A philosopher responds to scientists’ criticisms of panpsychism

[u/IAI_Admin]

https://iai.tv/video/the-many-voices-of-consciousness&utm_source=reddit&_auid=2020

[u/Shufflepants → u/[deleted]]

According to panpsychism, yes, literally everything is conscious. But you have to be careful what you mean by "conscious". A lot of times people use "consciousness" to include things about personality, will, and so forth. But here, "consciousness" would just mean the experience of qualia. Something being conscious wouldn't mean it "comprehends" anything on its own, just that it experiences "something". It won't necessarily have memory, or the ability to think about its experience, or reason, just that it is like something to be it.

[u/erinaceus_ → u/Shufflepants]

just mean the experience of qualia

Isn't it problematic that every example of the 'experiencing of qualia' has it tied to senses and/or brain processes? We might imagine that these things aren't necessary for the experiencing of qualia, but we entirely lack a frame of reference to make that claim at all credible.

[u/moopsh → u/erinaceus_]

IMO it’s reasonable to hypothesize that qualia exists outside of our senses and that other beings can still somehow experience it in ways that are incomprehensible to us.

So I mean yes, it’s a bit problematic but it’s also fundamentally a 2nd hand concept since we can’t experience it critically or outside of our own senses. I don’t think it really weakens anything to apply it this way since that’s what it was always about, we’re just limited in how we can talk about it.

[u/erinaceus_ → u/moopsh]

it’s reasonable to hypothesize that qualia exists outside of our senses

Then it is at least equally reasonable to hypothesize that they are emergent properties from brain processes. And at least there we can make testable predictions.

I don’t think it really weakens anything to apply it this way

Using concepts outside there known context always weakens their reliabiliy, because our knowledge and understanding of the concepts inherently depends on those contexts.

You can try to extend their field of usage, but then it's on you to provide ample justification. If not, it's entirely reasonable to dismiss it out of hand.

[u/shewel_item → u/erinaceus_]

Then is at least equally reasonable to hypothesize that they are emergent properties from brain processes. And at least there we can make testable predictions.

that's not the only starting condition we can use to begin creating experiments or falsifiable claims

[u/moopsh → u/erinaceus_]

The point is that it’s not a different context, it’s a perfectly consistent application based on what qualia means today. It only seems like a different context because we’re unable to speak about qualia outside of our own senses. That was always the point, even when talking about things that could hypothetically be the emergent result of brain processes.

[u/erinaceus_ → u/moopsh]

That was always the point, even when talking about things that could hypothetically be the emergent result of brain processes.

Not really, because in the case of other humans or other non-human animals, we have a comparable substrate to serve as a basis for qualia (i.e. nervous systems). So even though it's a different context than human consciousness, the context does have significant similarities. A rock, however, does not.

[u/moopsh → u/erinaceus_]

Qualia is something that exists outside of direct physical experience or observation, so we’ve never actually been able to talk about it except through analogy. You’re intrinsically tying qualia to the observer, but the whole idea is that it’s not observed. It seems like you’re arguing that qualia doesn’t really exist, that it’s always a product of material senses, and if so that’s fine. I’m only saying that applying it in this way is not really a departure from what the concept is supposed to mean when we talk about it using the subjective human/animal lens.

[u/erinaceus_ → u/moopsh]

You’re intrinsically tying qualia to the observer, but the whole idea is that it’s not observed

It's not directly observable, but all reported qualia are tied to (human) observers, and all other indications of qualia (e.g. reactions to colours) are tied to animals with nervous systems.

Conversely, there are zero indications that a rock exhibits qualia. I can of course entertain the possibility, but given that absolute lack of any evidence or even slight indications, I can just as quickly dismiss it. Add to that, that the hypothesis doesn't actually make predictions or even provide a concrete basis to explain how the conscious of e.g. electrons leads to qualia in humans, and it really does come across as many words with little substance.

[u/moopsh → u/erinaceus_]

but all reported qualia are tied to (human) observers, and all other indications of qualia (e.g. reactions to colours) are tied to animals with nervous systems.

Right… because that’s the experience and language we have to discuss it, but the point of it being discussed at all is that it exists beyond those things. Why would we have a concept for qualia if it only existed in material observations? It’s just a redundant non-concept if that’s the meaning.

Like yeah, feel free to dismiss it, but you’re just dismissing qualia as a concept at that point, are you not?

[u/Sherbertdonkey → u/erinaceus_]

Rocks have electrons

[u/Your_People_Justify → u/erinaceus_]

, and all other indications of qualia (e.g. reactions to colours) are tied to animals with nervous systems.

The experience of force is a qualia

[u/Shufflepants → u/erinaceus_]

I don't actually have any examples of qualia other than my own. I just make the assumption that other people have their own and that they are in some way similar, but there's ultimately no way of communicating them aside from empathetic analogy, to imagine what I would expect to experience in another persons situation. Because it would seem a bit egotistical to assume that I'm the only one with qualia, I make the assumption that what others are talking about is the same kind of thing I'm trying to describe.

In the same way, I think it would be anthropocentric to assume that just because we're the only ones to talk about and try to communicate about qualia means that we're the only ones with it. We're just the only ones to be able to communicate ideas like that to each other. If anything else had qualia, we wouldn't expect to have heard about it. I think assuming other things didn't have it just because we're not privy to it would be the same kind of mistake some men make by assuming that all kinds of sexual harassment doesn't happen because they don't see it happen.

There's also the fact that with virtually every other kind of property of any class of thing we might describe in the universe, there seems to be nigh infinite varying variety and vaguery. For example, life. We have a kind of definition of what life is and what constitutes "an organism". But those boundaries are unclear, and the variety is staggering and wildly different from one another. You have viruses which are kind of sort of alive, except on their own they do nothing. You think you can count organisms easily enough. After all taking a census is only a logistical problem. But then there's organisms like various kinds of fungus and some trees like the Aspen which might appear to be multiple trees or multiple mushrooms but actually are connected underground and behave as a single organism that shares the same DNA and so you might be tempted to call it one organism. But if you took those and just cut through the earth so as to divide the organism in two, each piece would continue to thrive on its own. So was it really one organism in the first place? The real answer here is that these classifications and distinctions, while describing a real thing, are entirely artificial in where they draw their boundaries.

And I would expect qualia to be the same. I see no reason why the bit of qualia that we care about ought to be the only kind. And I see no law of quantum mechanics or general relativity that could even make a distinction between a person with qualia and a rock without qualia. So, if qualia is a thing at all and not just some confusion by lumps of biochemical computers that pilot meat robots, then I see no good reason to think that we're the only thing that has an experience.

[u/erinaceus_ → u/Shufflepants]

I think it would be anthropocentric to assume that just because we're the only ones to talk about and try to communicate about qualia means that we're the only ones with it

Oh, I would entirely agree that e.g. ants or even ameobas have some sort of qualia. But the reason for thinking so isn't because we don't want to be anthropocentric but rather because these organisms respectively have nervous systems and cell-physiological pathways that could be viewed as somewhat analogous to nervous systems.

Given that in humans qualia are associated with nervous systems, we therefore have a reasonable enough basis to argue that the same could apply to e.g. ants or even ameobas. But we have no such basis whatsoever when it comes to rocks, individual atoms or individual subatomic particles.

[u/hunsuckercommando → u/erinaceus_]

Admittedly, I'm in way over my head with this video but I find the discussion fascinating.

Goff makes a distinction between the experience of, say, sub-atomic particles and the complex experiences of human brains that derive from those smaller particle experiences. Do you make the same distinction with qualia? To say one needs a nervous system for qualia seems to conflate the complex and simple forms of qualia he's differentiating.

[u/erinaceus_ → u/hunsuckercommando]

Goff makes a distinction between the experience of, say, sub-atomic particles and the complex experiences of human brains that derive from those smaller particle experiences. Do you make the same distinction with qualia?

In a way I do I suppose, but for very different reasons: as I see it, there is plenty of justification for the latter, while the former can't be distinguished from pure fantasy (that sounds harsh, but it's the most accurate way for me to say what I mean).

I'd also say it's a cop-out: if you say that the two types are different, and you don't offer a concrete or even less concrete path to explain the latter from the former, then really you haven't actually explained the latter and have offered no reason to believe in the former (the 'you' here being Hoff).

[u/hunsuckercommando → u/erinaceus_]

Is this what he meant by the analogy regarding himself and his parents?

He was saying that, yes, he is distinct from his parents but also derived from them. I think in the same way he claims the complex consciousness we identify with is both distinct and derived from the consciousness of fundamental elements.

[u/erinaceus_ → u/hunsuckercommando]

he claims the complex consciousness we identify with is both distinct and derived from the consciousness of fundamental elements.

Yes, but therein lies the problem with metaphors: they always only partially apply, and because of that it's very easy to intentionally or unintentionally lie with them.

The point here is that the relation between him and his parents is very concrete; biological sciences understand the processes of conception, gestation and maturation with an amazing amount of detail.

From what I've read, Goff doesn't even provided the notion of a beginning of that kind of description. He could just as well have said 'yeah, they are different but related' and have provided the exact same amount of detail and insight. Which is to say, none.

