi.

It's worse than nothing. It's actively wrong and deliberately muddles any discussion on the topic. Baron's argument is a net negative on the issue of consciousness.

 

[Belz...]

You know, ancient philosophers had an exactly analogous problem with candle flames. A candle flame is obviously a thing. It's visible, tangibly real, persistent, has properties (hot, bright), and even has (on close examination) distinct component parts.

But its apprehension as a thing raised some questions. Most particularly, where did it go when you blew the candle out, and where did it come from when the spark was struck to light it up?

The answer they came up with was that elemental fire, which is what they theorized the candle flame is primarily made of, was not just a kind of substance. Like their other four elements, it was also a pervasive ambient presence. That presence was not so much a parallel plane of existence filled with fire; it was more like a direction of movement, emanating (in fire's case) from the south. In any case, lighting the candle brought the elemental fire making up the flame into visible manifestation. Blowing it out did not end the flame's existence; it merely dismissed it to its invisible ambient state.

If they were using our style of phrasings, they would have said that the candle flame is a fluctuation in the universal proto-fire field.

Yeah, turns out it was just superheated, glowing soot. No need for a special force or field.

 

[baron]

It's not anger to point out the inconsistencies in your argument.

Your objection to my suggestion has now been walked back, by you. Therefore, it ceases to be an effective suggestion. That's not a straw man, that's a consequence of YOUR words. If those words were in error, then clarify. You won't, because you are unable to admit to making mistakes, being ignorant or losing an argument.

But I think it's clear to anyone reading this thread that, since you've now admitted that objects taking actions are actual things with consequences in reality, your objection to the idea that a brain engaging in processing could possibly be the nature of consciousness evaporates. It follows then that you should either concede that it's possible, or come up with another objection.

Exactly. That's why I'm no longer interested in repeating the same argument I've posted dozens of times. I haven't walked back on anything, you have simply failed to understand what I've been saying and I suspect you haven't tried.

 

[Belz...]

Exactly. That's why I'm no longer interested in repeating the same argument I've posted dozens of times. I haven't walked back on anything, you have simply failed to understand what I've been saying and I suspect you haven't tried.

"I'm sorry, Belz..., I'd rather not answer your question as that would necessarily lead to me admitting that I'm wrong."

It doesn't matter what excuse you use. That's how I read it. Fine, don't answer. I'll let the peanut gallery make up their mind.

 

[Minoosh]

Well that's the problem. People half understand a layman's pop culture version of a complicated scientific idea and try to apply to Woo. It's called Deepak Chopraing.

Oh I can assure you, my ignorance goes way further than "half understanding." You're being almost infinitely generous.

"In quantum mechanics light exhibits the properties of both a particle and a wave" is a true statement.

"Therefore I have a soul that exists but turns magically invisible whenever big mean science looks for it because it's both a thing and not a thing because of quantum" is not.

And this appears to me to be a straw man. Maybe it isn't a straw man, but it would take much forbearance on my part to analyze the back-and-forth in this thread. Time better spent earning my doctorate in particle physics.

But that's not accurate. The nature of the wave function is pretty well understood.

Not by me.

The two major interpretations of QM are a) that the wave function collapses upon observation to produce what we call particles, and b) that the wave function never collapses and instead continues as a wave potential in Hilbert space. Neither one of these explanations involves confusions of terms, or a free-for all regarding definitions.

A vaguely remembered New Yorker article:

Dream Machine
The mind-expanding world of quantum computing

When I asked him what he thought of Many Worlds and of “collapse” interpretations—in which “looking” provokes a shift from an entangled to an unentangled state—he said, “I have an alternate language which I prefer in describing quantum mechanics, which is that it should really be called Collapse of the Physicist.”

I'm not kidding when I say that these types of conversations became extremely toxic to me for personal reasons. I can observe the interactions on this thread without needing to take a side. There are probably tons of things I disagree with baron on, but on this particular thread his statements have seemed pretty mild to me. He's defending a hypothesis that is being kicked around in places significantly higher than this thread/forum.

I don't have a dog that lives in the same ZIP (postal) code as this fight.

 

[baron]

Not by me.

Not by me either, or indeed anybody who doesn't know the maths, but that's from what I've read of the 'layman's' explanation.

A vaguely remembered New Yorker article:

Dream Machine
The mind-expanding world of quantum computing

Deutsch's 'The Fabric of Reality' is one of the first books of that type I ever bought. It's right here on my bookcase as I type this, a really good read.

I'm not kidding when I say that these types of conversations became extremely toxic to me for personal reasons. I can observe the interactions on this thread without needing to take a side. There are probably tons of things I disagree with baron on, but on this particular thread his statements have seemed pretty mild to me. He's defending a hypothesis that is being kicked around in places significantly higher than this thread/forum.

