Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Graviphoton

A Speculative Theory on Consciousness

Recommended Posts

Well, let's not be ignorant of the facts, while we wait for a revelation shall we? Let's all agree at least that it seems highly unlikely an intelligent psyche can inhabit a computer.

 

Why is it highly unlikely that it is even possible?

 

I'm on the opposite side of that: as a functionalist, I think it's highly unlikely that it's not at least possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That life as we know it, takes on biological forms. And only.

 

 

For that to be absolutely true (if that is ever possible) you need to prove that "biological forms" are *not* machines. The more we study these forms, specifically the brain (though, granted, we don't know a lot about the brain, but that doesn't mean we can't ever know) we see it being true -- the human body specifically, and biological forms in general - seem to be very similar to machines. Very sophisticated machines, but machines nonetheless.

 

On top of that, the more we study neurology, the more we find absolute connection between PHYSIOLOGY (hence, the brain physical reaction) to emotions, consciousness and though, which suggests that they are completely tied to the brain as a computational "part" of our body.

 

For that matter, the more we unlock the "mystery" of the brain, the closer we get to 'human-like' machines.

 

We made a lot of progress in AI in the last years. The fact we are not yet there does not mean we can NEVER be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assumed this discussion would lead to Penrose and Hameroff's quantum consciousness at some point, and it did. If I understand it correctly, decoherence can occur at room or body temperatures. Moreover, the sheer number of tubulin subunits (tubulin proteins make up microtubules) may behave like switches in a quantum computer. Meaning considerable computational power. The old argument has to be recycled at this point because Penrose postulated that Artificial Intelligence algorithms would not be able to approach his tiling problem. So far , he seems to be correct. You would expect quantum effects in electron 'shunting' mechanisms such as bacteriochlorophyll and this has been shown to be the case as well with the electron 'choosing' the most energy efficient pathway. Wierd stuff huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will do this in parts. First i want to investigate the theory of Transaction, by Dr. Cramer. I want it known, that i am serious about science, and any theory i use will be based upon quantum physical assessment.

 

A few things we need to know.

 

1) On the fundamental level, quantum systems do not act according to cause and effect. This rule essentially breaks down. This means there is no directionality to their flow of existence.

 

2) Quantum mechanics is incomplete, and the laws being incomplete, cannot for one moment expect to explain all aspects of existence, including consciousness, which is certainly a quantum subject, dispite of any disagreement.

 

3) That consciousness is bound by quantum rules.

 

..................................................................................

 

Right...

 

Dr. Cramers interpretation says that before a collapse (or transaction as he calls it) is ever accomplished, a few processes are involved.

 

Part One - The Observer Disturbs and Creates

 

The observer effect directly relates to the ability to collapse the wave function through observation. Upon measurement of an electron, let’s say, it would quantum leap into a particle form. However, because observation is not the only way for the wave function to collapse, as decoherence is when superpositioned materials in wave-like probability states settle down into a single state through their environments with other particles.

 

For this reason, it is now said the observer effect isn’t all that special. It doesn’t end there for it though! Physicist Fred Alan Wolf PhD, says that we can even alter the past with our observations. Taking into account the Wheeler-Delayed Choice Experiment showed that a measurement on a photon that traveled through spacetime in more than one path, a measurement on the photon as it arrives earth would create a real past for it. This is because the observation deflates all the possibilities into a value of 1

 

Part Two - Faster Than What?

 

So the observations we make in everyday life might even be creating the world around us. Many take the idea seriously, such as Dr Cramer in his Transactional Interpretation. Dr Wolf has also promoted the use of the Delayed-Choice Experiment as evidence of backwards-through-time traveling waves creating the past, and even Fred Hoyle, Astorphysicist and mathematician made use of the idea in many of his thoughts.

 

Using the TI, he explains that reality could be built up on superluminal waves traveling through time in a sinusoidal manner, and have restrocausal properties.

 

First, we would need to integrate the TI theory of a complex-valued retarded wave of a quantum state vector | S > that moves forward through time, as Cramer calls it, an ‘’offer wave’’ in the present state:

 

| O (t, 1) >

 

Which then moves to the future: t >1 When it does so, it will activate an echo wave state vector which Cramer calls ( a complex-conjugated advanced wave) <E(2)|, toward the present time

 

<E(t, 2)|

 

The field of probability distribution allows the ‘’transaction’’ to be complete through probability amplitude:

 

<E(t, 1)|O(t, 2)>

 

The field requires on exact values of the initial state, and if the original wave does not contain the correct information, then the waves simply cancels out. But each time a successful transaction transpires, a collapse in the wave function follows.

 

This cannot be applied to a multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics, such as the Everett Interpretation and the Existential Interpretation, because there is no collapse of the wave function. There is still an observer effect, but one that is very different to a collapse of a system. Working with Everett’s Interpretation here, if an observer flips a coin ad observes a heads, she creates a massive split in reality, one that cannot be detected and beyond the threshold of experiment, shoots off our universe; this is a newly created universe. In the other universe, I would be observing a tails.

