proto-consciousness field theory

[Dr.Sid]

I like it. If anything it will delay onset of true AI, and we need that. I mean it will be fun to watch, but I still have some plans for the future.

 

[Minoosh]

More like approaching three thousand years as opposed to decades.

But 3,000 years ago nobody brought quantum physics into the mix, did they?

I've seen "reasoning" along the lines of, "consciousness is weird, QM is weird, therefore consciousness must have something to do with QM." A few of these folks know what they are talking about, but a lot more just think it's kinda groovy.

Was anyone 3,000 years ago saying that consciousness was built into space-time? Maybe they were.

 

[Minoosh]

This topic led me to look up someone closely associated with these theories, and I found out he still doesn't have a clue about personal relationships.

That kind of made my day but it has little to do with the actual merits of the theory.

ETA: Having spent time around this crowd, I'm still pretty sure that many spout feel-good nonsense that does not really hold up to further examination. But, I could easily be wrong.

 

[baron]

But 3,000 years ago nobody brought quantum physics into the mix, did they?

I've seen "reasoning" along the lines of, "consciousness is weird, QM is weird, therefore consciousness must have something to do with QM." A few of these folks know what they are talking about, but a lot more just think it's kinda groovy.

Was anyone 3,000 years ago saying that consciousness was built into space-time? Maybe they were.

They were indeed.

https://www.lionsroar.com/christof-koch-unites-buddhist-neuroscience-universal-nature-mind/

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's easier to think of consciousness to exist on a spectrum, instead of having to draw an clear line linked to specific attributes.
But the obvious consequences is that you can't draw the line anywhere, which means that even inanimate matter must some have some "consciousness" quality to it.

It sounds a lot extrapolation from spotting knowledge.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It's easier to think of consciousness to exist on a spectrum, instead of having to draw an clear line linked to specific attributes.
But the obvious consequences is that you can't draw the line anywhere, which means that even inanimate matter must some have some "consciousness" quality to it.

I'm not sure how true that is. There's a lot of fuzzy edges in science, and yet lines are still drawn. The fact that ring species exist doesn't mean that lines aren't drawn between species. The fact that viruses exist doesn't mean that a line isn't drawn between "living" and "non-living". The fact that slime moulds exist doesn't mean that a line isn't drawn between "single-cellular" and "multi-cellular".

The fact there are degrees of consciousness (if that is, in fact, true) needn't imply that a line cannot be drawn between "sentient" and "non-sentient" or "conscious" and "lacking in consciousness". Just like the examples I mentioned (as well as similarly fuzzy non-scientific terms like "tall", "young", and "fat"), how they are defined will depend on the context in which they're used and what utility the words are intended to have.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The fact there are degrees of consciousness (if that is, in fact, true) needn't imply that a line cannot be drawn between "sentient" and "non-sentient" or "conscious" and "lacking in consciousness". Just like the examples I mentioned (as well as similarly fuzzy non-scientific terms like "tall", "young", and "fat"), how they are defined will depend on the context in which they're used and what utility the words are intended to have.

I agree that, in principle, they probably can be drawn, given enough data - but we aren't there yet.
Just because we can't yet doesn't mean that we have to assume that minuscule amounts of consciousnesses must extend to the fabric of space itself.

 

[Belz...]

As far as I can tell that article is real. Probably originated in a black hole that decided it wanted to break into pop science articles.

Ugh. I hate black holes. They suck the air right out of the room.

 

[Belz...]

The way I look at it, consciousness is a result of information processing. The more information processing in a locale, the stronger the consciousness. Very little information processing goes on in a rock, vast more in an amoeba and vasty, vastly more in a human brain. And if that human brain is anaesthetised, or dead, then that level of consciousness is reduced accordingly.

Yeah but isn't consciousness more than just mere information processing? Otherwise the word doesn't mean anything, since pretty much everything processes information, in a way.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Just because we can't yet doesn't mean that we have to assume that minuscule amounts of consciousnesses must extend to the fabric of space itself.

That's really going to come down to how we defined "consciousness". If it's just as "an emergent property of data processing", and if we define "data processing" to include, say, particles appearing and disappearing within the quantum foam, then empty space would have consciousness by definition. It'll come down to what people are trying to communicate and what utility that idea has.

I mean let's say, for example, that we determine that empty space has a minute amount of consciousness. The question then is "so what?" What useful does that tell us about space? What useful does that tell us about consciousness? How will that affect our understanding of cosmic physics? How will that affect our understanding of neurophysics? How will that affect our understanding of anaesthesiology? How will that affect our understanding of psychology?

At the moment, it seems to me that the answers are "nothing" and "not at all". Perhaps that's because I don't yet have a deep enough understanding of the subject. Perhaps that's because the field is relatively new. Or perhaps it's because it does tell us nothing useful.

If it does tell us something useful, then it'll become mainstream. If it doesn't, then it'll go the way of aether.

But the point is that it will come to be defined in science to mean whatever is the most useful way for people within relevant fields to define it. The fuzzy edges will be worked around in the same way they are with other sciences.

 

[Chanakya]

WTF is a consciousness "field" anyway?

Even if the universe were conscious -- which is a colossal enough assumption -- what exactly would a "field" like this entail?

After all, we are conscious. Suppose the bacteria living in our bodies, or perhaps teeny tiny beings living within teeny tiny worlds within the molecules within our bodies, were conscious, and we their universe -- well, those conscious beings would have a conscious universe (in as much we were alive and ticking). Even granted all of that, what on earth would be a "consciousness field" for those tiny creatures? How might that work?