Indeed. Science as a whole embraces hypotheses far stranger than this, the Many Worlds Theory (which Sean Carroll believes is almost certain to be true) and the Holographic Universe to name but two.

 

[Minoosh]

Not by me either, or indeed anybody who doesn't know the maths, but that's from what I've read of the 'layman's' explanation.

It's a genuine frustration to me that I don't have the maths background to look at this coherently. Realistically, I am probably never going to truly be able to judge for myself.

Indeed. Science as a whole embraces hypotheses far stranger than this, the Many Worlds Theory (which Sean Carroll believes is almost certain to be true) and the Holographic Universe to name but two.

Even if I understood the topic well enough to engage intelligently on a layman's forum, my knowledge would very swiftly become ignorance as more became known. At this point there isn't much that I would rule out. IMO, language-based rhetoric is a clumsy tool for seeking to determine and/or discuss the nature of reality.

 

[baron]

It's a genuine frustration to me that I don't have the maths background to look at this coherently. Realistically, I am probably never going to truly be able to judge for myself.

Even if I understood the topic well enough to engage intelligently on a layman's forum, my knowledge would very swiftly become ignorance as more became known. At this point there isn't much that I would rule out. IMO, language-based rhetoric is a clumsy tool for seeking to determine and/or discuss the nature of reality.

Which is why words should be taken in the spirit intended and not used as weapons to produce gotchas. Carroll, who I do criticise for his denial of the possibility of further major discoveries that influence our 'everyday' experience, does actually cut through the linguistic BS quite effectively. One thing he said that I still remember is (paraphrased), "You've no doubt heard that light can be seen as a wave and a particle, and asked yourself how can this possibly be, and why don't we know the answer? Don't worry, we do know the answer. It's a wave."

 

[Minoosh]

There "could be room", of course, but the examples Penrose gives are not evidence for human abilities that go beyond anything that could be accomplished by a sufficiently powerful computing device. Penrose gives examples of problems that are algorithmically undecidable, and then acts as though there is some reason to think humans are capable of deciding the problem.

Well, don't go by my paraphrase. There's a link to a video embedded in the OP article. My examples may outdated. That video may be outdated.

The article, maddeningly, says Penrose is a "supporter" of panpsychism, then says that he "doesn't go so far as to call himself a panpsychist." Leaving it pretty hard to understand his view.

I had a longer answer that disappeared; I watched a couple of more videos and got the impression that Sir Roger doesn't mind if he turns out to be wrong. He also seems fairly modest in his speculations, and comes off as sane and humble.

 

[Roboramma]

Again, I can only suggest you watch the video.

I haven't watched your video (my fault, I can't access youtube), but it's interesting that you bring Sean Carroll into this given that he certainly takes seriously both the "proto-consciousness" idea, as well as the hard problem.

He's had guests on his podcast recently discussing both and while he isn't a subscriber to the former idea, he also doesn't dismiss it entirely (he agreed that his objections were overcome by his guest), and he does accept that the hard problem exists.

I'm not suggesting that you should agree with those things just because Sean does, only that his viewpoint might suggest that neither is obvious nonsense. Of course they might still be nonsense, but they're not overcome by the arguments of Sean Carroll's that you present, given that even he doesn't think those arguments do away with either viewpoint.

 

[Roboramma]

You know, ancient philosophers had an exactly analogous problem with candle flames. A candle flame is obviously a thing. It's visible, tangibly real, persistent, has properties (hot, bright), and even has (on close examination) distinct component parts.

But its apprehension as a thing raised some questions. Most particularly, where did it go when you blew the candle out, and where did it come from when the spark was struck to light it up?

The answer they came up with was that elemental fire, which is what they theorized the candle flame is primarily made of, was not just a kind of substance. Like their other four elements, it was also a pervasive ambient presence. That presence was not so much a parallel plane of existence filled with fire; it was more like a direction of movement, emanating (in fire's case) from the south. In any case, lighting the candle brought the elemental fire making up the flame into visible manifestation. Blowing it out did not end the flame's existence; it merely dismissed it to its invisible ambient state.

If they were using our style of phrasings, they would have said that the candle flame is a fluctuation in the universal proto-fire field.

That's pretty interesting, do you have any references for it?

I think that we generally do tend to be confused by the nature of processes as opposed to things, and so to the extent that consciousness is a process it makes sense that it's been difficult for humans to understand.

On the other hand the fact that there's something that seems analogous that the ancients were wrong about doesn't show that we actually are analogously wrong about consciousness.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, I'm answering your question.

You asked, "How are you defining "complexity" and "intensity"?" I said the same as you are. After a couple more posts you asked how I would quantify them. I said, the same as you.