 

Part Three - Enter The Transactional Interpretation

 

A collapse of the wave function occurs, only when two quantum waves travel through time, one travels forward in time, and the other wave travel backwards through time; then the waves meet in the present and they multiply. This multiplication is called the collapse. The original wave can only multiply with it’s complex conjugate.

 

Multiplying two answers to obtain a single answer is common in everyday life. You might remember the mathematical formulae from school. Here are a few to example;

 

1. Force = mass x acceleration

2. Velocity = frequency x wavelength

3. Volume = area of base x height

4. Area = half the length of base x perpendicular height

 

Once they square, the 'transaction', as Cramer terms it, is complete. He feels that using these quantum waves helps in teaching how they work. It is after all, understandable. It is quite an elementary way of looking at it all.

 

Part Three - A Wave Passes Copenhagen

 

In the Copenhagen Interpretation, there is no answer for why macroscopic systems did not exhibit wavelike properties. It simply said, ‘’They are just too big.’’ Decoherence solved this problem for the existing matter around us, but can’t explain galaxy formation or star formation, and it stole much of the mysticism out of the observer. It wasn’t until developments in the turn of this century proposed models showing that the mind might be required for the long-sought after theory of everything.

 

But even if this is true, that’s another slash in the Copenhagen Interpretation, because it states that everything there is about the universe can never be explained, and there is a limit to what we can know, so it doesn’t exactly promote any a theory of everything. One thing it did manage to survive was the EPR-Paradox, originally designed to make quantum mechanics a flawed theory showed that quantum entanglement was possible. Neil’s Bohr the founder of the Copenhagen Interpretation in 1926 said that the instantaneous effects simply happened. They are observed to happen, and this is all that mattered.

 

But this didn’t satisfy why the effects of two entangled photons over great distances are resolved instantaneously. Why and how does this information travel so far and fast? This was one theory that was answerable with the Transactional Interpretation. One could say that the superluminal echo and offer waves move through time create the instantaneous effects – defined spins for example.

 

The Copenhagen Interpretation is built up on five premises which have worked well with experiment:

 

(1) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, the idea that pairs of "conjugate" variables (like position and momentum or energy and time) cannot simultaneously be measured to "perfect" accuracy, nor can they have well-defined values at the same time;

 

(2) Born's Probability Law, the rule that the absolute square of the wave function gives the probability (P=|psi|2=psi×psi*) of finding the system in the state described by the wave function;

 

(3) Bohr's Complementarity Principle, the idea that the uncertainty principle is an intrinsic property of nature (not a just a measurement problem) and that the observer, his measuring apparatus, and the measured system form a "whole" which cannot be divided;

 

(4) Heisenberg's Knowledge Interpretation, the notion that the wave function is neither a physical wave travelling through space nor a direct description of a physical system, but rather is a mathematically encoded description of the knowledge of an observer who is making a measurement on the system; and

 

(5) Heisenberg's Positivism, the principle that it isn't proper to discuss any aspect of the reality which lies behind the formalism unless the quantities or entities discussed can be measured experimentally.

 

But The TI gives answers which don't lead to multiversal idea's, which works well with the public and fellow physicists, because the theory of extra universes seems far too strange.

 

I shall leave it there for now...

 

Anyway, i'll continue now. Afterall, that's not all i had to say obviously.

 

The Implications of Copenhagen and Consciousness

 

The collapse of the wave function is not directly proportional to consciousness at all, but instead consciousness is one of another known method of collapsing a quantum system. The discovery of Decoherence in 1994 has shown that there is nothing particularily unique about the collapse and the observer.

 

One thing Copenhagen states is that the Observer is somehow outside the laws of physics. The collapse of the wave function can be seen as an event where consciousness and the sudden reduction have no connection at all par the measurement taken. Somehow, the observer is outside the effects it evidently causes.

 

In the parallel universe model, the observer upon measurement splits off with the universe into as many possibilities as there was probability. The observer turns out to be entangled within the frame of the universe.

 

But here's the thing. I don't believe an infinite amount of universes could exist, and even if there was, there is no way to experimentally test this theory, now with the restriction of time travel. So, i tend to fall back to some alternative model, such as the Transactional Interpretation.

 

I believe the mind is in fact a very good model next to the TI. The full extent of Dr. Cramers theory can suggest that quantum information can move through spacetime at superluminal speeds. An echo wave [math]<E(t,2)|[/math]moving back from the future, and an offer wave [math]|O(t,1)>[/math], and ''handshaking together'', as Cramer terms it, or more technically he calls it, the transaction, occurs. Because the transaction is the same as a collapse of the wave function, parallel universe is obsolete, since it cannot entertain a collapse theory.

 

...

 

It has been said that consciousness, and the realms of emotions and thoughts do not exist in space. But there has been some suggestions that it does exist in time. In fact, some physicists have gone as far to say that perhaps the mind is time somehow.