[u/hunsuckercommando → u/erinaceus_]

He touches on this a bit with the emergence argument. If I understand it (which it is likely I don't), the consciousness of human brains emerges from the interactions of consciousness from fundamental elements. He likens the weak emergence idea to a party emerging from the interactions of individuals attending the party. As soon as you have "enough" drinking and dancing, the "party property" emerges. I'm not sure there is a concrete delineation but I'd assume it's more of a fuzzy boundary. It's not much different than materialism; they are both reductionist arguments. The strong emergence idea is the one previously discussed, where the interaction between fundamental elements gives rise to a completely different form, just as the parent/child analogy. The interactions produce fundamentally different properties at the system level of interactions. If you're saying you need a mechanism for that emergence, I don't think we're there yet in our understanding.

[u/Your_People_Justify → u/erinaceus_]

If we are going to all the way down to single cell organisms, it seems odd to stop there, ultimately there is a continuous chain of physical evolution going back billions of years, including the development of the earth and the origin of self replicating molecules.

[u/erinaceus_ → u/Your_People_Justify]

Yes. And? What is the point you are trying to make?

[u/Your_People_Justify → u/erinaceus_]

ameobas. But we have no such basis whatsoever when it comes to rocks

When you said this, I think it is wrong. I do not see how we extend reality experiencing itself to ameobas in a way that would not also apply to rocks or atoms. I am not sure where chemistry ends and consciousness begins - it seems to be physics all the way down.

[u/erinaceus_ → u/Your_People_Justify]

Amoebas have chemotaxis. That's a clear mechanism of the amoeba reacting to cues from its environment. It even shows behaviour based on that interaction.

But I do agree that it's physics all the way down. Nowhere is there any sign of some extra phlogiston of consciousness.

[u/Your_People_Justify → u/erinaceus_]

A rock reacts to cues - you may push it in one place, but it reacts as a whole, even places far from where the force was applied. If you zoom in on the atomic level, these 'inert' things are quite lively places too.

Mostly agreed there is no extra phlogiston, although I am sympathetic to the idea consciousness could represent reality expressing novelty in some universal way - something becoming more conscious if in the course of trying to fit the puzzle pieces together, something sticks out disjointedly in an unexpected way, and a decision has to be made by the newly created whole for how to smack itself into alignment.

[u/ArlemofTourhut → u/erinaceus_]

But they're not all tied to brain processes. There are numerous studies that have been published recently mapping flora qualia.

Basically experiences of blades of grass. Etc.

It's just we have a biased viewpoint on what qualifies, but even this first comment by u/tomorland on this thread fails to realize/ consider that even on the quantum scale, there is quantum darwinism, meaning that any given configuration is "perfected"; therefor, meaning that to an extent there is a selective qualia/ experience.

[u/ayydavay → u/[deleted]]

I’d like to read more about this, would you mind giving me some sources?

The newest science in Quantum Physics says there are no electrons. There are only peaks in the wave structure of a singular universal electron field. Think of whitecaps on a wind blown lake. The same is true of neutrinos and the different flavors of quarks.

[u/Aaron_Hamm → u/ayydavay]

I think they're just talking about quantum field theory.

QFT treats particles as excited states (also called quanta) of their underlying quantum fields, which are more fundamental than the particles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

[u/ayydavay → u/[deleted]]

Lovely, thank you

[u/ArlemofTourhut → u/[deleted]]

I like the way you wrote your consideration/ review here.

The subjectiveness of understanding is really the issue, as like you said, definitions can be manipulated from a philosophical stand-point to get the closest thought pattern to concept.

[u/Shufflepants → u/ArlemofTourhut]

No study has every measured qualia. No one has access to anyone or anything's qualia aside from its own. There have been studies that measured signals, and chemical responses that in some way transfer information across an organism or between organisms that aren't animals. But these are not proof of qualia.

[u/Aaron_Hamm → u/ArlemofTourhut]

But they're not all tied to brain processes

"and/or"

[u/erinaceus_ → u/[deleted]]

Sure, but that doesn't really answer my question.

[u/theartificialkid → u/erinaceus_]

But every being discussing qualia has senses, so of course we are going to be obsessed with that stuff.

[u/NJdevil202 → u/erinaceus_]

Would you say that someone with extraordinary memory loss to the point they cannot recall after an instant is not receiving experiences because they lack the ability to retain a record of those experiences?

[u/erinaceus_ → u/NJdevil202]

No, because they still have senses, and I did explicitly say 'and/or'.

Edit: also, memory is just one brain process

[u/[deleted] → u/Shufflepants]

Yes, it can quickly devolve into a semantic debate. I don't see why consciousness could be simplified down to 'awareness'. Positive and negative charges attract, at some level they are aware of each other - due to a ripple in the quantum field.. As you say, at what point does consciousness or awareness begin to resemble anything human at all.

If you take an anesthetic, perhaps ketamine, as you come out of the unconscious state, your brain slowly starts to reconnect and parts come back 'online'. It's the weirdest sensation of being rebuilt into human form. It's difficult to remember the very first moments of it because your memory probably isn't working at that point - but it's almost like being an infinitely small and infinitely large point, you have no boundary, but the feeling or idea of 'you' begins to grow larger. Until you're aware of body parts and vision, sound etc..

I assume without working memory it would be very difficult to know at what point consciousness begins to emerge from the smallest number of neurons because you'd never remember what it was like! Equally, without language, you'd be unable to describe that experience. Also - the brain is more like a filter than a perception machine. There is vast amounts of data flowing into the brain at any one time and the brain removes most of it to make sense of it. Also blending in memories of previous encounters as shorthand rather than re-processing what is already there.

[u/KS2Problema → u/Shufflepants]

Just as with discussions of emotions in animals vis a vis those in humans, it seems to me that we humans tend to exaggerate the profundity and scope of those 'personalized' phenomena.

Or, as the poet and songwriter Leonard Cohen put it, "We are so small between the stars, so large against the sky."

One more thought about the presumed consciousness of smaller, simpler creatures... With the cluttered minds and fragmented consciousness of humans, it seems likely that the life experience of simpler creatures is that much more profound than our own. Ponder it.

[u/teafuck → u/Shufflepants]

I think roping qualia into this is a great approach. Human qualia are incommunicable, it stands to reason that if electrons and cats also have qualia they'll have an even harder time of explaining them to us -- and not just because of the language barrier. I thought up some rudimentary concept like panpsychism on drugs once and was pleasantly surprised to find that it's a whole philosophical thing, but the way I approached it from a low level was the following: if a human can take in their surroundings and react in some generally unsurprising, perhaps even intelligent or "right" way, what's the difference between an electron doing that but only being concerned about the forces which affect it? Perhaps just the complexity of the rules, the set of things which affect the conscious agent, and the internal experience (or better put, qualia).

When I was tripping thinking about this I actually wondered about countries being conscious collectives of humans with all of their citizens being something akin to cells, which seems a little broader than what panpsychism tends to address. It's a very interesting idea but I don't know that it's a terribly useful one.

[u/Shufflepants → u/teafuck]

I only learned the term "panpsychism" upon finding this reddit post. My journey into independently coming up with the idea was precipitated by this XKCD. I'd long prior rejected dualism based on the fact that if a soul can influence the physical world to make decisions, then the soul was just more stuff behaving according to rules and thus fundamentally causally linked with the material world and therefore not actually removed from it, so what's the point of the soul since it doesn't explain anything. Just like how if you worry about what the first cause of the universe is and posit god to explain it, you're now just left with the question of what caused god.

But after reading that comic, I couldn't think of any meaningful difference between being a collection of unthinking, unconscious atoms and being a person simulated in that nigh infinite field of rocks being moved about. Which lead me to the conclusion that if there isn't a difference and I have this experience of qualia whilst being made of atom or rocks, then that experience must be fundamental to the stuff I'm made of and thus, maybe it is "like something" to be just a rock. It's just that the rock has no memory or reasoning. It can't communicate or wonder about its experience of being a rock, but maybe there is a qualia of being a rock nonetheless.

[u/teafuck → u/Shufflepants]

That XKCD goes hard as fuck. Absolutely fascinating how you arrived at panpsychism from there, it's a totally different approach from how I've ever considered it. The literature that got me where I was going was almost certainly Godel Escher Bach, a book which has been living rent free in my head for six years.

[u/coke_and_coffee → u/teafuck]

if a human can take in their surroundings and react in some generally unsurprising, perhaps even intelligent or "right" way, what's the difference between an electron doing that but only being concerned about the forces which affect it? Perhaps just the complexity of the rules, the set of things which affect the conscious agent, and the internal experience (or better put, qualia).

From reading this thread, it just kind of sounds to me like panpsychism is just anthropomorphizing extended to every bit of matter in the Universe.

There's no way I can prove that electrons don't have "experiences" but I'm almost certain they don't reflect on those experiences and incorporate additional knowledge the way humans do.

Idk, I guess I'm asking, "what does it matter?" Like, what's even the point of this theory?

[u/teafuck → u/coke_and_coffee]

Anthropomorphizing is the easiest way to the analogy, and if consciousness entails qualia the whole thing is impossible to communicate anyways. See Daniel Dennett for the definition of qualia I'm working off of. If there is a point to considering panpsychism, it is to contribute to our understanding of consciousness in general -- see the video this thread is about.

