C.s. Morrison, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Physics and qualia
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear Colin,
Interesting thought. Can you elaborate your statement
“weighted by qualia according to the Born rule”. That is one of the mysteries for me. I am not 100 percent sure about role of consciousness in quantum measurement. Surely, result of one observation is random and subjective. But by the time you and any other observer collect data on millions or billions of similarly prepared identical systems, you get the same statistical result. This is what makes quantum mechanics science,
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of C. S. Morrison
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 10:48 AM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com; Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Physics and qualia
Hi Whit,
Like you, I am convinced (on evolutionary grounds) that the action that our consciousness must perform for a Darwinian account of its organisation has to be a free choice. I am also convinced that the only possibility for identifying that action as a necessary physical process is as the aspect of nature that randomly selects the outcome of a quantum measurement from the range of possible alternatives (weighted by qualia according to the Born rule). The fact that this choice is free is what makes the outcome random in my opinion (the qualia making some options more salient than others account for the probabilities).
It seems to me that Jo would rather account for the randomness in QM (which he appears to accept as irreducible) in terms of a fundamental law of randomness rather than the action of consciousnesses as in my theory. However, in doing so he has removed all possibility of a conscious free choice playing a role in physics (and is I think rightly reluctant to posit any influences beyond what physics requires). You will have difficulty convincing him otherwise.
Nevertheless, the fact that where randomness in other systems has been accounted for (e.g. a dice), it has always been the result of complex processes and unknown initial conditions, rather than fundamental laws, is I think supportive of my position. Hence there is yet hope for a scientifically consistent account of human consciousness in which we do have a form of free will.
Best wishes,
Colin
C. S. Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.
https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953
Send from Huawei Y360
On 17 Jun 2017 03:26, Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com> wrote:
Hi Jo,
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 04:32:39PM +0000, Edwards, Jonathan wrote:
> 4. Again, this affects the idea of an electron being watched. A watched
> electron cannot be an unwatched electron. So there is never an electron
> that might or might not be watched. They are different tokens, and were
> always going to be from birth - as PII requires.
For the experiment to matter, there has to be a degree of freedom for the
experimenter. If you're saying we can only ever achieve passive observation,
are just along for the ride, that's ephenominalism -- except you strongly
deny that label fitting.
Are you making a scale claim then, that the experimenter has no degree of
freedom at the scale of electrons, but has freedom at a larger scale -- that
our freedom is emergent with scale of the thing observed? Or are you saying
freedom is an illusion, always?
Assuming evolution and pragmatism, the ability to freely create experimental
conditions -- including when and how to observe -- counts for something.
Evolution only provides us capabilities with practical use. If there's no
practical use in altering experimental conditions -- because at the
fundamental level we've no freedom to do so -- then what would cause
evolution to select such an extravagant illusion?
Where Descartes went wrong was in his suggestion that just about anything
could turn out to be an illusion. He had no grasp of evolution,
understandably enough. That's not to say evolution assures all perception is
veridical; but it assures all perception by healthy beings has some
practical grasp of reality, howevermuch the grasp is partial or simplified.
Okay, what's "PII"?
Are you saying that in your view everything we see was destined to be seen?
Are the moments and causes of our deaths already destined? It's not fully
impossible, but there's at least a degree of unlikeliness to that claim.
Since we can't really know, what are the costs of holding one belief or the
other, and perhaps having it end up wrong?
If we believe in freedom, and maximize freedom, and freedom exists, we're
ahead of the game, on average. (Curiousity may still kill the cat.) If we
believe in no freedom, and so fail to use it, then if freedom exists we lose
quite badly. But if we believe in freedom, and in reality there's no
freedom, what have we lost? It costs us nothing. And if there is some
strange evolutionary advantage in the "illusion," it lets us cash that
advantage in.
As a matter of pragmatic rationality, betting against freedom has no payout.
So no, there has always been an electron which we freely might watch, or
not. I'm not going to embrace the irrational bet on that.