 

If mind is invariant with time, it could mean a few things. It may not necesserily mean that time and consciousness are interdependant, but may just mean that consciousness can only exist in a realm of time.

 

Mystical?

 

Maybe. But it does make predictions as protoscience, rather than a psuedoscience. They are more commonly known as spacetime theories, and they where first devised by Arthur Eddington.

 

If this is true, then somehow, the fabric of consciousness rests neatly on the fabric of time. Somehow, things we may think of, and do, or say, emotions and lucidity was written or stored into the very fabric of spacetime. Afterall, relativity strongly predicts that any usage of time must indicate space as well.

 

I have had some thought on this over the years, and have come to the conclusion that the mind is certainly a time dimension. It fits all the characteristics of a dimension, and that which is of time. Consciousness for us, can mean a sense of self, the notion of ''I'' and the value of being, but it is encapsulated by a psychological arrow of time. No surprise Arthur Eddington also coined that phrase.

 

But it's not the same time, and there is good arguement for this. The Supracharasmatic Nucleus determines our sense of time. Whilst this is the medical sense of explaining time, and the experience of time, there is however the question to why consciousness and awareness in whole has a forward directionality, and why does this directionality effectively break down in unconscious states.

 

It may seem rather obvious that the latter is a result of the fact a human is no longer conscious, so this effects the sense of what ''flow'' is. But suffice to say, we still don't know why there is any flow at all in any direction. Why doesn't it oscillate in a sinusoidal movement? Is it just a matter of consciousness tuning into existence, analogously like how we tune into a station on our radio?

 

I'll leave it there for now. Next i'll talk about how i think the TI helps explain consciousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graviphoton:

 

There's a pretty big non-sequitur in everything you're saying

 

Consciousness is a metaphysical phenomenon

Quantum mechanics describes physical phenomena

 

There's absolutely no reason to jump from consciousness to quantum mechanics, especially if you agree that the content of consciousness is determined completely by brain activity, as there's no evidence of the brain using quantum mechanical behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consiousness can be metaphysical, depending on exactly how you are studying it. But science and physics has a place as well. For instance, physics job is to explain how things work in this universe, since anything contained within this universe needs to abide by quantum rules. This means, that quantum events are giving rise to consciousness, and it our job to figure out what exactly we are talking about.

 

That's a quantum job, i argue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Consiousness can be metaphysical, depending on exactly how you are studying it. But science and physics has a place as well. For instance, physics job is to explain how things work in this universe, since anything contained within this universe needs to abide by quantum rules. This means, that quantum events are giving rise to consciousness, and it our job to figure out what exactly we are talking about.

 

That's a quantum job, i argue.

 

Physics doesn't contain ONLY quantum physics. Not "all things" within the universe abide by quantum rules in that such-broad aspect. A fired missile does not "abide by quantum rules".. its particles might.

 

I am not sure I understand how you jump from Consciousness having both a metaphysical and scientific application directly to "ti's QM"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules of physics, mooey, dispite what you may say, runs the whole show. This means ''all things'' within the univese need to abide by quantum rules.

 

This is one of the first rules you learn in physics, is that everything obeys its laws.

 

If we are talking about macroscopic objects, then they themselves are built up of quantum rules that gives rise to what we see. Everything is run by quantum rules, or nothing would exist, not even macroscopic laws, which has been pointed out, it just made of smaller averages.

 

But consciousness can have a metaphysical and scientific interpretation. Best to keep both sides away from conflict. But you say it mooey, as if it is strange if something can have a metaphysical and scientific interpretation simultaneously. Why should it be? Some things can be described many ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The rules of physics, mooey, dispite what you may say, runs the whole show. This means ''all things'' within the univese need to abide by quantum rules.

Since we haven't found, yet, a unified theory, that statement isn't entirely true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If any unified theory is to come about, i think we will find that ultimately, quantum physics runs the show. We already know, if we track our calculations back, in theory, all we can deal with is subatomic phenomenon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If any unified theory is to come about, i think we will find that ultimately, quantum physics runs the show. We already know, if we track our calculations back, in theory, all we can deal with is subatomic phenomenon.

 

Good luck with that, it's one of those things that will earn you a Nobel Prize.

 

 

..... and it DOESN'T exist yet.

 

Which means that your claim is unsubstantiated, and nothing more than a guess. Either substantiate why it is that "all we can deal with is subatomic phenomenon" (Wha?? uhh... nooo... depends on what you're .. looking at...)

 

If we were able to represent all phenomenon -- BIG and SMALL -- with one theory that represents both, the big big items as if we look at their small-small particles, we would, effectively, have a UNIFIED THEORY.

 

Which we don't.

 

At the moment.

 

Not everything is quantum mechanics. In fact, only small small things are quantum mechanics.

 

That's the "problem".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a guess at all.

 

We work our way back to a gravitational phenomena. If there is a singularity, quantum mechanics cannot solve the problem, because laws break down and turn infinite. If the universe grew from a topological opening, we will find quantum mechanics running the show, because since the dawn of time, quantum mechanics has not changed one iota.

