Quantum consciousness...

[Neo-Scholastic]

Because they've been modifying their model to overcome those falsifications without actually changing the data, making excuses for why the predictions were right even though they don't seem to be...

Isn't that kind of how it's supposed to work? Form hypothesis, test hypothesis, revise hypothesis, test again. It would be one thing to change the data but i see nothing wrong with changing the hypothesis is light of the data. Maybe he just needs better testing. Absent that it remains unsupported, yes? Personally I don't have an opinion about Pennrose/Hammeroff theory. The science is out of my league.

---

No, we can't.  And, in fact, I'd say that consciousness is so essential to existence that our inability to objectively observe it doesn't bode well for objective observation as the best way to learn about the mind.  I really think we have to define at least some of what "science" means to include methodical self-observation a la the roots of psychology.

b-mine

I'm not sure why you think this is so.  Do you also think that we cannot objectively observe electrical current with a voltimeter?  That we cannot objectively observe temperature with a thermometer?  Time with a stopwatch?

What exactly are you watching when the beads of an abacus move? My point is that people can observe and measure all kinds of physical processes without having any clue as to what they are about. More importantly, the connection between the bead positions and the numbers they represent are accidental and not essential.

[The Grand Nudger]

Because they've been modifying their model to overcome those falsifications without actually changing the data, making excuses for why the predictions were right even though they don't seem to be...

Isn't that kind of how it's supposed to work? Form hypothesis, test hypothesis, revise hypothesis, test again. It would be one thing to change the data but i see nothing wrong with changing the hypothesis is light of the data. Maybe he just needs better testing. Absent that it remains unsupported, yes? Personally I don't have an opinion about Pennrose/Hammeroff theory. The science is out of my league.

Hammeroff, for his part, -does- feel as though he is simply revising his hypothesis, his critics..however, maintain that this can't be the case, since his hypothesis itself has not changed -that consciousness is a quantum phenomena -  In short, he is excising failure when the model is falsified (which it has been), while retaining the failed idea which -depended- on those falsified bits being true, as he provides rationalizations as to why the model failed.  

One of the great things about science (and inference, too) is that you don;t have to understand the specifics of the propositions to comment on the validity of the inference or process.

What exactly are you watching when the beads of an abacus move? My point is that people can observe and measure all kinds of physical processes without having any clue as to what they are about. More importantly, the connection between the bead positions and the numbers they represent are accidental and not essential.

I'm watching the beads of an abacus move.  Whew, tough one!  

---

lol I sometimes got the impression that Teddy was insincere, and that he might be plotting to kill me in my sleep.  But that's just me.

You know, I got the same impression - not about Teddy...but about a drum music box bear - that, strangely, I couldn't sleep without.  On some level, I reckoned that if it went feral it would be better if I already had an iron grip on it that if it were left in the toybox to fashion improvised weapons before assaulting the foot of the bed.  

Amusingly, I only felt this way when it wasn't tightly wound - so my ritual was to keep winding and winding it..and as soon as the music slowed down...to wind his ass right back up.  I cried like a bitch when my basset hound mauled it - and I was a teen at the time, lol.  

I hadn't looked at it in that way, but technically we do not and cannot observe electricity directly.  So +1 to you for pointing that out.

Nevertheless, since the theory of electricity is derived FROM observations, then we've established a context for truth-in-context: so long as my voltmeter gives appropriate readings, I can go ahead and hook up my cell phone or whatever, and predict that it will charge and continue to function.

From one crazy ass thing to another, eh?    We've been down the rabbit hole before, and..to paraphrase, there is no such thing as "truth in context" as you use the terms. When a question has more than one answer..either something in the question is amiss, or there are two or more subtle questions hiding in what seems to be a singular query.

The context of the study of mind is not established in this way, from external observations.  It starts from what most would call a brute fact, and spreads out from there.  In other words, it is a case of projection rather than one of inference.

Do you take issue with that brute fact? That's how inferences are made - you begin with the known, so that you might explain the unknown.  Is a chimp conscious?  I don't know - does it act like a representative of the set we take to be "conscious entities"?  Does it possess a structure similar to the one which does so in known conscious entities, or capable of producing that effect by some other means? Similarly, does a conscious entity have to act precisely as a human being acts?  I don't think that anyone proposes that.  Further, we're well aware of faulty projections of consciousness, for example, thunder gods.  Seems to me that theres a whole lot of observation based inference being made - regardless of whether or not we also project - or that sometimes we base our inferences on those faulty projections.

If there were a non-conscious system capable of observing and categorizing creatures such as ourselves based on our behaviors..it could group us alongide a whole host of things which "act similar" without having any knowledge of consciousness, any term to describe it, or any concept thereof. It would simply be noting similarities in observed behaviors. -Something- would be the cause of those similarities between disparate subjects.

Projection and inference cannot be equated in the way that you are trying to equate the study of mind and the study of electricity.

No one's equating them but you.  If, however, you're dead set on doing so..ofc they can be.  We project our notions of electricity onto an instrument which we -know- doesn't actually measure current and then victoriously declare that we've done precisely that...... 

