Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 513141516 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 155

Thread: Pantheism and panpsychism

  1. Top | #141
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    67
    Archived
    384
    Total Posts
    451
    Rep Power
    52
    Following from the idea of proto consciousness...
    Even if we figure out how physics gives rise to consciousness, is there still a why question remaining, or is everything satisfied by the how question?
    Is the proto conscious element needed for physics to work the way it does?
    Roger Penrose mentioned briefly in the beginning of his talk (in the lecture I posted) that the theory they are putting forward is not only to explain consciousness but also to explain other stuff within physics.

  2. Top | #142
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,328
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    39,881
    Rep Power
    81
    I see no need to expand conscious experience into anything more than something that enables organisms to better survive.

    Is there a "proto-wing" that gives rise to all wings?

    A "proto-leg" that gives rise to legs?

    Why is consciousness more incredible than a leg?

    A leg is pretty incredible.

  3. Top | #143
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,388
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,601
    Rep Power
    64
    What I don't understand is how genetic mutated variation arrived at nanotube quantum selection. A theory so robust it defines most every beneficial change that's taken place in living things since the beginning of cellular organization. Never once has quanta pattern ever been identified as causal through mutation. What's more the actors in mutation don't appear to capable of driving such coding.

    I'm siding with Penrose woo woo.

    I'm pretty comfortable with existing explanations of consciousness being the capability to make sense of what one senses and how it acts to provide a bit presentation of what the being believes is going on. I'm pretty sure on can even explain how such mechanisms would evolve in one who had evolved the capability to recognize oneself. Surely one who chews one's own foot would be selected against.

    I'm very comfortable with bilby's analysis.

    There are so many really important things that need be resolved before we wander off into subjective self analysis trying to defend the idea we are special examples of subjective mentality. We are not examples of new physical properties.

  4. Top | #144
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    67
    Archived
    384
    Total Posts
    451
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    I see no need to expand conscious experience into anything more than something that enables organisms to better survive.

    Is there a "proto-wing" that gives rise to all wings?

    A "proto-leg" that gives rise to legs?

    Why is consciousness more incredible than a leg?

    A leg is pretty incredible.
    Following from Penroses theory, then yes, consciousness is a tool for enabling organisms to survive.
    But, following from Penroses theory there's also proto consciousness for every collapse of a wave function. Going on everywhere basically.
    If I understood correctly from their lecture, our consciousness seem to be these building blocks stitched together with quantum entanglement to a larger scale consciousness.

    There are building blocks giving rise to wings and legs. They are called atoms, or rather the subatomical particles within them, and they are a fundamental part of physics yes.

  5. Top | #145
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,328
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    39,881
    Rep Power
    81
    Mutations arise RANDOMLY.

    Nothing drives them in any specific direction.

    The evolving organism stumbles upon structures that make use of quantum effects randomly.

    Like plants stumbled upon the use of quantum effects for photosynthesis randomly.

    Conscious experience is not understood in the least looking at electromagnetic effects.

    There is no accepted theory of consciousness creation to move away from.

    There is only the search for a hypothesis that actually would lead to consciousness.

    Those that say experience does not exist will never find or understand anything about consciousness. They are lost in some dark man-made delusion.

  6. Top | #146
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,328
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    39,881
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by veclock View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    I see no need to expand conscious experience into anything more than something that enables organisms to better survive.

    Is there a "proto-wing" that gives rise to all wings?

    A "proto-leg" that gives rise to legs?

    Why is consciousness more incredible than a leg?

    A leg is pretty incredible.
    Following from Penroses theory, then yes, consciousness is a tool for enabling organisms to survive.
    But, following from Penroses theory there's also proto consciousness for every collapse of a wave function. Going on everywhere basically.
    If I understood correctly from their lecture, our consciousness seem to be these building blocks stitched together with quantum entanglement to a larger scale consciousness.

    There are building blocks giving rise to wings and legs. They are called atoms, or rather the subatomical particles within them, and they are a fundamental part of physics yes.
    The connection between observation and the so-called wave collapse is not something I comprehend.

    Why should our observation cause anything?

    Does an observation have energy contained within it that spreads wave-like out into the world?

    Where do observations take place?

    Does our mind spread outward and observe objects where they are?

    Until there is an actual science of consciousness, until it is understood, all kinds of wild speculations can be made.

    One can be conservative in one's speculations about consciousness or be more radical.

    But neither has more answers.

  7. Top | #147
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    67
    Archived
    384
    Total Posts
    451
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    The connection between observation and the so-called wave collapse is not something I comprehend.

    Why should our observation cause anything?

    Does an observation have energy contained within it that spreads wave-like out into the world?

    Where do observations take place?

    Does our mind spread outward and observe objects where they are?

    Until there is an actual science of consciousness, until it is understood, all kinds of wild speculations can be made.

    One can be conservative in one's speculations about consciousness or be more radical.

    But neither has more answers.
    You're thinking backwards.
    The quantum experiments, like the double slit, where the observer causes it to collapse has nothing to do with consciousness, it's our measuring devices that causes it to collapse. Because measuring it changes the quantum system.
    That's not part of the discussion though. It's the other way around, if I understood Pennrose correctly. It's the collapse of a wave function that causes the proto element of consciousness.

  8. Top | #148
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,388
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,601
    Rep Power
    64
    Ok. So what about Quantum mind where the matter of time scale and the problem of speculation, no experimental evidence, are raised.

