Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Universal Intelligence"?

[Neo-Scholastic]

My previous posts did account for the differences in scale. The reality is that quantum processes underlie every physical process at every scale. Classical physics is just a technique that bundles together a vast number of quantum events for the sake of simplicity. It just isn't true that classical physics is ontologically correct at some specific scale. QM is true. Classical is a convenient fiction.

---

And your assertion that consciousness is brain chemistry is just that...an unsupported assertion.

You didn't account for the differences in scale, you just stated they existed. You, or anyboy else for that matter, has yet to explain how QM results in phenomenon at macroscopic levels.

I know a cat that begs to differ 50% of the time.

Brains only have physical properties. Minds have intentional properties. The default position is that things with distinct properties are different things. When you try to define one in terms of the other you just beg the question. Saying that brain states are mental states assumes what it attempts to prove. There is no physical difference between a neural net that can pick out a blue and one that can pick out red. Not only do you have no evidence, you don't even have a theory to explain why there is a qualitative difference between the two.

Interactive dualism remains a viable theory because it allows minds to read neural correlates as signs in the same way you can assign different values to the virtually identical looking abacus beads. Moreover QM solves the binding problem of dualist theories. From both a philosophical and scientific perspective, interactive dualism is the better theory. Just because you don't like the implications doesn't give you grounds for dismissing it.

[Mudhammam]

The fact that consciousness has only yet been observed in biological entities possessing a brain is sufficient support for my assertion. You have yet to demonstrate a single example of consciousness not associated with a brain. This means that even if in the distant future we can use QM to explain higher level systems, consciousness arises out of organic chemistry not lower level quantum phenomenon.

But how could one in principle even test for consciousness in an entity that has no means of communication with us? Even in the case of the entity that could communicate with us, such as a computer in the Turing test, some would still raise philosophical difficulties with actually being able to determine the nature of its "experience", one example being the "problem of other minds."

[Neo-Scholastic]

There is an easy way to know if any given apparently intelligent system is conscious. I say we can confidently call such a system conscious if it can manifest the non-local and prescient psi phenomena associated with consciousness evidenced in the following studies:

http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Physics%...0final.pdf

http://deanradin.com/evidence/Bem2011FeelingFuture.pdf

And before you start repeating the objections of pseudo-skeptics, please keep in mind that many of those objections have already been met:

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2010/12/my...-bems.html

[Hegel]

You read half of an article on topic you've never heard of (although the theory is well known, has adherents and Penrose is as famous as Stephen Hawkins in circles who follow science), which deals with stuff of which 95% goes over your head and which you don’t even have the education to fully get; and then you find some "absurdities" and bravely proclaim its "bogus", playing with fancy words, etc ... That's pretty… I don’t say what.
Basically, if that's your attitude, your simply ignorant, and there no poitn in having discussion, but perhaps you were just frustrated or something.

Now, you have two problems here
1) you have not understood the theory and what its all about and what is the claimed evidence for it
2) you seem to be a victim of some serious epistemological misunderstandings.

Now, where they think consciousness resides on physical level is objective reduction (collapse of wave function interperted realistically), an idea based on interpretation of QM by Penrose. So, you can’t understand what the stuff is about if you’re not familiar with philosophy of physics.

Why their theory was taken to be false was because, due to decoherence, it was assumed that it should be impossible for microtubules to maintain superposition for long enough time. THAT was the reason the theory was "debunked" in the 90's when Penrose developed its first version.

Now, P & H claim that they have evidence that this accusation is incorrect due to quantum biological etc evidence.

And if they’re right, then they do have a piece of evidence.

And the only stuff you refer to, anesthetics, is not the most essential evidence they have.

If I read correctly, Pickup_shonuff asked for something NOT by any of them.

No, you did not. What at pickup-shohuff expressed, was a doubt concerning the adequacy of their interpretation of this alleged evidence.
He said he had heard of some article by them, and was skeptical whether they have interpreted their references correctly, and I asked is that the article.

Just because of some alignment between the anesthetic and these MTs, we are to go straight to "dipoles necessary for consciousness"???

Noe that's the epistemic fallacy, that is to say, inductionist fallacy.

Let me explain.
They have a theory, let it be noted as T.
From T they deduce {p1,p2, ...}, that is, propositions which ought to be true, if the theory were true. Then they try to test these p's: if all p's tend to be true, that is to say, if they do NOT manage to FALSIFY T, then the theory is corroborated which does not mean verification.