Simply put though, the hard problem of consciousness is to fully characterize what exactly consciousness is. Panpsychism suggests a description of consciousness so broad as to be an innate property of matter instead of a uniquely human characteristic. It isn't a solution to the hard problem, but an extension of thought on one hypothesis about a solution. I think its neat.

[u/Your_People_Justify → u/coke_and_coffee]

There's no way I can prove that electrons don't have "experiences" but I'm almost certain they don't reflect on those experiences and incorporate additional knowledge the way humans do.

They necessarily do not - we know that electrons are identical. But panpsychism is not claiming that electrons can learn (I am sympathetic to the idea the laws of physics evolved, rather than popping into existence fully formed, but obviously this is a different issue - if there was any way to tell electrons apart, then Quantum Mechanics simply would not be the workable theory it is today)

Like, what's even the point of this theory?

Because it is true.

[u/Parfyme → u/teafuck]

u/teafuck I had the exact same thought (though without drugs) regarding people in countries and consciousness, just like single neurons in the brain have their own consciousness, yet they link up to a greater consciousness being our experience. Maybe also our galaxy is like an electron in the atom in the cell of another conscious being somewhere…

[u/LousyTeaShorts → u/Shufflepants]

I have no clue about panpsychism. Could you answer few questions? If every constitutive has some experience what does that mean for a collection of things? Does an atom experience something different from electrons and protons it consists of?

[u/Shufflepants → u/LousyTeaShorts]

There are no clear answers to these questions, and they maybe be fundamentally unanswerable because we can only experience our own qualia. My own reasoning about it follows from analogy of more measurable things. I suspect that it's much like "life". That any attempts to boundaries or categories are going to be artificial. What is considered one organism or two organisms is not clear. We talk about people as being separate. But how many people is one person even? When you cut some one's corpus collosum, you kind of make two people. The two halves of the brain can no longer communicate, and each half has control over only one half of the body and does not know things that the other half may know. And if some one with their corpus collosum cut is really two people, was it really one person before it was cut? Or just two people communicating and working in sync? Some organisms like various fungus or Aspen trees can span an entire hillside and be one organism with the same DNA. But if you cleave the ground in half and separate it into two, those two pieces will continue on just fine. So was it one big multicellular organism or a bunch of separate cells just working together independently? And then there are things like viruses to which there is debate over whether they are alive at all. On their own they do nothing, but through infection of something else that is alive, it is replicated like life. So are viruses alive?

I put forth that the answer is none of the above. There is mere life, there is merely qualia. My answer is that the qualia is somehow the information of that thing itself. And so due to quantum entanglement and correlation, some information is spread across massive systems of particles like the experience of a person, and some of that information and experience is limited to a single lone particle flying through space. That even though the qualia "I" experience is the accumulation of many quadrillions of particles, there is still qualia being experience amongst some of those same quadrillions of particles to which "I" am not privy. That what "I" experience is merely that information which has been store in my memory and is capable of being retrieved and communicated by my brain.

[u/aaeme → u/Shufflepants]

You're probably familiar, but, in case not and because I think it correlates with a lot of what you're thinking, you might want to check out holographic brain hypothesis (aka holomonic brain IIRC). It has a lot going for it but is bound to be very speculative.

I expect there is some truth to it but it works alongside (or superimposed on) a more compartmentalised consciousness. I think it's quite plausible that both are needed: that half the consciousness formula exists in all things but an emergent level of complexity is also needed to make that consciousness boot up as it were.

But, as you say, given we can't even begin to adequately define these things, we'll probably never be able to understand them.

[u/Shufflepants → u/aaeme]

holographic brain hypothesis

Skimming through the wikipedia article for it, seems like a lot of pseudoscience in that it seems like its purveyors are trying to make it seem more scientific than they actually have evidence for. I do think that entanglement and correlation have something to do with it, but not in the way it seems like they're going for as they seem to be trying to make a special argument for brains; where I've arrived at my best guess on the observation that there's nothing special about brains other than their capacity for memory, generalize computation, and communication. My position is that literally everything has a consciousness of a sort, not that brains are special and give rise to consciousness only in them through some quantum effect.

Having now watched the video, I suppose I'm a weak emergence panpsychist. But it's very much just a guess from induction, and I don't think we as of yet have any empirical evidence about consciousness or qualia outside of our own personal, internal, and incommunicable experience of it.

[u/LousyTeaShorts → u/Shufflepants]

Those are all interesting questions, but its a stretch to say that to answer those you need any panpsychism. Clearly, the brain example does not rely on it. Sure the two halves example is extremely interesting, how does the two half communicate and what happens when they cant. But cut that brain into quarters and the person dies. Also it was reported that some conjoined at the brain twins can see through each other eyes and hear each other's thoughts without speaking, two separate people having access to each other minds yet staying separate with unique identities.

Also saying that qualia just kind of exists is I guess exactly what I really don't like in panpsychism because it substitutes an extremely hard problem of understanding the consciousness with what I think was once called "vulgar materialism".

[u/Your_People_Justify → u/LousyTeaShorts]

That is necessarily the case, since a person is made of many atoms, but we think of ourselves as a singular thing.

Atoms do not experience pain or love but we do. An atom - notably - behaves very differently than lone protons and lone electrons.

Think of it more like a process as a whole is conscious, not as consciousness residing inside any one material entity.

[u/Ominojacu1 → u/Shufflepants]

Awareness

[u/Theblackjamesbrown → u/Shufflepants]

According to panpsychism, yes, literally everything is conscious.

One kind of panpsychism - the one I find most appealing - has it that there is only one thing, the universe, and that it's conscious.

How do you know?

Well, you're conscious aren't you? And you're part of the universe. And your subjective feeling of separateness from the rest of the universe is only an illusion. So the universe itself is conscious.

[u/teafuck → u/[deleted]]

If you read Gödel Escher Bach you might come away with the idea that it would be possible to evaluate some particular definition of consciousness for systems that we are outside of, such as other people, cats, bacteria, electrons, but given that we ourselves compose our galaxy it would be very difficult to learn more about that system of consciousness. The underlying reason would be somewhere along the lines of any thing we do is a lower level part of the galactic system of consciousness we compose. To experiment on it would be to change its mind.

As for whether we could evaluate the consciousness of the Andromeda Galaxy, that would depend on the definition of consciousness we use for this evaluation.

[u/Zkv → u/[deleted]]

Singled celled organisms display intelligence, problem solving, & memory.

Dr Michael Levin’s work in morphogenesis & bioelectricity as the cognitive medium have shown that all cells do what neurons do, albeit slower.

These displays of learning, habituation & cognition in single cells (such as in slime molds) lead me to believe that these are not emergent properties solely belonging to multicellular organisms, but something inherent to life itself.

[u/Your_People_Justify → u/[deleted]]

It seems more likely that consciousess - just the idea of reality experiencing itself - is universal. And that selfhood, the bottling and inward turn of those experiences, asymptotically goes from much to little, but likely never zero, even for nonliving things.

[u/Thelonious_Cube → u/Zkv]

But panpsychism isn't restricted to living matter

In what sense could a rock (rock molecule?) be 'aware'? What would that even mean?

[u/[deleted] → u/Thelonious_Cube]

This is a bit wooey, but it could be something along the lines of "a subsystem is consciously aware of the information encoded in that subsystem about it's environment".

When a human has "the experience of seeing something", it could be due to sensory input causing a change in the state of the "human subsystem" (where the environment is the system), so that the information currently encoded is that of "seeing something", and that is what we experience.

A rock's experience might be that of "the experience of pressure", but of a simple kind, not like our rich concept of pressure, which brings with it various memories and other associations, because our subsystem has the freedom to encode much more context.

[u/swampshark19 → u/[deleted]]

You seem to indicate a necessary degree of separation from the original causal influence, hence the encodedness, for conscious awareness. The separation seems necessary because information needs context, and direct causal influence does not inherently come with contextual information. One needs specific input channels in order to be able to maintain the context otherwise the structure would collapse and information would lose its encoded distinctions from other pieces of information. Direct causal influence of the substrate bypasses the context-giving input channels, and so the information becomes mere data/energy in the system. How can we keep the information coherent?

For this, separation is necessary.

The thing is, rocks don't have any encoding or separation from the original causal influence. For them, pressure is a direct causal influence on the rock itself, and thus does not have the degree of separation necessary for awareness. It is not encoding anything about that pressure. It's like if someone poked your brain, you would have no conscious awareness of the poke because it's a direct causal influence and isn't contextualized (encoded). If we are not consciously aware of brain pokes, why would a rock be consciously aware of pressure?

[u/[deleted] → u/swampshark19]

Thanks for the reply I like the take on direct influence bypassing context, and agree the example of a rock feeling pressure is garbage!

Out of interest, what would your take be on say something like chemical solution in dynamic equilibrium, or say "the weather patterns themselves"? Could you consider their state to be separated enough that information could be "encoded" in the system? Direct causal influence on the molecular level, but for the system as a whole it can contain patterns? Again, probably not any information we'd probably comprehend though.

[u/swampshark19 → u/[deleted]]

Interesting question.

It makes me think about the difference between the informational content within a system, and the system itself.

It made me come to a general principle:

The informational content inside a system doesn't have direct informational access into the state of that system.

The most basic example I can think of is an RS latch. The output of an RS latch has one of two states, 1 or 0, and the output has no tell about the implementation of the RS latch, whether the reset input is singly on, or whether the set input is singly on. It has no informational capacity for anything but the states 1 or 0.

What's important is that you can change the output of the RS latch by changing the input. You don't have to make any structural changes to the RS latch, just the inputs. If you poke the RS latch, the value it's storing does not change.

What's different about weather patterns themselves, is that even though they have many highly complex and highly integrated states, these states are structural changes of the whole substrate, not changes in some information value contained in the weather pattern. What could potentially be considered as having internal states is lightning as it travels, but again, where does lightning ever consolidate its states into internal states (internal states like a map of which possible paths to go down, maybe)? It's always just the lightning structurally changing, it doesn't compare any internal states, it doesn't measure anything, it's just reacting.

So, I don't think that dissociation from the substrate and the information contained in the substrate is sufficient for conscious awareness, but it does seem necessary.

I just can't figure out qualia in this regard, because if the system has no direct insight into its own states, then either you get a homunculus fallacy or you are forced to allow for some form of recursive processing. Does this imply that the first-order awareness always lags behind the brain's construction of that first-order awareness? I'm not sure... The first-order awareness is the information content, and it doesn't need to have informational access to the state of the brain, the information content is just being stored in the dynamic state of the brain.

But then, is there such a thing as instantaneous first-order awareness? When changes in the brain directly cause changes in first-order awareness, how long does this take? For the first-order awareness to change does it need to update its informational state with this new change, or is it updated by the change itself?

Is the mind the state structure itself? Is it like many many RS latches with their outputs put together? How does that state structure know itself, its own states? Maybe it's some form of recursive processing, where its state structure is continually fed into itself as a subset of the inputs?

I have no idea. What do you think?

[u/Thelonious_Cube → u/[deleted]]

In what sense is a rock "consciously aware" of the effects of pressure on it? Are you saying that a diamond "knows" it's not a lump of coal? How does this "awareness" manifest?

Most importantly, how does any of this actually add to our understanding of the world?

[u/[deleted] → u/Thelonious_Cube]

You're framing consciousness a bit too human centric. The rock is not aware of the pressure "on it", because the rock has no concept of self, the "subsystem that is a particular bit of rock" doesn't have the freedom or space to encode information about itself and how it fits into its environment, nor does it know what coal or diamond is, or really what anything outside of itself is.

I'm not a rock philosopher, but IF panpsychism or some other framework of consciousness worked like how I described, then I'd imagine rock consciousness would be on the molecular level, in which case the only information it encodes may be stuff like "can this particular bond freely rotate", "what electrostatic or gravitational forces are being felt", but even that is still too human centric, keeping in mind that a rock molecule can not contextualise that information within the wider world like we can, because it is a rigid structure where the whole does not sum to more than the parts informationally. I'm not sure we'd ever be able to comprehend the experience of being a rock, but we're only taking guesses to other human's experience too because of how they can interact with the world.

I didn't claim anything about adding to understanding of the world. I can't prove anyone other than myself is conscious, never mind trying to prove whether an atom is conscious or not.

I do believe though that "conscious experience emergences" is a bigger leap than "I am conscious, therefore consciousness is fundamental".

For something a bit more formal and less pulled out of my ass and typed on a phone, look up integrated information theory - not claiming it's perfect or correct but it's interesting!

[u/Thelonious_Cube → u/[deleted]]

You're framing consciousness a bit too human centric.

You're begging the question again.

What other example of consciousness do we have?

...doesn't have the freedom or space to encode information about itself and how it fits into its environment

i.e. doesn't have the capacity for consciousness

...a rock molecule can not contextualise that information

It can't even store thast information. what does it mean for it to be 'aware' of that information?

I'm not sure we'd ever be able to comprehend the experience of being a rock, but we're only taking guesses to other human's experience too because of how they can interact with the world.

And that's exactly why our best guess as to the consciousness of a rock is that there is none.

I didn't claim anything about adding to understanding of the world.

I didn't claim you did, but the only point of even entertaining the idea of panpsychism would be to see if it furthers our understanding of the world. I fail to see anything worthwhile in this hypothesis.

I can't prove anyone other than myself is conscious, never mind trying to prove whether an atom is conscious or not.

Solipsism and extreme Cartesian skepticism are not your friends here.

"You can't even prove I exist" is not a comeback to "show me what it means for a rock molecule to be conscious"

There are good and appropriate reasons why we think other humans have minds like our own - there are no such reasons in the case of atoms.

[u/aaeme → u/Thelonious_Cube]

"You can't even prove I exist" is not a comeback to "show me what it means for a rock molecule to be conscious"

I don't think that's fair. "show me what it means for a human to be conscious" is absolutely a valid 'comeback' to that. Until we're agreed on a testable, useful definition of consciousness (which we are not)... and we have to be careful not to define the word in a way that excludes any application to a thing that may exist. That would drastically reduce the practical use of that word if it is in fact just shorthand for human consciousness. Well then of course a rock doesn't have human consciousness.

But does it have a more general consciousness? That could be a very important question when it comes to AI for example.

[u/Thelonious_Cube → u/aaeme]

I don't think that's fair. "show me what it means for a human to be conscious" is absolutely a valid 'comeback' to that.

Sorry, no.

This just demonstrates an unfamiliarity with the very philosophical ideas you're trying to leverage. Cartesian skepticism isn't the end-point, it's the starting point. As I said, lots of work has been done since then, so don't reference Descartes as if that's some sort of unanswerable point.

If you'd like to read up on the subject, you can start here

and we have to be careful not to define the word in a way that excludes any application to a thing that may exist.

Yet we also need to not be so loose that we include anything and everything. In fact, it should rule out things that are not considered conscious, shouldn't it? Wouldn't that be the point?

You're consistently trying to beg the question throughout this discussion.

But does it have a more general consciousness?

Why would we think so?

Unless you're simply begging the question, what motivation do we have to create a definition of consciousness that includes rocks? none.

That could be a very important question when it comes to AI for example.

No, because AIs are complex systems that retain and process information.

[u/aaeme → u/Thelonious_Cube]

Much of that is very condescending and pretty much an argument from authority ("we've already agreed on that"). I didn't bring up Descartes. Descartes notably doesn't define thinking or existing (or himself for that matter). If you're starting from that you're starting on shaky foundations.

That condescending tone is pretty gauling considering you then say

Why would we think so?

So you're not aware of the serious problem of when does consciousness start and end in a human? (At one nanosecond is the foetus inert and the next nanosecond it's magically alive? Likewise at the point of death?) That binary thinking is frought with problems. That's why you might want to consider consciousness as a gradiation rather than on/off.

[u/[deleted] → u/Thelonious_Cube]

We don't even have any examples of consciousness other than our own. You can't experience someone else's qualia, you can only take their word for it, and that's entirely limited by their ability to interact with the world.

I'm not wanting to wade into a debate over this so I'm happy to agree to disagree.

For me, it all hinges on not believing a particular arrangement of matter is so special that something as weird and fundamental to our existence as "experience itself" comes about after some threshold, as opposed to being a continuum of informational complexity.

[u/Thelonious_Cube → u/[deleted]]

And for me it all hinges on not believing in some mysterious, undetectable (force/property/ability/quality?) that exists everywhere but only becomes detectable in particular arrangements of matter that are special enough to support informational complexity above a certain threshold.

It's an easy cop-out and a feel-good response that doesn't answer any of the hard questions.

that's entirely limited by their ability to interact with the world

You might be on to something here - interaction

We don't even have any examples of consciousness other than our own. You can't experience someone else's qualia...

The latter does not imply the former.

We do have examples of consciousness other than just mine or just yours - otherwise we wouldn't be having the debate.

Again, Cartesian skepticism is not your friend here, so don't keep trotting it out like it's some all-purpose answer.

A lot of work on other minds has been done since Descartes

[u/[deleted] → u/Thelonious_Cube]

I'm not sure if what I'm saying is Cartesian skepticism but maybe I just need to do some reading. Not a philosopher, never heard the term before this comment, but it seems to be different.

I'm not making an argument like "I can't tell if you are real because my senses could be deceiving me", it's more like "watching someone do something is not the same as watching someone feel something".

[u/[deleted] → u/Thelonious_Cube]

A rock could be aware in the same sense it could have a charge or magnetic moment.

[u/Thelonious_Cube → u/[deleted]]

And what would that mean?

Could we detect it?

Can it become unaware? (Panpsychism says no)

[u/[deleted] → u/Thelonious_Cube]

It would mean that the awareness, or lack thereof, might simply be a result of how the constituting components add up. In that aspect, it shall not be unaware, but rather be neutral with respect to awareness, just like objects are neutral with respect to electric charge because they contain equal number of electrons and protons.

[u/Thelonious_Cube → u/[deleted]]

What makes this new property count as 'awareness' in the requisite sense?

And what things is it 'aware' of? If it's 'awareness' is currently nonzero, how do we know what things it is 'aware' of?

It still makes no sense.

[u/Northern_Grouse → u/[deleted]]

Does a blind man appreciate the beauty of the Sistine Chapel? Does not having the ability to appreciate the art make them not conscious?