Best,
Whit
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services:
http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/20170616173329.GA18429%40black.transpect.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services:
http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/MMXP123MB0879FD683B5EA52AFE6A8805BAC60%40MMXP123MB0879.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
C. S. Morrison
Dear Kashyap,
We have to be careful about what we mean by an observer. Although I do not agree with Henry Stapp's view of consciousness, his extension of Von Neumann is helpful. He distinguished the random choice of eigenstate from the process of choosing whether a measurement takes place or not. In his view consciousness is the process that chooses the moment of measurement (in his view it acts via a quantum zeno effect). That is not what I think. In my theory consciousness acts by choosing the outcome that a measurement reveals (if the measurement takes place at that moment) from all the potential measurement outcomes that are simultaneously represented in its experience. In my view the experience of a consciousness consists of all the potential measurement outcomes of a particular quantum measurement (which I suspect is the position of a particular particle). The consciousness is free to select any of these positions at each moment in its experience, and it shifts its selection instantaneously between different subjective locations each representing a different potential position. When a measurement takes place the particle is found in the position its consciousness selected last. Its freedom to select from any of its potential positions at each moment in time is what accounts for the randomness in measurements of individual particles.
The probability distributions that the laws of quantum field theory describe arise because each of these positions is not perceived by the consciousness in the same type of qualia. Some are represented in qualia that are stronger (more salient) than the qualia marking other potential positions. This makes the consciousness more likely to select these more-salient locations. However, salience is not the only aspect of qualia by which these options are weighted. In trying to account for the evolution of our own experience I have so far deduced that there are at least two other important effects: an effect of qualia type (i.e. particular hues or notes of sound) and an effect of the pleasantness or unpleasantness aspect of a quale (each of which must be responsible for some aspect of the quantum mechanical description of the system). When all these effects are taken into account in my view, the probability of the consciousness selecting each potential position is exactly what the wave function of the associated particle predicts. That is why I said its experience weights the potential measurement outcomes according to the Born rule. The consciousness in my theory is the system being observed. Not the observer! The reason for the predictable probability distributions in QFT is in my view due to the fact that identically prepared particles all have exactly the same experience (where all their potential positions are represented in exactly the same way at each moment in time).
As far as the origin of the qualia is concerned, I suspect that is the effects of other particles (all other particles in the vicinity). Their cumulative effect is that of the classical potentials upon the form of the wave function. I am not yet committed to what constitutes a measurement, though I suspect it is due to the subjective changes by which quantum entanglement must be accounted for in this view.
Anyway I am drawn to this view from attempting to account for all the various aspects of the way our experiences are organised in the way that is most like how the most similar types of successfully explained organisation are accounted for. Most importantly, it allows me to explain why our colour qualia have come to be organised into patterns that bear a close resemblance to patterns formed by particular frequences of light interacting with our retinas. This is all detailed in my book THE BLIND MINDMAKER. If anyone shares my intuition that this is probably the right approach and wants to know more, the book is available on Amazon for $9.99. To understand the theory, reading Part 2 of my book is sufficient. Part 1 defends my approach against those who prefer some form of functionalism or eliminativism (views that I find totally unscientific).
A link to my book on Amazon (US and UK) is below
https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953
All the best,
Colin
Send from Huawei Y360
C. S. Morrison
A slight correction to my previous email. I meant to say:
The reason for the predictable probability distributions in QFT is in my view due to the fact that identically prepared particles all have exactly the same experience (where THEIR FULL SET OF potential positions IS represented in exactly the same way IN THE EXPERIENCE OF EACH PARTICLE at CORRESPONDING moments in time - i. e. THOSE AT EQUAL INTERVALS FROM THE MOMENT THE PARTICLE WAS FIRST PREPARED).
Obviously I did not mean that each potential position was equi-salient in the experience of each particle. And it goes without saying that each particle passes through the experimental apparatus at different times (unless exactly the same experiment is carried out in parallel at a different place)
Sorry for any confusion,
Colin
C. S. Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.
https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953
Send from Huawei Y360
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear Colin,
I am still trying to digest your model. When you say experience of a particle, do you mean the experience is similar to the experience of a sentient observer making a quantum measurement? If it is different, then we have this old problem. For billions of years quantum mechanical reactions went on in the universe before any sentient beings were present. For all we know, they proceeded in the exact same manner as today.