 

My arguement is much like how Einstein argued the existence of matter. He said, there was no such thing as matter, but only forms of trapped energy. My arguement is there is no real macroscopic form that escapes the effects of quantum rules, so everything follows them.

 

If what is ristricting our calculations is complexity, then we should reduce the complexity as much as possible. In this case, i am obviously meaning the complexity of entire systems, whilst subatomic behaviour is quite simple (this is a statistical sense here). Some how, simple acting objects, give rise to complex machines. Let's keep it simple i say. Let's have a unified theory of everything in small terms, and use the large terms as a reference.

 

Ofcourse, the last part was speculation on my behalf.

 

The human being is a complex machine built up on smaller simpler machines. These smaller systems are electrons, photons and neutrons, atoms and molecules. Our bodies are nothing but a quantum sludge of electrically fried carbon materials. This sludge is seen at the Planck level to spontaneously throth at a level of 10 x 10^1.616, and in a time of 10 x 10^5.3.

 

These seemingly simple acting particles in great amounts in a type of coherent state, gives rise to a complex intelligence and neural network. The electrons, neutrons and protons, whizzing about in my head are giving rise to something quite extraordinary.

 

How so many particles come to do so, is statistical hell. There is no way a sane mathematician would dare take note of all the particles of a human brain, never mind the entire body. There are so many statistical averages to take a note of, an infinite amount of them, that it simply cannot be done. Also, the Uncertainty Principle forbids total knowledge as well.

 

Where the original cell came into existence, and how, is at heavy controversy.

In the beginning, there was just a vast ocean and one land, called Pangaea. Then, somehow, out of the primordial sludge of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen, a spark of life appeared. A single celled life. A prokaryote. A catalyst was needed, like lightning.

 

But so many tests have been done in labs. But no sign of the amazing transformation after repeated tests done by scientists. The Darwinian argument still goes on. How did life originate then? The primordial soup theory is still the most accepted, and likely said said, most plausible theory in store to answer how life came about.

 

But even a single cell has about it, a special essence, a life force, or biofield if you will. Dr. Wolf says that it is an electrical biofield, and it encompasses living systems. The field is not necessarily consciousness, but it is the very essence of life, radiating from living matter…this, throthy, carbon sludge bubbling from the vacuum.

 

Prokaryotes are systems that tend to mutate into multi-cellular life. They doubled every 12 million years, but a great catastrophic event would wipe out the eukaryotes, and leave the oceans decimated. The process repeated again and again, this time with reptiles emerging independent of the sea, the first fish, flowers and plants, only to be wiped out.

 

Then dinosaurs appeared, and became the main animal to rule the kingdoms of earth, but they soon came to an end, in a 5th great extinction.

 

We are now warned that a sixth mass extinction is inevitably close, in whatever shape or form. Humans have survived many conditions, but there are some things we have no control over.

 

But from Adam and Eve, to the Apollo project, we have been a tireless force, continuing to catalogue the world as it unfolds around us, unleashing its mysteries like some thrilling novel. However that original cell came into existence, from which all living things today came from, began a chain of existence that would manipulate mass electrons and protons, atoms and molecules to behave so a single, carbon-based life form could exist.

 

Exactly, how do so many atoms and molecules cohere? It’s as if all of them are arising to the same goal. We can use DNA to explain how certain genetic qualities affect a human, but what about the electrons and the photons… what tells them what to do? Is there some kind of back-reaction so that atoms, being told themselves by the molecules, which are them selves being influenced by other molecules, is how the system goes? Is it that even though the subatomic particles make up the atoms, the atoms are also telling the subatomic particles how to behave…? Of course, it makes perfect quantum sense.

 

And the genetic materials like the double helix, is required just on the right level of size, to provide the building blocks to progressively mutate into the beings we are today, perhaps in small steps, or large quantum leaps. And the original materials that make us up, could have been extraterrestrial in origin.

 

About 4 billion years ago, the same time when the first life had appeared, there was a massive collision in which the meteorite contained what was called ‘’Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons,’’ fitting the approximate date with a collision that happened in Antarctica. Since then, organic materials have been found even in space!

 

But then, there is the question to why a limited amount of particles can even give rise to systems like ourselves. I am an advocator of the Strong Anthropic Argument, that existence is here so that we could exist. The fine tuning of the cosmos, the particular arrangement of conditions for life, precisely the coordinates needed to sustain mentality – in a very cold technical sense, we are nothing but the stuff of the vacuum; energy, space and time. Consciousness is the vacuum wanting to experience consciousness at powerful levels.

 

We drop off from spacetime, existing and experience a type of subdimension, because it is said in physics, that the mind does not exist in space, but there has been some speculation about the time dimension, which has been explained before in quite some detail.