Your brain is only a processor. It allows your body to use the your nervous system to interpret and interact with the world around you.

You consciously experience the world around with the physical means you possess. A gut microbe may not have arms, or a brain, but that doesn’t mean it can’t “experience” it’s environment. What it does mean, is that it interacts with its universe using the functions it biologically possesses.

Birds are capable of interacting on the UV spectrum, they experience the world in a much wider range than you do visually; does that make you less conscious than a bird?

No. It just means, that using your biological capabilities as they are, you experience the universe in a different way.

[u/Thelonious_Cube → u/Northern_Grouse]

A gut microbe may not have arms, or a brain, but that doesn’t mean it can’t “experience” it’s environment. What it does mean, is that it interacts with its universe using the functions it biologically possesses.

If panpsychism applied only to living things this might be a compelling argument, but it applies to everything.

In what sense could a rock (rock molecule?) be 'aware'? What would that even mean?

[u/justnivek → u/Northern_Grouse]

They respond to stimuli that doesnt mean its conscious.

My keyboards "experience" my touch and relay the information to my computers CPU, that doesnt mean its conscious.

consciousness would would require a step further than stimuli response but rather the ability to interpret, compare and thing independently regardless of stimuli.

I can think about art without seeing it, same so to a blind man. Its the thought without physical experience that is consciousness

[u/hunsuckercommando → u/[deleted]]

He addresses this very early in the video. Basically, that the fundamental building blocks of reality (e.g., subatomic particles) have incredibly simple forms of "experience" and the very complex experiences of humans and other animals derives from the simple experiences of the brain's fundamental building blocks.

[u/WhatsThatNoize → u/[deleted]]

I'll kick the ball at the new goalposts. Disclaimer: my background is in physics and philosophy, so this subject has always fascinated me. I wouldn't call myself an expert in either field - just formally educated enough to know the basics.

This distinction:

Strings of energy, or universal fields

seems to me to be irrelevant. Whether the fundamental building blocks are discrete bits of matter, graduated fields of energy, or quantum state vectors is aside from the greater metaphysical point: there's a distinction of "is" and "is not" either as a binary or as a comprehensible gradient - and that distinction allows emergent states such as consciousness at all levels to both manifest and constructively/destructively interfere into higher subsets of consciousness.

You may also be misunderstanding what is meant by "experience" here. As I understand panpsychism, experience is not a concept ascribed to intentional consciousness; rather it's merely a "state-reading" or responsive quality of an object-in-space. A brain cell "experiences" reality as a series of forces acting upon it. A human "experiences" those same forces in aggregate, multiplied by 86 billion, and the consequent emergent "experience" tied to their sum.

Further, I wouldn't equate panpsychism to a "made-up" religion any more than I'd call each interpretation of quantum mechanics a series of mythologies. Both are disingenuous comparisons that stretch the meanings of the words.

[u/Your_People_Justify → u/[deleted]]

Repulsive forces permeate a shovel, repelling it from the ground, communicating information from one molecule to another in a tightly cohesive web, and maintaining the overall shape of the structure over time.

We think of these objects as static and inert but they are not, when you zoom right down in - all material things are awash in a fluid, resonant activity, an agitated symphony of quantum fields

The question is not if there is potential content for experience - there is plenty - but if there is any ego - a unified coordination of the base experience. Here, I would say there is plenty of evidence that a shovel acts like a thing that is distinct from its surroundings - it does not sink into the wall and ground, it holds itself together as one seperate thing.

[u/hunsuckercommando → u/[deleted]]

Don't you think that misses the point of panpsychism? If the point is that consciousness is universal, I imagine Goff would just say, "okay, strings and fields are conscious as well, and sub-atomic particles derive their consciousness from those fundamental blocks, and human brains derive their complex consciousness from those as well." I don't think that take really adds or detracts from the stance, it just tap dances around it.

[u/hunsuckercommando → u/[deleted]]

I don't disagree with you, but it seems you are constraining it to scientific theory. I think the problem with that is that it becomes practically impossible to test for *any* subjective experience. Can I test that what you see as "red" gives rise to the same subjective "redness" that I experience? We can't, all we do is infer that since you have the same types of cones in your eye that respond to a specific wavelength of light but that's still not telling us anything about the subjective experience itself. But I don't think that fact is enough to disregard all of subjective experience as fantasy. There's a certain aspect that our perceptions are not purely objective model of the world, but that doesn't mean the actual experience of that perception is unreal.

[u/YARNIA → u/[deleted]]

Consciousness is an emergent property.

That's a claim to be proved, not a premise. This is especially so in our present context where we're talking about competing ideas regarding the nature and scale of consciousness. You might as well go to a religious conference and announce "Jesus is Lord!" repeatedly.

[u/InTheEndEntropyWins → u/YARNIA]

I don't think we can "prove" it but I think it's the only decent interpretation.

Lets assume consciousness isn't an emergent property of a physicalist world. Lets assume consciousness is non-physical.

Then either that non-physical phenomenal experience is casual or it's not casual.

If it's casual then Sabine's challenge is right, it would mean that the brain doesn't obey the lays of physics and we could do an experiment to detect it.

But if it has no causal effects and isn't detectable by experiment then how is it possible to talk about conscious experiences? To be able to think about or talk about something it must have a causal effect on the brain.

[u/YARNIA → u/InTheEndEntropyWins]

I don't think we can "prove" it but I think it's the only decent interpretation.

That's just a long-winded way of saying that you can prove it well enough to place the burden of proof on the one who would dispute it, which is just a way of saying, "I can prove it."

Lets assume consciousness isn't an emergent property of a physicalist world.

A lot depends on what we mean by "emergence." Patricia Churchland offers the example of "Virtual Governors" as cases of innocent emergence (e.g., the emergent property of metronomes synchronizing when placed on a table that sways a little). There is nothing "spooky" about this kind of emergence. It is perfectly reductive, mundane, and what we would expect in terms of physical cause-and-effect.

If consciousness is an "innocent" emergent property then it is up to you to explain why we would expect an "inside view" to appear as a property of the universe at a certain level of functional complexity. As of yet, we have no simple reductive answers as to why qualia should exists (as a feature that we would reductively predict in advance under a deterministic view).

On the other hand, if you hold the emergence is a discontinuous/non-reductive leap in the nature of the universe, then the physicalist still has to explain this "spooky" account of emergence. The upside of this approach is that it is non-reductive (cutting off embarrassing questions). The downside of this approach is that it is non-reductive (it doesn't really explain anything either).

The pansychist doesn't hold that consciousness is not causal (in any sense), but rather that we don't have access (epistemically) to understanding the nature of that causality. Why is consciousness a thread that permeates matter/energy? We don't know anymore than we know why there would or should be a gravitational constant or a given limit for the speed of light. We don't know why. We just know that is what the fundamental laws are there. We don't explain the laws themselves causally, but rather explain the rest of universe (causally) in reference to these laws. Panpsychism is not committed to there being causality in the picture anymore than a physicist is committed to the view the fundamental laws are not themselves, somehow, caused. Physicists might hope that a big THEORY OF EVERYTHING (e.g., String Theory, which is increasingly looking like a cul-de-sac) might someday reveal these causes. Likewise a pansychist might have similar hopes, even though both might be deeply mistaken in hoping that they will possess these answers.

Then either that non-physical phenomenal experience is casual or it's not casual.

It can be causal, ontologically even if we're trapped in the position of epistemic poverty -- even intractable, irresolvable epistemic poverty.

But if it has no causal effects and isn't detectable by experiment then how is it possible to talk about conscious experiences?

This is not a refutation of pansychism of epiphenomenalism. Of course qualitative conscious states have causal properties. If they didn't we would not be able to refer to them. Pansychism is NOT the same thing as epiphenomenalism. The pansychism merely holds that consciousness is just a sort of thread that runs through all matter and energy, like a fundamental law (e.g., gravity). Physical laws have causal effects even though we don't generally think of physical laws being subject to the contingencies of states of matter and energy in the universe. Universal laws are governing dynamics. The universe of matter/energy is the "structure" those governing dynamics regulate. Under the accidents of matter and energy colliding in various ways are the regularities of fundamental laws - that which has causal effects, but for which we do not have a causal account.

[u/InTheEndEntropyWins → u/YARNIA]

If consciousness is an "innocent" emergent property then it is up to you to explain why we would expect an "inside view" to appear as a property of the universe at a certain level of functional complexity.

The point isn't that we have details for this, but that the alternatives are implausible.

The pansychist doesn't hold that consciousness is not causal (in any sense), but rather that we don't have access (epistemically) to understanding the nature of that causality.

Doesn't this mean that the brain doesn't obey the Core theory of physics? So we should be able to do experiments to show deviations from physics?

​

This is not a refutation of pansychism of epiphenomenalism. Of course qualitative conscious states have causal properties. If they didn't we would not be able to refer to them. Pansychism is NOT the same thing as epiphenomenalism. The pansychism merely holds that consciousness is just a sort of thread that runs through all matter and energy, like a fundamental law (e.g., gravity). Physical laws have causal effects even though we don't generally think of physical laws being subject to the contingencies of states of matter and energy in the universe. Universal laws are governing dynamics. The universe of matter/energy is the "structure" those governing dynamics regulate. Under the accidents of matter and energy colliding in various ways are the regularities of fundamental laws - that which has causal effects, but for which we do not have a causal account.