Best Regards.
Kashyap
Rudolph Tanzi
C. S. Morrison
Dear Kashyap
As I said, the experience of a typical quantum particle in my theory is simply all the potential positions of the particle represented in appropriate qualia determined by the extent to which various potentials favour the particle being found at each of its potential positions. Its experience is merely a pattern of qualia whose form is that of the probability distribution function for the position of that particle since it is what causes that probability distribution. Hence it isn't an intelligent sort of consciousness. It merely chooses particular potential positions freely from the experience it has at the time. That experience does not give it any idea of what it is, or what it is doing.
If you are worrying about the fact that if this consciousness is not an observer, the wave function couldn't collapse, you can rest easy. That is because in my theory certain instances of these consciousnesses do have wavefunction-collapsing capabilities. These are the consciousnesses belonging to genuinely fundamental particles. They are the observers in my view, and they have been around to collapse the wave functions of other quantum particles from day one. The important thing to remember is that in collapsing those wave functions they are not choosing the outcome of the measurement. That is freely chosen, not by nature, but by a consciousness associated with the particle being observed. The collapsing of the wave function merely makes that choice reality (by removing all the other options from the experience of that consciousness).
The advantage of this proposal is that it potentially allows all aspects of our experience to have direct physical correlates with distinct effects that could be adapted to a beneficial role in our ancestor's brains. And as my book explains, the purpose for which the brains of our distant ancestors would adapt position measurements of a single quantum particle would lead to the structures confining and measuring that particle evolving in just the right way to account for all aspects of the organisation in our consciousness.
Best wishes,
Colin
C. S. Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.
https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953
Send from Huawei Y360
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear Colin,
You have an interesting model. At the moment I am open to all ideas about quantum mechanics, sentient observations and their relation to particle interactions which have been explained in terms of physics. Understanding of these topics is a long way off and a big job! However let me make few remarks anyway. I actually like the idea of particles having some kind of (hidden, unexpressed as Biologists would say) consciousness or qualia. Somehow this qualia is switched on when particles interact with each other even in absence of a sentient observer. Consciousness is perhaps distributed in the whole universe starting from particles, then to rocks, plants, bacteria, animals and eventually culminating to a highest degree in humans, I have to admit though that most scientists would laugh at this idea. It is not clear if one can establish this scientifically. If someone could, there is a guaranteed Nobel Prize waiting for that! You may be reading comments on this blog for and against this idea.
Anyway, seriously, I have one suggestion. You may want to replace particle positions in your discussion of Qualia with spins, not that anything is wrong with positions model. A position wave packet even for a free particle (in absence of any interaction) spreads as time goes by. Spins are discrete and quantized and easier to deal with, both theoretically and experimentally. Assume that you have prepared a beam of electrons in a superposed state: (0.8(spin up) + 0.6 (spin down)). QM says that any observer at any time may get either spin up or spin down. But by the time million electrons are measured and all the results are added up, you will find 640,000 spin up and 360,000 spin down, by Born rule since squares of wave functions are used in probabilities. This will happen whether the experimentalist is a Nobel laureate in physics or a simple illiterate villager who is taught to press buttons, but otherwise does not know what he is doing. If you want to relate it to qualia (not intelligence or Ph.Ds.), then both of these persons should have built in knowledge of Born rule in their brain, may be by evolution. Or it is just a law of nature which electrons follow. Remember, until 20th century, people did not know about this though Qualia was there all the time for millions of years. Individually it is a subjective event, but after experiments with large number of similarly prepared systems, the final result is predictable and agrees with experiments. In fact, this makes QM a science in spite of subjectivity. So the property may be more related with particles than with our consciousness. But I am not sure. I understand, according to you, qualia of particles and qualia of humans are related. OK. But how and why? Does our brain know about laws of nature through evolution or some deep seated subconscious intuitive knowledge? Most of the time, evolution dealt with survival which did not need knowledge of QM! This is the confusing part.