If you complain: "their evidence does not verify their theory", you make the inductionst fallacy. It's a falsifiable hypothesis, and P & H are refuting attempts to falsify it!

i.e.:
if T is true, then t it should be the case that (p) drugs that block consciousness should block microtubular activity. (etc, that is, other p’s)

Thus, if they did not, that would falsify T.

But you had a complaint:

So, the information pathway in the nervous cell is blocked and the neurons don't work, hence the tadpole "ceases to behave". Why am I not surprised?

It is far from obvious that microtubules should have effect on firing of the neurons. it is certainly not zero information, as you claim!

What you are really claiming is that they are trying to verify their theory with this evidence.

Gosh.

Some basic philosophy of science:

(a) if p is correct does not verify T, but
(b) if p is incorrect, that falsifies T.

Now, if you complain that T is not verified (and it does not matter here that it is not well corroborated enough to be the best hypothesis), that's precisely the logic of the creationists.

You can't verify evolutionary (nor any) theory, you can only corroborate it.
The whole game of the creationists is based on your epistemology, not of P & H.

How on Earth can this theorem apply to anything about consciousness?
It applies to, let me double check, "natural numbers"!!

Oh shit... You don't know what Gödel's proof is and what its about? Ok, you know Alan Turing and the Turing machine? What does Turing’s proof which, also an adaptation of diagonal lemma, apply to? Turing machine, computer, mind...

In any case, I think Penrose might have done an error here, but it makes no sense to explain why if you can't see how Godel's proof is related to mind... But it is a smart as fuck argument, and the orcOR does not hinge on its absolute correctness.

Any speculation about this OR thing is bogus from now on. Not reading any more or the paper.

In that case it is only your standards of deciding what's "bogus" that are the only thing that is bogus.
You can't criticize anything before you even grasp what it’s about.

[Mudhammam]

If I read correctly, Pickup_shonuff asked for something NOT by any of them.

No, you did not. What at pickup-shohuff expressed, was a doubt concerning the adequacy of their interpretation of this alleged evidence.
He said he had heard of some article by them, and was skeptical whether they have interpreted their references correctly, and I asked is that the article.

To clarify: I was saying that the only articles I had read about the evidence in support of the Orch OR model directly cited Hameroff and Penrose basically saying, "See, our theory is right," which I found odd because I would expect an unbiased article to say, "Hameroff and Stuart claim this... while others object, saying it means this..." But none of that was in there. Hameroff and Penrose may have even written the original article, I don't recall, that other sites then simply borrowed from.

I think the articles themselves even included mention of Orch OR in the headline or subtitle.

[Hegel]

Other than misdirection, I'm not clear why people keep bringing physics in to this. Consciousness has only ever been observed/measured/recorded in living creatures with some sort of brain. Fact. That makes this a question for biologists not physicists. Everything else is just misdefinition of terms in an attempt to support supernatural and unfalsifiable speculation.

How the hell you "measure the consciousness"?

That's a circular argument.

Basically the only consciousness you can "measure" is your own, and then you infer that things that appear like you are also conscious. That's the logic.

But the basic problem is this: in what respect?

And nobody knows the answer.

So, your fact is no fact, and to claim it is a fact is a piece of pseudo-science.

Quantum mind is one theory, and it ought to be taken seriusly, as it makes perfect sense. If you ask me, it's the most appealing option, but this my subjective opinion.

Calling quantum theories of consciousness "supernatural" is beyond ridiculous. These models are 100% naturalist, based on, for Christ's sake, an interpretation the best verified scientific theory (QM) in whole human history!

---

No, you did not. What at pickup-shohuff expressed, was a doubt concerning the adequacy of their interpretation of this alleged evidence.
He said he had heard of some article by them, and was skeptical whether they have interpreted their references correctly, and I asked is that the article.

To clarify: I was saying that the only articles I had read about the evidence in support of the Orch OR model directly cited Hameroff and Penrose basically saying, "See, our theory is right," which I found odd because I would expect an unbiased article to say, "Hameroff and Stuart claim this... while others object, saying it means this..." But none of that was in there. Hameroff and Penrose may have even written the original article, I don't recall, that other sites then simply borrowed from.

I think the articles themselves even included mention of Orch OR in the headline or subtitle.

Ok. I have only read Penrose's Emperor's New Mind and the article I gave the link to and couple of its reviews. So I am no specialist. So I got you somewhat wrong. In any case they base their evidence on some findings in quantum biology concerning photo-synthesis and more directly some research on microtubulars, if I remenber correctly, which falsify the argument based on decoherence.

Personally, I used to believe the theory was an error because of the decoherence argument, but now it seems that I have to reconsider it.