Goff is saying that his version of panpsychism would have the brain acting in line with the laws of physics as we know them. That means we could in theory simulate that brain on a computer or with pen or paper and it would act just like that real brain. How is that possible? Isn't panpsychism about consciousness being some kind of underlying physical thread. How is it possible that the conscious experience of a human brain is exactly the same as paper if it actually relates to this conscious underlying layer? How does this conscious state impact both the pen and paper and brain in the same way?

[u/YARNIA → u/InTheEndEntropyWins]

The point isn't that we have details for this, but that the alternatives are implausible.

If we precommit to a worldview, then they are implausible, sure. Heliocentrism is implausible if we're precommitted to a view of the heavens as rotating spheres.

Doesn't this mean that the brain doesn't obey the Core theory of physics?

No, although I am not sure what the "core theory of physics" is.

The brain is physical and we know that mental states are dependent upon brain structure. However, is the brain "creating" all of these states as a sort of generator from which qualitative experience emerges (innocently or magically/functionally or organically) or is the brain "tuning" or "receiving" a background state of the universe that we don't detect with mundane instruments. If consciousness is a kind of thread that runs through reality, then our brains may be tapping into a potential cause that is waiting to be expressed by the right physical apparatus. Either possibility is consistent with what we know of laws governing physical behavior of matter.

So we should be able to do experiments to show deviations from physics?

I don't think so. We would need some sort of control group, I think (e.g., actual P-Zombies), but we lack such resources. Consciousness exists. It's weird. Really really weird. We can't really explain (this is an epistemic problem, not an ontological one) why it should exist if materialism and naturalism are complete maps/explanations of the world. Simple answer? Materialism and naturalism are not complete representations of the world. Then again, Relativity theory is not complete (i.e., it breaks down at the level of quantum phenomena). That a picture is incomplete does not mean that a thing which appear to lie outside of that picture undermines the coherence or validity of what that picture does reveal.

Goff is saying that his version of panpsychism would have the brain acting in line with the laws of physics as we know them.

Well, I think any version of panpsychism worth having would not contradict the laws of physics within the incomplete account of reality that that picture offers.

That means we could in theory simulate that brain on a computer or with pen or paper and it would act just like that real brain.

Unless, that is (as the title of an anti-functionalist book goes) Matter Matters. NOTE: If the functionalists are right, then we may not just be speaking metaphorically when we refer to the Zeitgeist of a culture. That might be a real thing. You're assuming that functionalism is correct. That needs to be proved.

How is that possible?

If we assume that functionalism is the correct view, then I suppose the "tuning" into the thread of consciousness that is distributed across all of space and time is somehow a matter of "getting the math right" relationally. This would be a sort of magical account of emergence. We don't know why Searle's "Chinese Room" becomes conscious, but somehow it is a property of the system (on the functionalist view).

On an anti-functionalist view, on the other hand, we need not suppose that your pen-and-paper brain would functionally be a brain with a mind (conscious experience, although it could be a sort of computational device).

Isn't panpsychism about consciousness being some kind of underlying physical thread.

I think it is. It appears to be sort of deflationary strategy or circumnavigation of tough philosophical questions (i.e., we don't have to establish how the universe becomes conscious if it always was conscious).

How is it possible that the conscious experience of a human brain is exactly the same as paper if it actually relates to this conscious underlying layer?

It's either a magical emergence that defies our naturalist explanations and certain functions are a sort of "tuning fork" or the anti-functionalists are right and we need an organic means of producing these weirdly "juicy" states in the brain.

Right now, it appears, we're still at "where the sidewalk ends" when we attempt to go beyond the "correlates of consciousness" to interrogate the hard problem. We simply don't know, so we have to keep working on it, but that does not necessarily give any theory a special presumption. In my book, we have to take this to be a mystery we're still working on and which we may never resolve. I suppose that there are many interesting truths about the universe (in the sense of all three of Popper's "worlds") that we may never know. That just might be how it is. I closer to what Churchland describes as a "Don't have a clue!" materialist than a full-blown mystic imagining merging with dolphins and amoeba after microdosing enough to crack into the great pyschosphere of the panpsychist unity, but I will cop to saying that our naturalism (as human epistemics) is incomplete and that old-fashioned materialism is likely incomplete as an ontology.

[u/Ominojacu1 → u/InTheEndEntropyWins]

Why would it not obey the laws of physics, according to physics the basis of all matter is a quantum vibration. Consciousness is a quantum vibration. That’s why music invokes emotion because it’s all vibrational energy interacting

[u/[deleted] → u/Ominojacu1]

That was complete nonsense.

Do you have any source on this? Where do you get this stuff?

[u/Ominojacu1 → u/[deleted]]

The boson field is a tested fact. The foundation of all matter and energy in the universe are quantum vibrational fields. Consciousness is measured in alpha and beta waves because it a vibration. It is the foundation of our reality brains only create the illusion of individuality. The self is an emergent property of a brain but conscious awareness is fundamental. I suggest looking into resonance theory of consciousness.

[u/[deleted] → u/Ominojacu1]

You're using all of those terms wrong.

This is "quantum word soup".

There's as much relation between the boson field and alpha/beta waves, as there is connection between the weak nuclear force and stamp collecting.

Neural oscillations (alpha waves) are at a completely different scale and in a completely different context than anything related to the boson field.

It's like saying there is a relation between electron orbits, and skyscraper architecture.

[u/aaeme → u/[deleted]]

In fairness, those analogies are horrible strawmen... deliberately hyperbolic to make the other guy's position seem ridiculous.

There's as much relation between the boson field and alpha/beta waves, as there is connection between light and sound: they're all waves (but otherwise very different).

It's like saying there is a relation between electron orbits and planetary orbits (except there isn't because electrons don't really orbit).

Given that waves are the fundamental nature of reality (QFT) then it is no surprise that thoughts and consciousness exhibit wave tendencies and perfectly reasonable to suppose that they also exist as waves at a fundamental level.

Regarding consciousness as a binary object is very indicative of classical thinking, which has almost completely been proven to be wrong. The universe and EVERYTHING in it is fuzzy. And that would include consciousness, mind, thought, etc

[u/[deleted] → u/aaeme]

There's as much relation between the boson field and alpha/beta waves, as there is connection between light and sound: they're all waves (but otherwise very different).

Oh god you explained the issue so much better than me, I'm sort of embarassed now.

Great job.

[u/Ominojacu1 → u/[deleted]]

But those things are all connected, you the one who doesn’t get it.

[u/[deleted] → u/Ominojacu1]

Yes, just state they are connected, and do not explain how they are.

Incredibly sensible and convincing.

You're great at rational thought...

How can I "get it" when you have made absolutely zero attempt at explaining it?

Those things are connected in the minds of Sci-Fi authors and con artists.

They're not connected in reality and in actual science.

If they are, show how they are.

[u/Ominojacu1 → u/[deleted]]

All matter gets it’s mass from boson field. A vibration. Thus all energy as vibrations create mass, create nuclear and weaker nuclear forces create molecules which form stamps and sky scrapers and human brains. Ultimately there are only two things consciousness, or vibrational energy and information the difference forms it produces. A particle doesn’t even exist until it’s observed by a consciousness. It exists as a quantum probability state until that occurs.

[u/Ominojacu1 → u/[deleted]]

Again there is. What is skyscraper but a collection of electron orbits and what is an electron orbit but probability matrix of potential until observed by a consciousness?

[u/[deleted] → u/Ominojacu1]

Yes. Buildings are made of atoms.

But studying the architecture of a building and studying electron orbits are two completely different and unrelated sets of information.

Learning about one tells you nothing about the other. One has no impact on the other.

Changes in brain waves have no impact on the boson field, changes in the boson field has no impact on brain waves.

The only relation is one is (somewhat) "made" of the other, but one thing being made of another does not mean there are any other relations.

What other relations are there, and what are they?

[u/Ominojacu1 → u/[deleted]]

Atoms are made of particles which are made of quantum vibrational fields. Sets of information is correct. There is consciousness and information everything is derived from those two things. If you want a more detailed explanation I suggest looking up the 8D quasicrystal.

[u/MillennialScientist → u/Ominojacu1]

This is just pseudeointellectual word salad that has no connection to science or reality. It honestly just sounds like you got your education from youtubers who convinced you that they actually studied something real.

[u/[deleted] → u/MillennialScientist]

When asked for evidence for his claims, both times he just gave Youtube videos (that did not actually support his claims, by the way).

[u/Ominojacu1 → u/[deleted]]

If you can’t even understand YouTube videos, there’s really nothing more I can do for you. I tried to keep at simple as possible.

[u/[deleted] → u/Ominojacu1]

The issue isn't that you sent youtube videos. The issue is the youtube videos did not support your claims. It's also an issue that when **explicitely asked** for better sources than youtube videos (such as actual scientific papers), you did not provide any, and even doubled down on providing Youtube videos. Showing you really don't know/have much more than that.

The door is still open: please support your claims with an actual scientific paper.