 

Thoughts and memory however, may very well exist in the vacuum, existing in the form of quantum waves of information. Information certainly comes in many forms. Some of the information I talk about, involve electrons. Electrons have no unique radius, or size. They are in fact difficult to talk about, because we don’t know whether we are talking about a particle or a wave. And also whether the particle is being observed. ‘’First rule in quantum physics,’’ as Wolf would say, ‘’there is no electron unless it is being observed.’’

 

Thoughts become entangled with an object, and suddenly they become real. Before observation, reality as we know it is in a potential state – this is the Copenhagen Interpretation. There is of course the anti-argument. The theory in which states that things are no more different when being observed, than when not being observed.

 

……

 

Yes, the body is an amazing thing. We know that there is no such thing as matter. Its just a longer lived fluctuation of energy. Through the [math]E=Mc^{2}[/math], we know that matter can be transformed back into energy and there is enough energy in the human body to power a city for a day! In a dice, there is about 10^94 grams of energy. Now that’s a lot of energy, so just imagine the energy you are made of. And only 2% of my body is actually matter and energy. The rest is just space and time. Wierd eh? Its because my body is not very dense.

 

Does consciousness require an energy?

 

If it does, then any quantum physicist will know the implication of a dependency of energy… It would also require a dependency on matter and space and time. If consciousness requires an energy, we can ask how much energy it uses. But how can we ever know? There is simply no way to measure consciousness with such accuracy. We can only speculate the amount of energy we use… the only thing I will state, is that it will most probably be a ground state of energy. This simply means it will use the least amount of energy it can.

 

Spirit in Matter

 

The 2004 book, ‘Spiritual Universe,’ by Dr. Fred Alan Wolf, many physicists in the field, such as Amit Goswami and Deepak Chopra considered his work as quantum physical proof of a quantum soul. His idea was actually scholarly, in my opinion.

 

Our soul is in fact composed of billions upon billions upon billions of negatively spinning particles in the Dirac Sea. It is known by theory, that each particle of matter in this universe, is somehow intimately linked to a negative particle in the vacuum. This was the antipartner of the particle. He claims that our souls are intimately connected to the matter we are made of, and are always in constant communication with the particles in the potential vacuum.

 

Fred however, in 2005 said that it wasn’t proof of a soul at all. And while I like the theory, by no way do I assume it’s correct, but until a better theory comes about, we have no idea what the soul is, if there is even a soul in question.

Personally, I find it difficult to talk about the soul, because I am slightly convinced that the word ‘’soul’’ is in fact a metaphor for ‘’self’’. The word ‘’spirit’’ for me is more appropriate, since to me it can refer to a life force, which we undoubtedly have.

 

 

Thoughts and memory are not fully understood yet either. The very processes which allows the neural network to operate in a three-dimensional freedom is pretty strange to say the least. There must be a specific function or functions responsible for the epiphenomenon of the mind.

 

The spatial phenomena we observe, is one thing, but we also experience a sense of time flow past us, in a specific directionality. The flow I propose, is an illusion. I don’t think any such thing as a psychological arrow even exists… sorry Eddington…

 

If consciousness, the mind specifically, has some type of imaginary vectors, there cannot be any specific directions, like you would find doing normal vectors in physics, sketching them out with a pencil. Instead, there can’t really be any directionality at all, so the mind encompasses no unique place consistent within itself, and no real reference to spacetime and the things inside it, unless it is being observed.

 

Whatever direction we think we are experiencing, is ‘’fundamentally’’, unique within ourselves, and no one else experiences our conscious phenomenon, so whatever directionality we feel, it is totally personal, and unique. But with little over 6 billion people on earth, there is a lot of different views, and each one has there own unique dimension of consciousness. There own little world and existence of time. Outside the mind, looking at all the minds, but not being attached, you would see nothing unique about the time experiences, and this is why they have no real direction in reference to each other. But inside the mind, the time it experiences is unique to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Consiousness can be metaphysical, depending on exactly how you are studying it.

 

Consciousness is a metaphysical construct regardless of how you're studying it. The only philosophical school which proposes otherwise is reductive eliminativism, which essentially conjectures that consciousness does not exist.

 

For instance, physics job is to explain how things work in this universe

 

Physics explains physical systems. Consciousness is not a physical system, therefore physics can't explain consciousness any better than it can explain poetry, music, or the architecture of computer software.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As i have explained, consciousness arises from a physical system. Consciousness must therefore have quantum rules which allow its existence.

 

But for the arguement, its like saying time is not a quantum subject, because it isn't physical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As i have explained, consciousness arises from a physical system. Consciousness must therefore have quantum rules which allow its existence.

 

Computer programs also arise from physical systems, however they operate at a level of abstraction above physical system: they are tree structures of symbols, not collections of physical components.

 

While the execution of computer programs ultimately takes the form of physical phenomena which ultimately rely on quantum mechanical behavior, this is completely irrelevant, as the execution also operates at a level of abstraction above physical systems. This occurs at the level of the Universal Turing Machine, which specifies how computer programs provide descriptions of particular behaviors.