I can't see any distinction between subjective awareness and the lack of it, physically speaking, and I don't believe in the soul.  My best guess is that there is a LOT of consciousness, all over the place: maybe all quantum mechanics with the resolution of superpositions into discrete states or whatever.  That doesn't mean I understand or endorse the OP view, but I do know about Penrose and philosophically speaking I like that position.

Or none, since you can't see any difference, right?  So, does that make you a p-zombie or does that make the p-zombie proposition flawed..or some combination?  

Human consciousness, in my view, would be the perfectly normal mental activity going on all around us, but attached to a specific context-- say, the senses and a name.

-and attached to a specific organ in human beings, the brain, which we can observe in operation.  What sense does it make...even in your own view, to maintain that this is not an observation of consciousness? We are observing those perfectly normal metal events...even though we may not be able to interpret them, insomuch as we can't ofc - they're not a total mystery. We know enough about those events and that organ to ascribe regions to the brain, and that activity in region x is, reliably, a mental event concerning visual inputs - another, auditory input, another...movement. We've learned this by observation and inference.

Regardlkess of whether or not there's some quantum conscousness floating around, or consciousness everywhere - that we can't see, and can't observe - we are capable of observing it in human beings, and any creature or structure which exhibits compelling similarities. Doesn't mean we'll always get the answer right, ofc. Personally, I think that you'd be better served, even n your own ideas of consciousness, by accepting and incorporating nueral biology as demonstrative. Hemmeroff and Penrose, for example, pinned their hypothesis on it. The propositions contained therein are valuable to any explanation of consciousness. The trap in rejecting them - is that you then attempt to explain the unknown by reference to the unknown and in contradiction to what is demonstrable - and good luck with that. You might even get it right, but whatever argument you come up with will never be as compelling as the wrong answer, in that highly unlikely case.

[Whateverist]

Guys, this guy knows his shit. Once you watch this, you can never unwatch it.
There are far reaching implications and ties in consciousness scientifically with some classical woo...
Tell me what you think. I don't think he's an alternative looney. More like cutting edge thinking.

Wow, fascinating.  He began to loose me in the 42nd or 43rd minute when he started talking about his theory giving a basis for out of body experience and even an afterlife.  But then he goes on to explain how he is not a dualist and I think he does a good job of that.  Personally I think it far more likely that out of body experience has the same substance as dreams, hypothetical experience which never becomes grounded in conscious experience.  Obviously both arise from brain states so I would say that is where we can locate them in the universe, in our heads.  And no I don't see how they ever become self sustaining beyond and without that brain, so no after life.  But that is easy for me to say because I've never been tempted by the idea of coexisting alternative worlds.

I owe the OP an apology.  I hadn't looked into this thread before now because I assumed it was just for laughs.  (What would give me such an idea?)  But I'm enjoying it immensely.  Tremendous food for thought.  And there is no one on these boards whose qualifications begin to measure up to this guy.  Of course I don't therefore accept any of his conclusions uncritically but neither would I be so bold as to dismiss them out of hand.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's no need to dismiss them out of hand, they've been experimentally and demonstrably falsified.  

He's a loon with a degree. His opinions on OBE's and afterlives are the musings of a loon - as always. When pop sci comes up with a new buzzword, and the mere mention of "qunatum" this or that;s no longer draws ratings...he'll be as forgotten as the guy who came up with the first PSI cards.

[Whateverist]

There. Finished it. Consciousness is more than computation. Couldn't agree more. That just misidentifies a physical manifestation of consciousness, one of its effects really, for the thing itself. Otherwise we might suppose that a flicker of consciousness must arise from the operation of the laptop my hands are resting on right now. I don't think so.

---

There's no need to dismiss them out of hand, they've been experimentally and demonstrably falsified.  

He's a loon with a degree.  His opinions on OBE's and afterlives are the musings of a loon - as always.  When pop sci comes up with a new buzzword, and the mere mention of "qunatum" this or that;s no longer draws ratings...he'll be as forgotten as the guy who came up with the first PSI cards.

I wouldn't be so sure.  I'm immediately put off by any use of the word "quantum", part of why I ignored this thread to begin with.  But given his credentials I'm intrigued.

[The Grand Nudger]

There.  Finished it.  Consciousness is more than computation.  Couldn't agree more.  That just misidentifies a physical manifestation of consciousness, one of its effects really, for the thing itself.  Otherwise we might suppose that a flicker of consciousness must arise from the operation of the laptop my hands are resting on right now.  I don't think so.

That would be a non-sequitur, theres no reason to suppose that your laptop is conscious even if consciousness is "just computation".  The computation in your laptop is "just" electrical current...but you don't go to your lightbulb when you want to access this site, right?

I wouldn't be so sure.  I'm immediately put off by any use of the word "quantum", part of why I ignored this thread to begin with.  But given his credentials I'm intrigued.