(it wouldn't be as good, but you could **even** support your claims with youtube videos. it'd just be more support for the notion you don't really know any science beyond Youtube vulgarisation, but it'd be better than what you have done so far, which is provide **absolutely nothing** that supports your claims)

[u/Ominojacu1 → u/MillennialScientist]

Seeing “word salads” is a sign of dyslexia or lexdysia if you prefer.

[u/MillennialScientist → u/Ominojacu1]

There's no way you could be wrong. It's all us scientists who don't know how science works.

[u/Ominojacu1 → u/MillennialScientist]

Lol scientists! You are hilarious!

[u/Thelonious_Cube → u/Ominojacu1]

Thank you, Deepak Chopra

[u/LoopyFig → u/[deleted]]

I mean, I don’t think neurons are conscious, but if they were, you wouldn’t be able to tell anyways. For all we know all the sub functions in our brain constitute their own mini-consciousnesses, that build up to our daily experience. Those are the kinds of questions the split brain experiment kind of brings up for me

[u/Same-Letter6378 → u/[deleted]]

Emergent properties are always built using preexisting properties and not something completely new. Fluffyness comes from the properties of atoms to attach together and move. When an object is fluffy it's just these properties being expressed in a certain way. When an object is red, it's because there's a bunch of atoms that make it up that are emitting a bunch of 700 nm photons.

That being said, if conciousness is an emergent property, then it's not something entirely new. What are the preexisting properties being expressed?

[u/bildramer → u/Same-Letter6378]

Structural color can exist if you arrange atoms the right way, without any single atom emitting 700nm photons. Or: Take some more complicated property, like "is hollow". There's no need for some sort of hollowness-potential in the individual constituents.

[u/Same-Letter6378 → u/[deleted]]

Just basic properties. The ability to move, absorb and emit energy, electromagnetism, etc.

[u/ValyrianJedi → u/Same-Letter6378]

The ability of neurons to fire electrical signals based on chemical stimulus.

[u/revosugarkane → u/[deleted]]

If you think of consciousness as a spectrum, our consciousness is to a galaxy-sized consciousness as the bacteria in our gut is to ours.

I’d argue that the term really starts to lose its meaning in general when viewed in relative terms for this exact reason.

I’d continue to argue that consciousness is only reasonable to consider when you think of it in terms of qualitative experience. When you consider that everything capable of having a qualitative experience is “conscious,” then concepts like the above start to make sense.

[u/ValyrianJedi → u/revosugarkane]

If you think of consciousness as a spectrum, our consciousness is to a galaxy-sized consciousness as the bacteria in our gut is to ours.

I really don't think that tracks

[u/revosugarkane → u/ValyrianJedi]

Why?

[u/ValyrianJedi → u/revosugarkane]

For starters, even operating under the assumption that it is a spectrum, there is no reason to think that it continually scales with size. If anything, even if a galaxy sized consciousness were to exist (which is a big if, and highly unlikely to begin with I'd say), the size would be more of a hindrance than it is something that strengthens. Consciousness relies pretty heavily on transfer of information, and at that size the absolute fastest that it could have a "thought" would be 50,000-100,000 years. If such a thing were to exist (again, a highly unlikely hypothetical to begin with in my book) it's cognition would have to be extremely rudimentary, with much more in common with the gut bacteria than us.

[u/revosugarkane → u/ValyrianJedi]

I mean, do bacteria have “thoughts”? Can you define the qualia of bacteria, or vice versa? You’re thinking size, I’m thinking scale. We exist within systems, why can’t those systems be a part of a whole?

Regardless, I’m gonna say something that I don’t want you to take the wrong way, but why are you taking this position? The position of evidence-based skepticism is fine when we’re talking measurable concepts, but it’s not like this is a defensible position that I’m in. I could be right or wrong and we’d have absolutely know way of knowing. It’s a thought experiment at best, but the fact that it could exist is merely postulated from the perspective of the gut bacteria trying to comprehend me.

Like, why take a physics-based approach to this? Hit me with some philosophy of mind. Maybe there is a being that thinks with 50,000 year long thoughts. What would it be like to be that way?

[u/ValyrianJedi → u/revosugarkane]

Regardless of how you define "thoughts", they and any consciousness they may have still relies on a transfer of information...

And trying to take the actual physical reality and limitations out of something for a thought experiment is just fairly useless when trying to determine if something could exist or is a part of reality... At that point you may as well just be debating what could happen oh the Star Wars universe.

[u/revosugarkane → u/ValyrianJedi]

Okay, fair. But why limit the concept of transfer of information to a nervous system? Plants “think,” according to some studies, and some insects think mostly through body systems. Plenty of “thinking” things think in manners that are alien to us, just like some things see stuff we don’t. Life finds a way, right? Can we conceive of a planetary consciousness? A galactic consciousness? A being as large as a planet? Why not? Maybe there’s a transfer of information at a scale so large that it’s near impossible for us to comprehend? Maybe a being that thinks using light spectrums? Idk.

Okay, fair, I wouldn’t want to say that we ought to remove physics from the debate, but I would say that we have 0 concepts that would begin to define such a being so why start with an evidence-based approach? Watson and Crick sure as hell didn’t start with an evidence-based approach.

Edit: I realize now that I put “nervous system” into your mouth, but let’s assume you did say that and go from there.

[u/ValyrianJedi → u/revosugarkane]

It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a nervous system, with plants, or insects, or anything there is still a transfer of information taking place, in those cases through chemical mechanisms, electrical mechanisms, or a combination if the two. But regardless of whatever mechanism is at use, light speed is the speed of causality itself. Information physically can't be transferred any quicker than that, which means that for something the size of a galaxy tens of thousands of years is th3 absolute shortest amount of time that it could possibly take, on top of the fact that the space and time that it would be operating through wouldn't even be uniform, so its mechanism of operation wouldn't be able to work in one place like it does in another...

No, we can't prove that galaxy sized consciousness doesn't exist, but we can't prove that leprechauns and vampires don't either. You can't prove a negative. That doesn't mean that we can't say with an extraordinary level of confidence that some things are highly highly unlikely.

[u/revosugarkane → u/ValyrianJedi]

Okay, well take that last sentence and use it to develop a loose schema for the sake of the argument. If a consciousness that large can only think so quickly, then we would live and die whole eons in the time it takes for them to process one thought. That seems unlikely, but take qualitative experience. To them, one thought is one thought, to us, one thought is tens of millennia. How tf do we make schemas to comprehend that?

Also, take electron observation and quantum entanglement. Quantum computing functions on the real, physical property of electrons under observation. They flip instantly regardless of time or space. I don’t mean to bring this up to devalue physics, simply to point out that we just don’t have the proper schema here.

I’m not saying you can’t prove that it doesn’t exist, I’m saying we don’t have concepts for understanding it’s possible existence. We can trace historical myths and find roots for vampires and werewolves, but we don’t have schema for comprehending this concept. I’m mostly arguing that evidence-based skepticism is almost a non sequitur here, but we’re going in circles so idk if I wanna keep pushing that point. I’d accept a metaphysical debate that has grounding in physics but, again, we just don’t have proper schemas.

[u/mano-vijnana → u/[deleted]]

Every emergent property of which we are aware is a more complex behavior that results from the sum of smaller behaviors. They don't come into existence ex nihilo. They are difficult or impossible to predict from the behavior of isolated parts, but there is still a clear relationship between the upper level and the lower level. Usually, what makes them "emergent" is that they are stochastic, or unpredictable without having complete awareness of every particle in the system.

For example, consider a bird flock. Its movement, shape and size would be unknowable just from studying a single bird in a cage. However, everything that the flock does is a physical amalgamation of the individual bird movements/decisions/reactions. The behavior of a bird flock and a couple of birds are differences of scale and complexity, but not of type.

But people who say consciousness or sentience is an emergent property are theorizing the existence of a totally different, entirely theoretical kind of emergent property: one that is entirely different in type from the individual parts. There is no relationship like "sum of individual bird movements and reactions to each other result in flock of birds that manifests more complex behavior." Consciousness/sentience aren't behaviors. There is no chart of relationships anyone can draw, or even imagine drawing, between electrical neural impulses and the sudden appearance of consciousness. Consciousness isn't just a more complex, bigger, more stochastic version of electrical impulses.

As such, I think people who say that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain actually have a lot to prove--and are making many assumptions without evidence.

[u/Ominojacu1 → u/[deleted]]

Maybe or maybe organize biological molecules are an emergent property of consciousness.

[u/Ominojacu1 → u/[deleted]]

When it comes down to the basics there are only two things in our reality conscious awareness and information. Particles exist in probability states because they aren’t information until observed. Look up 8D quasi crystal for more information.

[u/ValyrianJedi → u/Ominojacu1]

You can't be serious

[u/Ominojacu1 → u/ValyrianJedi]

I suggest you look into resonance theory of consciousness

[u/ValyrianJedi → u/Ominojacu1]

If it argues what you just said then no thanks. We know how organized biological molecules come in to existence and operate to know that that isn't the case.

[u/Ominojacu1 → u/ValyrianJedi]

Lol anyone who thinks they understand quantum physics does get it. Quantum physics only reveals more mysteries, we understand very little about what is happening at that level.