 

When a phenomenon is emergent from a physical system, rather than part of one, the rules which govern the physical system become irrelevant to the emergent system's behavior, because the emergent system is abstracted from the underlying physical system. If this ever ceases to be the case, and the rules of the physical system begin to have an effect on the emergent system's behavior (e.g. your CPU overheats, or your brain has a stroke), then the emergent system ceases to function properly because the abstraction level at which it's operating has been violated.

 

But for the arguement, its like saying time is not a quantum subject, because it isn't physical.

 

Time and physical systems are tied inexorably. Mind and physical systems are abstracted from each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't argue this forever, but this ''abstraction'' you speak of sounds very similart to my idea consciousness exists as a hyperdimension... which is totally a spacetime theory. This is experimental, according to sources. This is enough for my investigations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I won't argue this forever, but this ''abstraction'' you speak of sounds very similart to my idea consciousness exists as a hyperdimension

 

Hyperdimension is a nonsense word

 

... which is totally a spacetime theory.

 

Judging from that, what I'm describing is in no way similar to your idea. If you are trying to describe consciousness as a physical system you are taking the point of view of reductive eliminativism. I'm describing consciousness as a metaphysical system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subdimension then.

 

But i am not trying to make consciousness physical, other than it being a by-product of physical systems... so it has a physical platform from which to derive calculations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Subdimension then.

Dimension is a "direction" of measurement. So in this caase, Hyper Dimension or Sub Dimension are equivelent. There is no real meaning to them, they are made up words, usually used in a science fiction stories because they sound like they could exist.

 

In my own experimentation with AI specifically Artificial Neural Networks, I have developed my own ideas as to what conciousness is. I have never approached anthing close to consiousness in what I ahve done, but the understanding on how neural networks (and hence our brains) work has given me some ideas.

 

Firstly, "consiousness" as we seem to think of it, does not actually seem to direct our actions. In recent studies voluenteers were able to make a concious (and arbitary) decision when to press a button. However, fMRI scans of their brains showed activity in areras of the brain that would relate to performing such a task before the voluenteers were "consious" of makeing the decision to press the button.

 

This means that the brain had chosen to press the button before any consious activity or choice to do so. :eek:

 

Now to my experiments.

 

In my experiements I was trying to develop a simple Neural Network to identify edges of an object. I would feed it a Bitmap and it would identify any edges.

 

Now when developing this Neural Network I would have to train it by giving it a series of images and the expected outputs.

 

What I realised was that ther ewas a feedback loop that existed (and that I was a part of):

Initial Image -> Neural Network -> Output -> Check Output's correctness -> Initial Image -> and so on.

 

I realised that his loop was important, when I heard aobut the fMRI studdies a few years later.

 

Most algorithms can be described as: Input -> Processing -> Output.

 

But the Neural Network that I was working on had that extra feedback loop that checked the correctness of the algorithm, and that the algorithm could change based on the output of the feedback loop.

 

Now in the fMRI study conciousness occurred after the decision to press the button. Inother words the Input -> Processing -> Output needed to make the decision to press a button had occured, but then there was further activity that seemed to only kick in as a "awareness" of that decision.

 

But what would that awareness be useful for? Well for one it could be used for checking that the result of the decision mached what was intended. In otherwords, just like that feedback loop from my experiment.

 

This actually makes a lot of sense. Conciousness as an evaluationion of decision to effect. As a feedback loop that is used to evaluate and adjust our "decision algorithms" (subconsious) as to their expected output (effects/actions).

 

In terms of the fMRI experiement, the activity of the brain to press the button is evaluated against the decision to press the button. It is in effect like our brain is asking its self "Is this what I want to do?"

 

Many animals (and even computer programs) have a feedback loop that evaluates externally, that is after they take an action (say to press a button), with their intention (to press that button), but it is the internal feedback loop (a feedback loop within a feedback loop) that I feel is important to understanding consiousness.

 

Consiousness is an Awareness of our Internal state. That "awareness" implies some kind of feedback. This is why I think that consiousness is the result of a series of feedback loops that evaluate our internal state.

 

This hypothisis fits the data, and it also offers predictions (that with further analysis with fMRI we could see the functioning of the neural activity in the brain and the existance of consiousness as being a feedback loop. As far as I am aware, brain imaging is not yet up to the task (resolution, both spatially and temporally) but with further developments in imaging, I believe that this will be the result.

 

It doesn't need QM to explain the "unpredictability" or "creativity" of it as feedback loopps can do this. Because of the Feedback loops it is a chaotic system and this can account for it (the fact that consiousness is neither random or linear, indicates that it is a nonlinear/chaotic system which is supported by my hypothisis).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm, I am going to "barge in" a bit, but I've been following the debate on this thread for a while through the weird math equations (where you guys completely lost me) and I have to sy I don't quite get what we are arguing about.

 

Or debating.

 

In fact, I don't quite understand how we jumped into arguments about math when as far as I could see the premises and structure of the theory (which comes before the mathematical application of a theory) is not yet fully explained.

 

Let me first refer back to the OP:

 

I will do this in parts. First i want to investigate the theory of Transaction, by Dr. Cramer. I want it known, that i am serious about science, and any theory i use will be based upon quantum physical assessment.

Graviphoton, please start referencing your sources, it is quite unfair you expect people to do the work for you. You are referencing a theory from someone else, and you need to give the proper references so those of us who don't know what that theory is don't have to start googling everything and hoping that we find the correct one that you are refering to.

 

Plus, not referencing is plagiarism.

 

So... I found this: http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html

Which I hope is what you are referring to.

 

When you suggest a new theory, the burden of proof is on you. Part of that is referencing and citing correctly, so we analyze the theory, and not spend our time arguing about whether or not the sources we found are the sources you mean.

 

Do the work.

 

A few things we need to know.

 

1) On the fundamental level, quantum systems do not act according to cause and effect. This rule essentially breaks down. This means there is no directionality to their flow of existence.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. I think you are mixing a bunch of subjects, as is the title of this thread, and I think that you need to explain this more before we can get to the "crux" of your theory and examine its validity.

 

The problem here is that you are jumping from philosophical abstracts to physical concepts and mixing the two up. It might be that I misunderstood you, but that is all the more reason that you need to go back to the beginning and explain the base of your theory again.

 

For that matter, consciousness is an abstract concept with an abstract, non-specific, controversial meaning.

 

Quantum physics is a physical theory that describes the behavior of particles in the "tiny" level. No more. Some movies and films think it "sexy" to introduce time travel, self-improvement and dimensional woowoo into the theory, because it's very hard to understand and it does deal with things we don't usually see as "normal", but that doesn't mean it's part of the theory.

 

It seems to me that you debate here a link of consciousness, AI and the mathematical application of consciosness and some Quantum Mechanics. There is a very big problem with that, however: you haven't proven what consciousness *IS*.

 

No amount of math - correct or otherwise - can prove a statement that is, in itself, moot.

 

Let me empasize by raising this idea:

 

Claim: Female green unicorns can jump over a truck.

I prove it with math, as is not very hard and only demands general mechanics to show the necessary speed, acceleration and solve the equations to show that it works mathematically. And there would be no doubt that my math would be correct.

 

But there are a few fundamental problems here that I must address before going into the math - one that if I don't address, the math is utterly irrelevant and void:

 

(1) I need to first prove that Unicorns exist.

(2) I need to prove that there are green female unicorns.

(3) I need to know what green female unicorns are in order to know how they behave and act physically.

(4) I need to prove they can run and jump.

[edit/add]

(5) I need to prove I can measure it.

[/add]

 

Only after I do these four stages, can I start talking about my theory about jumping green female unicorns seriously. Only then, we can start analyzing the math and find errors or corrections.

 

Before then, the math is moot.

The entire idea is meaningless.

 

 

Graviphoton - Consciousness is an abstract. It is not a physical property or object. Physicists, Philosophers and Metaphycisits, along with AI-developers, Computer scientists and even theologians, argue about its meaning.

 

You must first do these stages to have your theory reach the level of checking its mathematical application:

(1) Define consciousness. (Not that simple)

(2) Prove a consciousness exists. (Many people disagree.)

(3) Prove it is a physical property that can be measured by physical concepts like mathematical theory and quantum theory.

(4) Explain and prove that consciousness "acts" and "runs by" quantum physics.

 

Then, and only then, can you start talking about how the math supports your theory. Mathematics is supporting physical theories, not vice versa. Math has a lot of "games" to it that you can manipulate and twitch and get to some fun applications but they are meaningless - and specifically, they are not connecting QM to abstract-notions - just because you switch numbers around.

 

Equations need to have meaning.

 

Please put meaning into yours, before we start with the math.

 

~moo

 

 

Remark: I'm sorry, I meant to post this in the other consciousness thread, but it's relevant to this one too, with the exception of the math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

''I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. I think you are mixing a bunch of subjects, as is the title of this thread, and I think that you need to explain this more before we can get to the "crux" of your theory and examine its validity.''

 

No mooey:)

 

In quantum physics, particles below the threshold of atoms do not obey cause and effect, because these laws effectively break down. One explanation is the uncertainty principle... and by far, the most accepted explanation. In short, particles disobay the laws of macroscopic systems, and without this ability, quantum mechanics could not operate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They do obey cause and effect, just a different type, hence quantum mechanics.

 

And to say that consciousness and mind follow quantum mechanics is to come out of a premise that consciousness follows the rules of quantum mechanics, which would make it (1) physical (prove it..) and (2) the size of single particles (prove it..)

You are still remaining with the necessity to explain and prove what consciousness is before you can state and prove it works by quantum mechanics.

 

A tree exists, it is a physical object, and yet it does not "obey" quantum mechanics in the broad sense. You cannot explain a tree through quantum mechanics. You can explain the particles that make up the molecules that make up its cells. But not the tree.