In other words, I am speaking English, you are speaking English, therefore unless there is evidence to the contrary we can assume our understanding of everyday English words is the same.

My understanding of them is that they are imprecise terms - something that you agreed with. My understanding of them is that there is no way to quantify them without the imposition of extra parameters (e.g. what I suggested a few posts ago) - something that you also claim to agree with, although you did so without first actually ascertaining what my opinion on the matter was.

So if you truly agree with me that they are not scientific terms that are not sufficient for quantification, then you will understand that they are inadequate to describe what you are attempting to describe with them.

This is why I've asked you for how you would quantify those terms, especially as we are talking about something that is supposedly a scientific matter. What qualities would something need to possess in order for you to consider it to have more complex data processing than another thing in the sense that would mean it had a higher degree of consciousness? What qualities would something need to possess in order for you to consider it to have more intense data processing than another thing in the sense that would mean it had a higher degree of consciousness?

If you can't answer these questions, then you are admitting that you don't really know what you mean by these terms.

 

[baron]

My understanding of them is that they are imprecise terms - something that you agreed with. My understanding of them is that there is no way to quantify them without the imposition of extra parameters (e.g. what I suggested a few posts ago) - something that you also claim to agree with, although you did so without first actually ascertaining what my opinion on the matter was.

So if you truly agree with me that they are not scientific terms that are not sufficient for quantification, then you will understand that they are inadequate to describe what you are attempting to describe with them.

To deal with the science we need to do the maths. I can't do the maths. Can you? Well then, that's why we're talking at a high level; a layman's interpretation.

Attempting to use English as a precise scientific language is an exercise in futility.

This is why I've asked you for how you would quantify those terms, especially as we are talking about something that is supposedly a scientific matter. What qualities would something need to possess in order for you to consider it to have more complex data processing than another thing in the sense that would mean it had a higher degree of consciousness? What qualities would something need to possess in order for you to consider it to have more intense data processing than another thing in the sense that would mean it had a higher degree of consciousness?

If you can't answer these questions, then you are admitting that you don't really know what you mean by these terms.

You know exactly what I mean. If I asked you to list the data processing in order of complexity that goes on inside a) a rock b) a plant c) a human brain you wouldn't have any trouble doing it. All you need to do is take the thinking you applied to that problem and apply it to my hypothesis.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You know exactly what I mean.

No, I don't. That's why I'm asking.

I've asked you what you mean by "complexity". I've asked you for specifics - more than once. The best you've been able to come up with as a reply is "you know...complexity". Ditto for "intensity".

You can understand how this is not a convincing argument that you actually know what you mean by these terms.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Although this question was addressed to Squeegee Beckenheim, I'm going to answer it.

To deal with the science we need to do the maths. I can't do the maths. Can you?

Yes.

In the United States, however, we usually say "math" instead of "maths", as in

You can click on a university name to get to its math department's website.

Well then, that's why we're talking at a high level; a layman's interpretation.

Attempting to use English as a precise scientific language is an exercise in futility.

I guess that explains it.

 

[baron]

No, I don't. That's why I'm asking.

I've asked you what you mean by "complexity". I've asked you for specifics - more than once. The best you've been able to come up with as a reply is "you know...complexity". Ditto for "intensity".

You can understand how this is not a convincing argument that you actually know what you mean by these terms.

I understand the terms. You don't. Your problem.

Although this question was addressed to Squeegee Beckenheim, I'm going to answer it.

Yes.

Then stop bragging and do it.

In the United States, however, we usually say "math" instead of "maths", as in

And why would you imagine that's news to me, or of any relevance? If I lived in the US I would use the term 'math'. I live in the UK so I use the term 'maths'.

I guess that explains it.

What would it explain? Your irrelevant and incorrect assumptions? I think you need to look closer to home for that.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

What would it explain? Your irrelevant and incorrect assumptions?

The futility, of course. Did you not read your own post?

 

[baron]

The futility, of course. Did you not read your own post?

I'm still waiting for you to post and explain the maths you were boasting about. Why are you doing what you yourself claim to be futile?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I'm still waiting for you to post and explain the maths you were boasting about.

I guess you're referring to my response to Minoosh. Which part did you fail to understand?

Why are you doing what you yourself claim to be futile?

The claim was yours. It explained the fact. I acknowledged the adequacy of your explanation.

 

[baron]

I guess you're referring to my response to Minoosh.

Er, no, I don't know why you would assume that. I'm referring to my exchange with Squeegee Beckenheim where I said neither of us can do the maths and you jumped in and said, "I can!"

I presumed you said that for a reason and you were about to reveal something relevant. Apparently I was wrong, as all you did was make a correction to my English that turned out to be erroneous.