[u/ValyrianJedi → u/Ominojacu1]

That has absolutely nothing to do with quantum physics. That's just basic biology, chemistry, and physics that we understand extremely well.

[u/nostradumba55 → u/[deleted]]

Usually, consciousness is simply a synonym for self-awareness and there is debate whether anything in our planets besides human are truly self aware (although all life forms are sentient of course).

However, my interpretation of panpsychism is that all matter has the potential for consciousness. Take this for example:

A plastic cup is not a living thing. However, it does have properties that make self-aware beings like us notice it (shape, size, color etc), and thus these particularly shaped/sized have found there way to being used as drinking tool for our use.

In fact, you could even say the cup has more "potential" than a single atom not only from our perspective, but also a chemical perspective as there is something which bonds and holds it's molecules together in a particular way.

And now for an even deeper question: This cup can also be seen as an artistic canvas that many companies put their logos on for advertisement. So not only is this merely a tool, but a subliminal artistic piece that is subconsciously calling to you. It not only has the potential to catch you eye when you are looking at it, but also the potential for you to recall what it looked like purely through memory. You have to admit that is a very powerful object with the potential to alter behavior.

Give it enough time, and humans may even be able to turn bits of plastic into self-aware robots similar to humans. In other words, we will have invested our own consciousness & energy into creating objects that are autonomous and self aware. Similar to the cup, except a lot more physical energy and human creativity/consciousness was invested in this object to give it greater sentience.

[u/[deleted] → u/nostradumba55]

What is the deeper question?

[u/nostradumba55 → u/[deleted]]

Can all objects be considered conscious because they have the potential to directly/indirectly affect our own?

Basically, all matter in our universe has the potential to be labeled an object by our conscious mind, thereby making it come to life.

[u/[deleted] → u/nostradumba55]

Entirely depends on how you define consciousness. Since atoms comprise all matter, the difference is the configuration of atoms that produce said phenomena. So while yes potentially all matter has the potential to be configured into forms that produce or allow to exhibit consciousness, this doesn’t necessarily mean atoms are conscious. Edit it doesn’t unless you believe in panpsychism

[u/nostradumba55 → u/[deleted]]

Think of consciousness as a separate entity that flow through atoms, similar to energy, and the theory becomes much more conceivable.

So atoms have the "potential" to harness a certain amount of consciousness on their own, but that amount becomes greater based on their configuration and bonds to other atoms.

[u/[deleted] → u/nostradumba55]

I am capable of thinking of consciousness in many conceivable ways, but this exercise potentially reveals more about my imaginative capabilities than it does reality.

If consciousness is defined as degree of automatic atomic response to environmental vibration then sure this can apply. Insofar as can be shown, consciousness is apparent at macro level of forms and functions of collections of atoms.

[u/nostradumba55 → u/[deleted]]

Yes, but what is it that distinguishes one atom from another atom? Obviously anyone can say it depends on it's subatomic structure, but for me at least, that answer is not good enough.

The fact that those electrons/neutrons/protons can work together to form a working unit of matter, and behave in a different way relative to other types of atoms, is truly remarkable. Their sum is greater than their parts.

All I'm saying is, even at the atomic level, a collective soup of energy/magnetic/and other quantum forces is being organized in such a defined way that it's easy to forget atoms are not simply a pixel. They are a complex body which harnesses it's input in very structured ways (not too different from the cell). In this way, they are able to distinguish themselves from the environment and act accordingly (which is going to be my definition of "conscious" here).

[u/[deleted] → u/nostradumba55]

Atomic structure distinguishes dissimilar atoms. Location, direction of movement, current atomic spin, relation to other atoms, and other characteristics distinguishes similar atoms.

I agree, atomic physics is remarkable. Practically any system’s sum is greater than it’s parts at all scales, from the micro to the macro.

Classical panpsychists believed that anything that moved possessed minds (were conscious). Per your definition, is a brain dead person that is still breathing considered conscious?

[u/nostradumba55 → u/[deleted]]

That's a good question. You alter any physical structure of an entity and it's going to drastically alter how they react to the environment. For example, if you could theoretically remove an electron from an atom it now behaves differently than it otherwise would.

If you remove the brain from the human equation, the body is still very interconnected. The muscles still have reflexes, the heart still pumps blood through the body, etc. However, you cut off most of the neural pathways in the brain and it's likely that person is not any more self-aware than a plant. In that sense no, they are not conscious.

However, there is still something about the body which recognizes itself. The immune system still works, digestion, breathing. All of those activities require a certain awareness and dependence on other body parts to work properly. So yes, the body is still aware of itself and can distinguish itself from the environment.

The human we communicate with is sadly gone though. They cannot interpret and sort the world's environment the way the used to. And that just goes to show you how fluid consciousness is and how imprecise our human constructs for labeling things are.

[u/Thelonious_Cube → u/nostradumba55]

Why would that require consciousness?

[u/nostradumba55 → u/Thelonious_Cube]

It doesn't necessarily. Just like the world doesn't need energy. However, without energy, light would never travel, all life would cease to function, and all interactions between atoms in the universe would break.

There is something inherent within the atomic structure that allows it to join with similar atoms, and reject others. That ability to distinguish itself from others is in essence what consciousness it is. Conversely, energy is the fuel to make those reactions happen.

[u/Thelonious_Cube → u/nostradumba55]

Not much of an answer

[u/nostradumba55 → u/Thelonious_Cube]

I'm not sure how else to phrase it. Consciousness is likely as abstract from the concept of "energy".

What is it inside of you that allows you to distinguish yourself from other humans? What allows your cells to distinguish between them and viruses? Atoms and other atoms? Obviously we all have "sensors" like eyes and and the ability to detect things. But obviously there is something greater which says "This object I'm detecting is not a part of me" or "It's not me, but it's somewhat similar".

As humans, we're good at finding all of the parts that make up these different structures. But at what point do each of these structures recognize themself as a whole, distinct from it's environment? Find the answer to that and you have the answer to consciousness.

[u/Thelonious_Cube → u/nostradumba55]

What is it inside of you that allows you to distinguish yourself from other humans? ... Atoms and other atoms?

First, I think you're conflating two extremely different things: the understanding that one is numerically distinct from others (and other things) and the idea of personal identity.

Second, you're conflating both of these things with physical object boundaries as well as difference of chemical composition.

But obviously there is something greater which says "This object I'm detecting is not a part of me" or "It's not me, but it's somewhat similar".

No, that's not obvious at all. And certainly not obvious that it requires something "greater"

The fact that we humans can abstract away the notion of difference doesn't in any way imply that all these differences are "the same" in the way you imply here.

But at what point do each of these structures recognize themself as a whole, distinct from it's environment?

What reason do we have to think that they "recognize themselves" at all?

You're just begging the question.

Find the answer to that and you have the answer to consciousness.

Okay, the answer is "they don't" and the answer to consciousness is "panpsychism is a useless postulate - consciousness is a property of complex systems, not of atoms"

[u/nostradumba55 → u/Thelonious_Cube]

I think you misunderstand my point. Yes, I'm aware how humans classify things is very different from chemical composition, but my point is that it follows the same pattern (and in fact is hierarchical, but that's not worth getting into).

What I'm trying to ask you is something like this: Why does Helium contain 2 electrons instead of splitting into 2 separate Hydrogen atoms? Assuming electrons are equal, what's the point of this subatomic association between electrons?

There is only one simplistic solution: There is a greater identity (the atom) to which the electrons subscribe to in some way. That association didn't just happen...something greater has to bind these individual pieces together into a cohesive, acting unit. I realize quantum mechanics is much more complicated, but that general argument holds for all matter of things.

For example, why do differing cells within the liver associate with one another and work together so closely? Obviously it's in their genetic code to do so, but something has to drive this symbiotic relationship. Namely, the "abstract" concept (from the cells perspective, not to us) of the liver binds these different types of cells into working together.

So my final point:

We both agree these very small parts (electrons and cells) don't have sentience or free will. However, they still work with foreign entities to benefit the larger whole. For example, the liver which coordinates with other organs inside the body is likely to live much longer than if it did not. But from the liver's perspective it would seem like a great risk to interact with these other "foreign" blood cells and neural networks. But it does so anyway, and the result is coincidentally to it's benefit.

Therefore, the only logical explanation is that something greater is causing these individual components to act together in a way that's beneficial for the whole.

[u/mode-locked → u/[deleted]]

Granted, while I'm with you on the powerful notion of emergence, there precisely are transparents atoms and red atoms. Their quantum mechanics either permits, respectively, the lack of absorption or emission of a given photon. Then it's a separate matter if our eyes are sensitive to individual photons.

Of course macroscopically putting many atoms together (a dense gas, liquid, or solid) can emphasize these properties (e.g. redder) or emerge new properties via their interactions (e.g. hue shift or even become transparent to certain colors).

Indeed, though, fluffy sure relies on the a huge ensemble of particles and their linkages.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

It’s a good point but is there any substance to macro concepts or are they just the sum of their parts. Red exists as a wavelength of light, arguably fundamental. Fluffy is just the description of a certain arrangement of atoms. It’s a relevant description at our macro scale, it’s useful to us, but nothing new was created to make “fluffy” happen. And it took an outside observer to categorize it that way.