 

[baron]

Yeah but isn't consciousness more than just mere information processing? Otherwise the word doesn't mean anything, since pretty much everything processes information, in a way.

Here's where my thinking diverges from most people's on this forum (and indeed most people full stop).

I see there being a ubiquitous field of conscious potential, just like there's a ubiquitous field of quantum potential throughout the universe. It isn't conscious in itself, just potential. Now, in the same way mass warps space-time to form gravity, I believe information exchange warps the conscious field to form consciousness. The more intense and complex the information processing, the stronger the response in the conscious field - the more aware it becomes in and around that specific locale.

Some accept that information processing produces consciousness but they deny the existence of consciousness as an external force. I don't understand what they're talking about. Doing this reduces consciousness to an emergent property, which effectively means it doesn't exist. So that's fine if, like Daniel Dennett and others, you don't believe in the reality of consciousness, but if you do accept that it's an independent entity / force / field / whatever, this approach makes little sense.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I see there being a ubiquitous field of conscious potential, just like there's a ubiquitous field of quantum potential throughout the universe. It isn't conscious in itself, just potential. Now, in the same way mass warps space-time to form gravity, I believe information exchange warps the conscious field to form consciousness. The more intense and complex the information processing, the stronger the response in the conscious field - the more aware it becomes in and around that specific locale.

On what empirical evidence do you base this conclusion, and what do you believe the mechanism to be?

Some accept that information processing produces consciousness but they deny the existence of consciousness as an external force. I don't understand what they're talking about. Doing this reduces consciousness to an emergent property, which effectively means it doesn't exist.

Why does something being an emergent property of something else imply that it doesn't exist? Humans are emergent from single-celled organisms, natural selection, and time. I'm pretty sure humans exist.

 

[baron]

On what empirical evidence do you base this conclusion, and what do you believe the mechanism to be?

None whatsoever, just like there is no empirical evidence that consciousness exists.

Why does something being an emergent property of something else imply that it doesn't exist? Humans are emergent from single-celled organisms, natural selection, and time. I'm pretty sure humans exist.

You are misunderstand what an emergent property is. Emergent properties are not things.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

None whatsoever, just like there is no empirical evidence that consciousness exists.

Sure there is. The fact that the brain is in one state when it is conscious and another when it is unconscious is evidence that consciousness exists. The career of an anaesthesiologist is testament to this fact, and provides ample empirical evidence that one state can be induced from the other.

You are misunderstand what an emergent property is. Emergent properties are not things.

I really don't think I am misunderstanding emergence. And it seems like you're being tautologous.

However, it's easy to name other examples, if you like. The organisation of an ant colony is emergent. The flight of a flock of birds is emergent. Slime moulds becoming a single entity is emergent. A hurricane is emergent. The behaviour of the stock market is emergent.

These are all things that exist.

 

[Belz...]

Here's where my thinking diverges from most people's on this forum (and indeed most people full stop).

I see there being a ubiquitous field of conscious potential, just like there's a ubiquitous field of quantum potential throughout the universe. It isn't conscious in itself, just potential. Now, in the same way mass warps space-time to form gravity, I believe information exchange warps the conscious field to form consciousness. The more intense and complex the information processing, the stronger the response in the conscious field - the more aware it becomes in and around that specific locale.

Some accept that information processing produces consciousness but they deny the existence of consciousness as an external force. I don't understand what they're talking about. Doing this reduces consciousness to an emergent property, which effectively means it doesn't exist. So that's fine if, like Daniel Dennett and others, you don't believe in the reality of consciousness, but if you do accept that it's an independent entity / force / field / whatever, this approach makes little sense.

Ok that's fair enough, but how does it gel with the fact that only brains are known to be conscious? How is one to tell the difference between "everything is conscious but only brains exhibit it" and "only brains are conscious"? And, if one can't, why believe this at all?

 

[Belz...]

None whatsoever, just like there is no empirical evidence that consciousness exists.

Woah, there. Of course there's evidence that consciousness exists, as it's defined as something that we observe in the real world. We've even managed to test when and how the 'conscious' part is updated by the non-conscious one.

 

[baron]

Sure there is. The fact that the brain is in one state when it is conscious and another when it is unconscious is evidence that consciousness exists.

That's begging the question. Furthermore, it's not evidence of anything aside from a change in brain state. The conscious response is based entirely on subjective observation, and is therefore not empirical evidence.

I really don't think I am misunderstanding emergence. And it seems like you're being tautologous.

However, it's easy to name other examples, if you like. The organisation of an ant colony is emergent. The flight of a flock of birds is emergent. Slime moulds becoming a single entity is emergent. A hurricane is emergent. The behaviour of the stock market is emergent.

These are all things that exist.

They are not things, they are attributes. The flight of a flock of birds has no independent reality, nothing additional has been created other than a new way of describing what's already present.

 

[baron]

Woah, there. Of course there's evidence that consciousness exists, as it's defined as something that we observe in the real world. We've even managed to test when and how the 'conscious' part is updated by the non-conscious one.

As I said, this is based entirely on subjective reporting. If you doubt me, describe an experiment to measure consciousness that does not rely on any reference to observations made by conscious subjects (and I mean reference made at any point in time, not just during the experiment).

 

[Belz...]

The conscious response is based entirely on subjective observation, and is therefore not empirical evidence.

Well, that's not entirely true.

Not only can we observe evidence of consciousness in other people, which makes it an objective observation, but we can also observe subjectively that we are aware of something and not others, even within our own brain processes.

That's consciousness: a sort of looped self-awareness.