I am not a Believer, and obviously the theory can be false. In any case, I respect it as a good guess.

[pocaracas]

You read half of an article on topic you've never heard of (although the theory is well known, has adherents and Penrose is as famous as Stephen Hawkins in circles who follow science), which deals with stuff of which 95% goes over your head and which you don’t even have the education to fully get; and then you find some "absurdities" and bravely proclaim its "bogus", playing with fancy words, etc ... That's pretty… I don’t say what.
Basically, if that's your attitude, your simply ignorant, and there no poitn in having discussion, but perhaps you were just frustrated or something.

Yeah.. frustrated at people's abilities to jump enormous hoops in order to sell their own brand of loony.
Yes, of course some quantum mechanics is involved.... it is everywhere, but never at the scale proposed here...

Now, you have two problems here
1) you have not understood the theory and what its all about and what is the claimed evidence for it
2) you seem to be a victim of some serious epistemological misunderstandings.

yeah, must be the second one...

Now, where they think consciousness resides on physical level is objective reduction (collapse of wave function interperted realistically), an idea based on interpretation of QM by Penrose. So, you can’t understand what the stuff is about if you’re not familiar with philosophy of physics.

Philosophy of physics... what an oxymoron...

Let me see is my QM is still up to notch: what do you think this collapse of wave function is? Which wave function?

Why their theory was taken to be false was because, due to decoherence, it was assumed that it should be impossible for microtubules to maintain superposition for long enough time. THAT was the reason the theory was "debunked" in the 90's when Penrose developed its first version.

Now, P & H claim that they have evidence that this accusation is incorrect due to quantum biological etc evidence.

And if they’re right, then they do have a piece of evidence.

And the only stuff you refer to, anesthetics, is not the most essential evidence they have.

It saddens me that it should be the first piece of evidence in the article, so one would expect it to be the most compelling one, gripping the reader so he would go on reading...

Just because of some alignment between the anesthetic and these MTs, we are to go straight to "dipoles necessary for consciousness"???

Noe that's the epistemic fallacy, that is to say, inductionist fallacy.

Let me explain.
They have a theory, let it be noted as T.
From T they deduce {p1,p2, ...}, that is, propositions which ought to be true, if the theory were true. Then they try to test these p's: if all p's tend to be true, that is to say, if they do NOT manage to FALSIFY T, then the theory is corroborated which does not mean verification.

If you complain: "their evidence does not verify their theory", you make the inductionst fallacy. It's a falsifiable hypothesis, and P & H are refuting attempts to falsify it!

Remember, I only read that article... their theory was not there.

i.e.:
if T is true, then t it should be the case that (p) drugs that block consciousness should block microtubular activity. (etc, that is, other p’s)

Thus, if they did not, that would falsify T.

Correlation does not imply causation...
oh well...

But you had a complaint:

So, the information pathway in the nervous cell is blocked and the neurons don't work, hence the tadpole "ceases to behave". Why am I not surprised?

It is far from obvious that microtubules should have effect on firing of the neurons. it is certainly not zero information, as you claim!

Indeed it is far from obvious. Still, it's to be expected that an alteration of the nerve cell should lead to an impairment (or improvement) of the neural impulse emission.

Does the anesthetic only affect microtubules? I did not see that detailed in there... perhaps it was in one of the references.

What you are really claiming is that they are trying to verify their theory with this evidence.

Gosh.

Some basic philosophy of science:

(a) if p is correct does not verify T, but
(b) if p is incorrect, that falsifies T.

Now, if you complain that T is not verified (and it does not matter here that it is not well corroborated enough to be the best hypothesis), that's precisely the logic of the creationists.

You can't verify evolutionary (nor any) theory, you can only corroborate it.
The whole game of the creationists is based on your epistemology, not of P & H.

This reminds me of the model of the Solar System, where the Earth is at the center... So many correct p's and yet....
Ok, manifestly, we're not there yet, but I see no bright future for this theory... I wish all their proponents well and a breath of nice results, but I anticipate no such thing.

How on Earth can this theorem apply to anything about consciousness?
It applies to, let me double check, "natural numbers"!!

Oh shit... You don't know what Gödel's proof is and what its about? Ok, you know Alan Turing and the Turing machine? What does Turing’s proof which, also an adaptation of diagonal lemma, apply to? Turing machine, computer, mind...

OH OH OH... like I didn't quote what the damn theorem says.... -.-'
OK, it seems I gave you the short version... it seems this is the correct version [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems#First_incompleteness_theorem[/url]]:

The formal theorem is written in highly technical language. It may be paraphrased in English as:

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250).