    The main theoretical argument against the quantum-mind hypothesis is the assertion that quantum states in the brain would lose coherency before they reached a scale where they could be useful for neural processing. This supposition was elaborated by Max Tegmark. His calculations indicate that quantum systems in the brain decohere at sub-picosecond timescales.[71][72] No response by a brain has shown computational results or reactions on this fast of a timescale. Typical reactions are on the order of milliseconds, trillions of times longer than sub-picosecond timescales.[7
    These hypotheses of the quantum mind remain hypothetical speculation, as Penrose and Pearce admit in their discussions. Until they make a prediction that is tested by experiment, the hypotheses aren't based on empirical evidence. According to Krauss, "It is true that quantum mechanics is extremely strange, and on extremely small scales for short times, all sorts of weird things happen. And in fact we can make weird quantum phenomena happen. But what quantum mechanics doesn't change about the universe is, if you want to change things, you still have to do something. You can't change the world by thinking about it."[2 The process of testing the hypotheses with experiments is fraught with conceptual/theoretical, practical, and ethical problems.
    Following the blast above those problems are expanded and filled out in the article.

    It's quite literally an open season shooting gallery on the notions proposed. Defenses against which are mainly shoulder shrugs and hand waves.

    So not only are bilby's comments on target but those of all the critics here are supported while the defenders are left whiffing with empty promises.

  9. Top | #149
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,328
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    39,881
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by veclock View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    The connection between observation and the so-called wave collapse is not something I comprehend.

    Why should our observation cause anything?

    Does an observation have energy contained within it that spreads wave-like out into the world?

    Where do observations take place?

    Does our mind spread outward and observe objects where they are?

    Until there is an actual science of consciousness, until it is understood, all kinds of wild speculations can be made.

    One can be conservative in one's speculations about consciousness or be more radical.

    But neither has more answers.
    You're thinking backwards.
    The quantum experiments, like the double slit, where the observer causes it to collapse has nothing to do with consciousness, it's our measuring devices that causes it to collapse. Because measuring it changes the quantum system.
    That's not part of the discussion though. It's the other way around, if I understood Pennrose correctly. It's the collapse of a wave function that causes the proto element of consciousness.
    It's a theory of the universe based around this thing humans have, consciousness.

    I am not drawn to those kinds of ideas.

    I see consciousness as a biological phenomena with a biological purpose for existing.

    I think Penrose and his partner go too far.

    But nobody else has anything that explains consciousness or even begins to explain it.

    So bad mouthing their ideas is meaningless chatter.

  10. Top | #150
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    67
    Archived
    384
    Total Posts
    451
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Ok. So what about Quantum mind where the matter of time scale and the problem of speculation, no experimental evidence, are raised.

    The main theoretical argument against the quantum-mind hypothesis is the assertion that quantum states in the brain would lose coherency before they reached a scale where they could be useful for neural processing. This supposition was elaborated by Max Tegmark. His calculations indicate that quantum systems in the brain decohere at sub-picosecond timescales.[71][72] No response by a brain has shown computational results or reactions on this fast of a timescale. Typical reactions are on the order of milliseconds, trillions of times longer than sub-picosecond timescales.[7
    These hypotheses of the quantum mind remain hypothetical speculation, as Penrose and Pearce admit in their discussions. Until they make a prediction that is tested by experiment, the hypotheses aren't based on empirical evidence. According to Krauss, "It is true that quantum mechanics is extremely strange, and on extremely small scales for short times, all sorts of weird things happen. And in fact we can make weird quantum phenomena happen. But what quantum mechanics doesn't change about the universe is, if you want to change things, you still have to do something. You can't change the world by thinking about it."[2 The process of testing the hypotheses with experiments is fraught with conceptual/theoretical, practical, and ethical problems.
    Following the blast above those problems are expanded and filled out in the article.

    It's quite literally an open season shooting gallery on the notions proposed. Defenses against which are mainly shoulder shrugs and hand waves.

    So not only are bilby's comments on target but those of all the critics here are supported while the defenders are left whiffing with empty promises.
    They also responded to Tegmark:

    In response to Tegmark's claims, Hagan, Tuszynski and Hameroff claimed that Tegmark did not address the Orch OR model, but instead a model of his own construction. This involved superpositions of quanta separated by 24 nm rather than the much smaller separations stipulated for Orch OR. As a result, Hameroff's group claimed a decoherence time seven orders of magnitude greater than Tegmark's, although still far below 25 ms. Hameroff's group also suggested that the Debye layer of counterions could screen thermal fluctuations, and that the surrounding actin gel might enhance the ordering of water, further screening noise. They also suggested that incoherent metabolic energy could further order water, and finally that the configuration of the microtubule lattice might be suitable for quantum error correction, a means of resisting quantum decoherence.[44][45]
    I don't know if Tegmark or anyone else responded back, however I found this debate between Tegmark and Hameroff that I will listen to now:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXBfXNW6Bxo

    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    It's a theory of the universe based around this thing humans have, consciousness.

    I am not drawn to those kinds of ideas.

    I see consciousness as a biological phenomena with a biological purpose for existing.

    I think Penrose and his partner go too far.

    But nobody else has anything that explains consciousness or even begins to explain it.

    So bad mouthing their ideas is meaningless chatter.
    No. That's like saying physics is based around biology because biology consists of matter. They are not revolving it around conscoiusness, but proto-consciousness.
    It still takes a complex structure like a brain to create a consciousness.

    Why would a proto conscious property of physics be too far?

Similar Threads

  1. Pantheism Theosophy Rosicrucians Unitarians
    By steve_bank in forum General Religion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 07-10-2018, 10:54 AM
  2. Replies: 62
    Last Post: 10-23-2017, 05:54 PM
  3. I like the idea of Pantheism
    By NobleSavage in forum General Religion
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 10-19-2014, 12:33 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •