The hidden variable of consciousness experiment

I'm not searching for the soul. I will still answer your question. Theologians believe that each individual persons soul is unique. If I accept that presupposition it would be self evident that individuality would present as a measurable variability.

Well, then what ARE you searching for, and why do you think it exists? That seems to be the question you refuse to answer.

You can't design an experiment to find something if you have no idea what you are looking for.

Hans
 
It appears from above that the OP's search is for consciousness by setting up an experiment that cannot actually be done, and despite his assertion that consciousness has not been defined and thus cannot be discussed. Perhaps we'll know it when we find it? I am likely missing a thing or two but modestly suggest that we are not seeing a recipe for success.
 
What if the subjects of the experiment were unicellular organisms?

Still subject to chaos.

What if the subjects were droplets of ink in a bathtub? They'd move around in unpredictable ways and the fact that each moved differently from the others wouldn't demonstrate that there's something more to their motion than the known laws of physics.
 
Well, then what ARE you searching for, and why do you think it exists? That seems to be the question you refuse to answer.

You can't design an experiment to find something if you have no idea what you are looking for.

Hans
I'm searching for variability that current scientific models cannot explain.

I disagree with your last statement. There are many things that were discovered by accident.


Still subject to chaos.

What if the subjects were droplets of ink in a bathtub? They'd move around in unpredictable ways and the fact that each moved differently from the others wouldn't demonstrate that there's something more to their motion than the known laws of physics.
It sounds like you believe that inferring anything from my experiment is fundamentally flawed because it is impossible to control for every known variable; and even if I could control for every known variable, any consistent and measurable differences would be useless because we wouldn't know what caused them. Is that correct?
 
I'm searching for variability that current scientific models cannot explain.

This is a problem. Current scientific models don't claim to be complete. Thus, there are lots of things that they don't explain.

I disagree with your last statement. There are many things that were discovered by accident.

Of course. But you can't design an experiment to discover something by accident.

What you might do is try to map what we know against what we don't know. But I expect that has already been done.

Hans
 
Click here for a list of animals that have been successfully cloned.

I acknowledge that it is a monumental task to control for so many variables. The concern you mentioned that is most dangerous to my experiment is socialization. I agree that introducing free agents into a controlled environment would be impossibly hopeless. One solution I'd propose to negate that concern is to place the subjects in isolation. I also recognize that a great deal of information has been successfully extracted from other studies that failed to control for every variable. The data can still have value. Statistics can also be utilized to make inferences and draw conclusions.

The ability to communicate with the subjects would be invaluable. I agree that it would be impossible to meet most/any of the ethical guidelines of the sciences when conducting this experiment on humans. Fortunately, in the name of expanding our knowledge, our moral conscious allows us to conduct such experiments on living beings other than humans. The subjects could be simple celled organisms, mice, monkeys, other.

Subjects whose life cycles are very short would provide a couple of benefits. It would reduce the amount of time that mistakes in the proposed methodology could be unintentionally introduced. If mistake(s) were identified, the subject could be disposed of with no concern for lost time or capital.
Okay, you are willing to use non-human animals which helps with the genetics and parts of the environmental standardizations. But your proposed sample size is way too small to provide statistical power to detect the differences you wish to detect. You probably would want to start at with at least 10 times more. But separate from the size of the test population:

One doesn't have to bother cloning a number of species: one can easily buy genetically identical mice for example. Cheaper. But the non-genetic variables still make this an absolutely impossible experiment.

Some mice moms produce (depending on the strain) 4 to 17 babies each, so to study the numbers you need to you would have to compare individual mice all birthed on the same day but born to, and raised by, several different moms (you can't separate new born mice from their mom's until after weaning). Being raised by different moms will result in very different weights, physiologies, behaviors, etc. in the different babies that will persist in different ways into adulthood. A known variable that cannot be controlled for.

Even genetically identical babies born to the same mom at the same time differ from one another in detectable ways (i.e. mice with blotchy coats have the blotches in different locations even if they have identical genes, or the birth weights will differ somewhat for the different babies) due to random effects during development: position in the womb, expression switches that fall on way in one baby and another way in another baby, etc. Another known variable that cannot be controlled for.

Okay, you have gotten the mice through weaning and will put them in identical environments. How do you propose that? Stack their cages? Then the cages are at non-identical heights and probably temperatures. Place the cages next to one another? Believe it or not this makes a difference too. It is very hard, especially if studying many mice at one time, to keep the environment absolutely identical for each. Certainly they would all have to be in the same, large room and different parts of that room will have different air flows and slightly different temperatures. Are are the watering systems delivering water at exactly the same pressure? All the food being meticulously replaced by the staff on all the cages at the same time. Do all the animals see the same things so they are soothed or frightened the same when an investigator comes into the room? I presume they cannot see one another because there is no way all can see everyone els the same way, and this has known effects too. More known variables that cannot be controlled for.

I could go on but I think I've illustrated the point. Mice are probably the easiest mammals to try to standardize genetics and environment, but one simply cannot do to the extent your experiment would require due only to the known variables that have nothing to do with consciousness. I know: I've worked with genetically identical mice and I know what can affect the results and how to reduce these variables to the bare minimum. There is no way to eliminate these variables.

Further of course if you were to somehow eliminate all the known variables, revealing an unknown variable only does just that, revealed an unknown variable. Slight differences in light intensity? Differences if the cages are near a wall vs in the center of a room? Etc. Your proposed interpretation would hardly be the default explanation.
 
If one is willing to use bacteria as test subjects it will allow even better standardization than mice, although I am uncertain what type of consciousness to attribute to them. However people have already studied genetically identical bacteria in virtually identical environments (one test tube or one microscope slide for example) and found, for example, that they differ with time. To simplify it, one second some of the bacteria will be expressing gene 1 and some will not. A few seconds later it will switch and subset 2 will be expressing gene 1 and subset 1 will not. It is because (in part) many genes are "plus modulated." At any given time they are fully off or fully on, and how much product they make overall is determined by how frequently they are off or on. The bacteria are not necessary synchronized so at any given time some are off and some are on. The molecular mechanisms behind this are increasingly understand. Another known variable.

Also most living things have metastable states that are subject to very slight difference in the environment of cell state, or even stochastic events that are superimposed over genetics and environment. If a given cell during development becomes a T cell or a B cell is not absolutely determined by its inherent programming: it can be nudged one way or another by very slight and uncontrollable differences such as small alterations in its glucose level, or if it is 2 or 3 microns away from a different cell. At 2.5 microns it may be at a 50/50 level and which way it falls (B or T) is like the flip of a coin; random. Consciousness is not needed to explain it.
 
Last edited:
What if the subjects of the experiment were unicellular organisms?

That you are willing to consider experiments on single cells makes me believe that this is more about trying to detect “life energy” than about consciousness. You are assuming with no good reason that there is something unexplainable there to be found. It reminds me a bit of the 21 grams experiment.
 
I disagree with your last statement. There are many things that were discovered by accident.


No, there were many things that were spurred by accidents. A melted chocolate bar led to microwave ovens, for example. A misplaced thermometer led to the discovery of infrared radiation. But the actual science was then carried out carefully - with fully developed procedures, expectations, documentation, and (importantly) repetition.

You're proposing that we just set up an (impossible) scenario just to see what happens and then (impossibly) tie that outcome to a theory you haven't had yet.

I'm not sure how you do that without having an expected outcome based on current knowledge. Based on what we currently know about the universe, we have no idea if two humans reproduced down to the atom would diverge or not - or even two single-celled organisms. And, since our two runs would be necessarily separated by space and/or time, we have no way of declaring the two trials were "close enough" in starting conditions in the first place.

The whole thing is just hopelessly borked right from the start.
 
It sounds like you believe that inferring anything from my experiment is fundamentally flawed because it is impossible to control for every known variable; and even if I could control for every known variable, any consistent and measurable differences would be useless because we wouldn't know what caused them. Is that correct?

Yeah, basically. Though I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent and measurable differences" in this context.
 
And, since our two runs would be necessarily separated by space and/or time, we have no way of declaring the two trials were "close enough" in starting conditions in the first place.

Physics is space (and time) translation invariant, so the fact that they are separated by space or time can't affect the outcome. ServiceSoon is right that if it did that would tell us that there is some new physics that we don't yet know about. The problem is that there are too many other variables (for instance actual fields do vary from place to place and time to time) to actually control.
 
In the context of the propesed experiment, time and space is impertant, since it will introduce uncontrollable differences between testsubjects. And since to OP suggests to map all unaccounted differences, this would add serious noice to the result.

Hans
 
In the context of the propesed experiment, time and space is impertant, since it will introduce uncontrollable differences between test subjects. And since to OP suggests to map all unaccounted differences, this would add serious noice to the result.

Hans

Yes, as I said there are actual differences between different places, and those differences are messy enough that they can't all be accounted for in the experiment. But it's not because of a fundamental difference between different points in spacetime. The problem is our ability to account for those messy differences, particularly the chaotic propagation of small differences in initial conditions into large differences in the final outcome, and that's the problem with the whole idea of this experiment.
 
Yes, as I said there are actual differences between different places, and those differences are messy enough that they can't all be accounted for in the experiment. But it's not because of a fundamental difference between different points in spacetime. The problem is our ability to account for those messy differences, particularly the chaotic propagation of small differences in initial conditions into large differences in the final outcome, and that's the problem with the whole idea of this experiment.

Well, if we must split hairs, then yes. There isn't a fundamental difference. ... Just a difference.

Hans:thumbsup:
 
Yes, as I said there are actual differences between different places, and those differences are messy enough that they can't all be accounted for in the experiment. But it's not because of a fundamental difference between different points in spacetime. The problem is our ability to account for those messy differences, particularly the chaotic propagation of small differences in initial conditions into large differences in the final outcome, and that's the problem with the whole idea of this experiment.


Whatever I actually said, this is what I meant to say.
 

Back
Top Bottom