Turing? Where are you?...
oh, here he is:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/lp-argue/
Oh look who's making that connection... Penrose.
Always the same biased guy.

In any case, I think Penrose might have done an error here, but it makes no sense to explain why if you can't see how Godel's proof is related to mind... But it is a smart as fuck argument, and the orcOR does not hinge on its absolute correctness.

Yes, smart argument, yes...
I can't see how Gödel's theorem is related to the mind?... right... because it's not.
It has to do with arithmetic unprovable statements for any theory of arithmetic truth.
Basically, it says that math has axioms.
So, how does that apply to the physical mind?

Any speculation about this OR thing is bogus from now on. Not reading any more or the paper.

In that case it is only your standards of deciding what's "bogus" that are the only thing that is bogus.
You can't criticize anything before you even grasp what it’s about.

Sometimes, you don't need to understand something completely, to intuit that it maybe BS.
There's that nagging thing of the "collapse of the wave function" that's never well defined...
You know who else talks about quantum consciousness?
Oh no... http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/deep...erview.htm

[Neo-Scholastic]

Well, Hegel, you can prove'em wrong and they still complain you didn' hang'em with a new rope.

[bennyboy]

There is no evidence for dualism, and you have not provided any.

That depends what you mean by evidence. If you mean "something one person can show another to support or prove a point," then I'd say my lack of evidence, and that of 100% of other people as well, IS the evidence. Don't believe me? What are the criteria for establishing that a given physical structure is conscious? What evidence will be accepted? If you dare even to answer, I guarantee you'll define mind in terms of physical correlates, like brain waves or blood flow, and not in terms of qualia.

If one has thus to cheat on a semantic level to fit reality into his model, then the model is insufficient. And that's why physical monism fails.

[Hegel]

yeah, must be the second one...

I am afraid it's both of them.

Philosophy of physics... what an oxymoron...

Yeah ... it's also called the problem of interpretation of QM, something which, among others, Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein, among others, were deeply interested in. What non-sense! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretat..._mechanics

Let me see is my QM is still up to notch: what do you think this collapse of wave function is? Which wave function?

So you have not understood the very idea of the theory ... Of the Schrödinger equation of the brain state "orhestrated" by the micro-tubular processes.

Correlation does not imply causation...
oh well...

Of course it does not.
But I never claimed anything like that; this has nothing to do with anything I said. I showed you made the inductionist fallacy.

Indeed it is far from obvious. Still, it's to be expected that an alteration of the nerve cell should lead to an impairment (or improvement) of the neural impulse emission.

Yeah, but why does it impair the mind to the degree of making it loose consciousness? There is nothing obvious in this, and that ruins your whole point.

This reminds me of the model of the Solar System, where the Earth is at the center... So many correct p's and yet....

Gosh .Seriously, you should study the basics of philosophy of science if you want to avoid such fallacies as these.
You CAN FALSIFY this theory. That's what Copernicus did, for Christ's sake.

Ok, manifestly, we're not there yet, but I see no bright future for this theory... I wish all their proponents well and a breath of nice results, but I anticipate no such thing.

I respect your gifts as a soothsayer.

OH OH OH... like I didn't quote what the damn theorem says.... -.-'

Look, my knowledge is not some parrott-references from Wiki, I UNDERSTAND it. You're talking about a theory you don't understand.

Ok, let me explain. Gödel's incompleteness proof and Turing's solution to the halting problem are analogous applications of the diagonal lemma first applied by Cantor in context of transfinite sets. As applied in context of halting problem, it applies obviously to mind as understood as computer, and the Penrose argument is easy to formulate both in context of Gödel's proof and that of Turing-machines.

Why Penrose first applied it in the context of Gödel-proof , is because he wanted to show that mathematician's mind is not simply algorithmic.

So, if you can't see how this is related to mind and is some sort of wooh wooh, you are simply making a complete jerk of your self.

Yes, smart argument, yes...
I can't see how Gödel's theorem is related to the mind?... right... because it's not.

Sure. But perhaps you should first understand a little about logic and how logic is related to mind...

So, how does that apply to the physical mind?

It applies to the mind of hard AI which conceives mind as a ******Turing machine!

Sometimes, you don't need to understand something completely, to intuit that it maybe BS.

Sure. Like nazis "intuited" relativity was part of Jewish plot.
Ignorance rationalized.

Oh no... http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/deep...erview.htm

Ad hitlerium. Deepak the pseudo-science guru believes in quantum mind, so its bs ... Yeah, Hitler was a vegetarian, so ... and so on.
Thats bs.