 

Prove consciousness' existence. Prove it is physical and can be measured. Prove it abides by quantum mechanics as opposed to by general mechanics.

 

Then we can continue.

 

~moo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please... i should know what the laws of physics implies at the subatomic level. How can you say somethingalways follows cause and effect, AT the subatomic level, when they can experience the effect well before the cause?

 

This is quantum physics.

 

As for your other part of the post, as i have explained, the world of macroscopic systems are an illusion, because there isn't really big objects at large, but rather a collection of smaller statistical averages.

 

The only reason we see a tree as a tree, because these statistical averages have came together to form a single average which at our conscious level, disobey quantum uncertainty and the wave function. But the tree still has a wave function. In fact, its componants that are still in a state of superpositioning, are found to extend right out into space:

 

''Hyperspace Theory, Dr Kaku''

 

Quantum phenomena, gives rise to these things we see defy quantum rules. It doesn't however mean that it isn't a quantum system. As for proving consciousness exists, it has been done. Let me look through my papers and find the correct information...

 

Consciousness ''in a broad sense,'' as you put it with the tree, is not a physical reality, but does arise from a quantum physical reality... so just like we may not be able to see the tree in its quantum light, but still theoretically measure statistical behaviour of quantum activity* that makes the tree a tree, we can measure the physical properties of the mind, those quantum fluctuations that give rise to a thing we cannot see in true quantum light in a whole... or ''broader sense''.

 

Therefore, consciousness arises from quantum fluctuations, and therefore, can theoretically be physically measured.

 

Now the general rules of brain activity must follow quantum rules... any suggestion it doesn't, requires true attention and education in this field of research, because in the end of the day, not all the particles in my head have collapsed into definate states, and therefore, there is much quantum behaviour at work. As for ''following classical rules,'' as i said before:

 

''We cannot deal with a mind that follows classical physics alone... because that theory would be incomplete...''

 

I even gave an example. Take perturbations of fluctuations inside an atom, which advently changes its course in spacetime, changing the course of another atom, changing the course of a molecule, and then another, ect ect... they will eventually change the state of a neuron. So we do need to deal with new physics, and classical physics becomes obsolete.

 

*which is ofcourse impossible, or atleast, a mathematical disaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please... i should know what the laws of physics implies at the subatomic level. How can you say somethingalways follows cause and effect, AT the subatomic level, when they can experience the effect well before the cause?

You should know. That makes it so.

 

Graviphoton, my posts are not there to bash you, they're there to debate with you. Repeating the same statement I countered doesn't help anyone. If I am wrong, prove it.

 

 

This is quantum physics.

Not quite, but i'm willing to go with it. It's still irrelevant, though, because that doesn't prove consciousness to be in the realm of quantum physics.

 

 

As for your other part of the post, as i have explained, the world of macroscopic systems are an illusion, because there isn't really big objects at large, but rather a collection of smaller statistical averages.

You explained but not proven, hence it's still an open question.

Also, since there is no unified theory that confirms what you are saying, it seems most of the scientific community disagrees with you.

 

That makes the burden on proof on you.

 

Prove it.

 

The only reason we see a tree as a tree, because these statistical averages have came together to form a single average which at our conscious level, disobey quantum uncertainty and the wave function. But the tree still has a wave function. In fact, its componants that are still in a state of superpositioning, are found to extend right out into space:

 

''Hyperspace Theory, Dr Kaku''

Dr Kaku is a professor at my college,actually. I am going to take QM with him at some point, so I'll ask him what he thinks of a tree being an illusion.

 

Regardless, you have yet to prove your statements, you just seem to try and explain what you think and give reasons to it, instead of referencing and proving your theory that QM is the theory that explains it all.

 

If I am to explain, predict and plan how a missile of X mass is going to travel when I throw it off a moving plane, I need to use general mechanics. As much as the missile might or might not be an "illusion", Quantum Physics will NOT help me explain or predict its behavior.

 

Hence, QM is not explaining everything.

 

You are still lacking proof.

 

 

I will continue answering a bit later, I am late for work, but again -- you need to first prove consciousness existing (you keep avoiding it.. the fact you BELIEVE it so, does not MAKE IT so) and then that it can be explained and predicted by QM as opposed to other theories.

 

There is no unified theory yet, Graviphoton. You can't refer to QM as if it's a unified theory, certainly not without a HUGE proof.

 

Which will earn you a Nobel Prize most likely, by the way.

 

~moo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any quantum physicist will agree, that we need to trace the unified theory back to the beginningof time, where quantum rules run the game. This isn't speculation, but maintream acceptance.

 

Also, when you speak to Dr. Kaku, ask him about our wave functions, don't ask him about the tree. Ask him if ''our bodies'' have a wave function that spreads out into space. That is more accurate.

 

Also, i am not avoiding your question: proove consciousness exists. I have a lot of paper work to look through to find the acceptance it does indeed exist. Please be patient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.