His credentials are incapable of altering the fact that his hypothesis was falsified.  It's not exactly a mark of shame, he wouldn't be the first person with a pedigree to get it wrong.  I hope, someday, he gets back at it. Until such a day, he's a loon with a degree whose ideas were not discarded out of hand...and who's credentials were not ignored...but who plainly and demonstrably got it wrong -end of.

[bennyboy]

I'd say he's a man of his generation. Look at the state of physics and medicine, and a pretty global interest in eastern religious traditions back when he was a med student, and it's not that surprising.

I like that he had a specific physical idea about consciousness. Too many theories are theoretical: information theory, for example-- they sound cool, but what do they actually mean?

[The Grand Nudger]

You know, you're probably on to something there.  Though, theories being theoretical as a problem...lol?

If you want to know what information theory is, perhaps you should dive in?  It might be informative.  At the very least, it would immunize you against the "what the bleep" statements you habitually make.

[bennyboy]

From one crazy ass thing to another, eh?    We've been down the rabbit hole before, and..to paraphrase, there is no such thing as "truth in context" as you use the terms.  When a question has more than one answer..either something in the question is amiss, or there are two or more subtle questions hiding in what seems to be a singular query.  

Sure there's truth in context. Is it true that giving up your queen for a pawn is the best move? That depends first on the particular arrangements of pieces on the board, and ultimately on whether you're even playing chess.

Is it good to jump into a vat of acid? That depends on how you define "good." Your definition provides the context in/by which actions may be defined as good or bad. In the context of you trying to survive, it's clearly bad. In the context of you trying to minimize your impact on the world, it's good.

The context of the study of mind is not established in this way, from external observations.  It starts from what most would call a brute fact, and spreads out from there.  In other words, it is a case of projection rather than one of inference.

Do you take issue with that brute fact? That's how inferences are made - you begin with the known, so that you might explain the unknown.  Is a chimp conscious?  I don't know - does it act like a representative of the set we take to be "conscious entities"?  Does it possess a structure similar to the one which does so in known conscious entities, or capable of producing that effect by some other means?  Similarly, does a conscious entity have to act precisely as a human being acts?  I don't think that anyone proposes that.  Further, we're well aware of faulty projections of consciousness, for example, thunder gods.  Seems to me that theres a whole lot of observation based inference being made - regardless of whether or not we also project - or that sometimes we base our inferences on those faulty projections.

Nevertheless, mind holds a special place, because it's the only idea which is first projected, rather than inferred from observation. The reason for this is obvious-- all observations are made through the medium of mental agency.

-and attached to a specific organ in human beings, the brain, which we can observe in operation.  What sense does it make...even in your own view, to maintain that this is not an observation of consciousness?  We are observing those perfectly normal metal events...even though we may not be able to interpret them, insomuch as we can't ofc - they're not a total mystery.  We know enough about those events and that organ to ascribe regions to the brain, and that activity in region x is, reliably, a mental event concerning visual inputs - another, auditory input, another...movement.  We've learned this by observation and inference.

The idea is that consciousness is intrinsic to the Universe-- it's the default state, not a special-snowflake state. It is the context established by neural connections which get bundled together to give the impression of human agency.

In a familiar way, I'd say this is why we don't remember dreams well. When that context established by your name and other aspects of your world view come flooding back, those vaguer perceptions with less well-established contexts get eclipsed.

[The Grand Nudger]

From one crazy ass thing to another, eh?    We've been down the rabbit hole before, and..to paraphrase, there is no such thing as "truth in context" as you use the terms.  When a question has more than one answer..either something in the question is amiss, or there are two or more subtle questions hiding in what seems to be a singular query.  

Sure there's truth in context.  Is it true that giving up your queen for a pawn is the best move?  That depends first on the particular arrangements of pieces on the board, and ultimately on whether you're even playing chess.

The hills you want to die on will never cease to amaze me.  

Is it good to jump into a vat of acid?  That depends on how you define "good."  Your definition provides the context in/by which actions may be defined as good or bad.  In the context of you trying to survive, it's clearly bad.  In the context of you trying to minimize your impact on the world, it's good.

You mean, it depends on how many questions are being asked and which one a person responds too?  Gee....that -totally- demolishes my comments on your bastshit proposition.  

Nevertheless, mind holds a special place, because it's the only idea which is first projected, rather than inferred from observation.  The reason for this is obvious-- all observations are made through the medium of mental agency.

Special?  Not to me, maybe to you.  Thermometers don't seem to possess mental agency.   / shrugs.  

The idea is that consciousness is intrinsic to the Universe-- it's the default state, not a special-snowflake state.  It is the context established by neural connections which get bundled together to give the impression of human agency.

In a familiar way, I'd say this is why we don't remember dreams well.  When that context established by your name and other aspects of your world view come flooding back, those vaguer perceptions with less well-established contexts get eclipsed.

-and in the context of that idea, what sense does it make to say that we can;t observe consciousness?  In that context, it's even easier to observe than a less looney explanation of the same.  All I have to do is look at -anything- and I've observed consciousness. Ta-Da. In your pathological need to object, you've created a caricature in your own positions of exactly what you object to. Gratz.