So, as far as I see, the main problems are (1) role of conscious observers in the universe (more so in quantum situations). (2) Whether consciousness can be understood as a QM phenomenon and (3) how consciousness plays its role in describing laws of nature which should be applicable to both animate and inanimate objects.
.
Whit Blauvelt
> So, as far as I see, the main problems are (1) role of conscious observers in
> the universe (more so in quantum situations). (2) Whether consciousness can be
> understood as a QM phenomenon and (3) how consciousness plays its role in
> describing laws of nature which should be applicable to both animate and
> inanimate objects.
One question that came up while reading this: If consciousness is
everywhere, whether instantiated in spins or particles, what are we to make
of the use of the double-slit experiment as a sort of consciousness detector
(i.e. Chalmers' hair dryer)? That is, the experiment seems to discriminate
between two states, on where there is a causal chain which can count as
observation by consciousness, one as lacking such a chain. I suppose it
matters what the meaning of "there" is, since we can claim that
consciousness is always there, with just that chain being whole or broken
for each potentially observable location/event. But it seems more natural to
say there are location/events which, at least for their moment, are beyond
consciousness, beyond all observation except by subsequent inference.
If that's the case, then consciousness isn't everywhere. If consciousness
isn't everywhere, does it still make a plausible claim to localize it at the
particle or spin level?
Best,
Whit
C. S. Morrison
Dear Kashyap,
The problem with the idea of consciousness residing in a rock or tree, etc, is that such a view suggests there ought to be a consciousness throughout a human body. Although many of us may think that is what we are, science clearly shows that we can only be something in the brain. There are many notable differences between our patterns of sensory qualia and the patterns formed by the sensory stimuli they appear to represent, and seemingly purposeful differences like colour constancy could only have been brought about by the brain. Of course, that does not mean that there ain't a consciousness extending throughout the body. But if there is one wonders why the brain couldn't have adapted that one rather than going to all the bother of evolving an internal one that feels somewhat similar.
As far as I can see, there is no justification for attributing the status of being a single consciousness to anything other than a single quantum system - a system isolated from interactions that carry information about it into the outside world. It is when properties become indeterminate that nature needs a consciousness to randomly choose their values. It is this need that makes it justified to posit the existence of consciousnesses to do this job, and that need does not normally arise at the level of macroscopic structures like rocks and trees. Although there will be many such consciousnesses in a rock or a tree, I think it is unlikely that the experiences of any of these consciousnesses will co-vary with anything that happens to the surface of the rock or tree. Hence none of them will feel like the rock or tree making it unreasonable to call the rock or tree conscious.
As far as spins are concerned, you are probably right in thinking it will be easier to imagine a neurophysical system that can precisely manipulate spin states. However, my motivation for Position Selecting Interactionism comes from the need to account for the subjective visual image (and the equally precise body image) as a product of positive natural selection. Although it may be possible to conceive of a particle that selects from a 3-d space of all its possible spin orientations, I think it would be practically impossible to specify a set of selection pressures that would lead to the probabilities of these spin states varying in a way that formed patterns in that mathematical space closely resembling those of retinal or touch stimuli. If, on the other hand, the space we experience is the configuration space of a single quantum particle, it is quite possible to conceive of structures evolving that could adjust the probabilities of all those potential positions in response to sensory stimuli in a way that does reflect the original spatial patterns of the stimuli impinging on the sense organs. My book (THE BLIND MINDMAKER) describes exactly how that could happen.
Since we can't have a vacuum in a brain structure, I am hopeful that a diffusional process of the sort proposed by Matthew J. Donald in Quantum theory and the Brain will allow the position of some kind of largish molecule or ion channel to become indeterminate within a particular region of brain tissue from which no info about the particle's location can escape. That is because I suspect only a largish particle would have the capacity to trigger a neural event that registers its position (but I am open to other ideas on this).
Best wishes,
Colin
C. S. Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.
https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953
Send from Huawei Y360