The Physical Nature of Subjective Experience and Its Interaction with the Brain by Fredric Schiffer (2019)

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Thanks, Fred.

I will read it and let you know ASAP. I am posting your abstract in our online group for discussion.

As per (Schiffer, 2019), “Penrose and Hameroff assert that brain computations, including quantum computations, involving hydrophobic areas of microtubules whose electron clouds go into an orchestrated superpositions and reductions that leads to proto-conscious elements, or "bings" that become orchestrated into conscious experiences. Their assertion, however, like the findings of the neural correlates of consciousness, does not explain subjectivity, but rather describes necessary conditions for it. Many scientists, including Panksepp, Demasio, and Tononi, have each made great contributions to the field, but none explains how material biological processes acquire subjectivity. Yet, the fact is that subjectivity exists and is and of great importance to evolution. Penrose argues that understanding, which involves subjectivity, must be brought into physics, perhaps an undiscovered aspect. Subjectivity is always of or about certain living brain information even though most brain functions do not have subjectivity. Many quantum fields are known to exist and follow Dyson's definition: "a kind of tension or stress which can exist in empty space in the absence of matter. It reveals itself by producing forces, which act on any material objects that happen to lie in the space the field occupies." My hypothesis is that there may be undiscovered quantum fields, which unlike known fields, induce subjectivity when they interact with certain brain information. They emit quantum particles that exert force and cause changes to material objects (brain patterns conveying information) with which they interact. Information that transports meaning to living material exerts force through the understanding it conveys. There is a continuous interplay between experience and brain information. Experiences profoundly inform the brain and alter brain structure, function, and behavior, and local and integrated brain functions process information and initiate multiple associated experiences. Most experience is non-conscious, as discussed by Wright and others, like the soundtrack of a movie to which our brains respond continuously and emotionally even though, we are only intermittently consciously aware of it. I will explore how non-conscious.”

Cheers!

Kind regards,

Rām

----------------------------------------------------------

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

Vision Research Institute Inc, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal 

Researched at the University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

On Monday, 11 February, 2019, 10:54:51 AM GMT-5, Fredric Schiffer M.D. <fred.sc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Ram,

It is great to hear from you. I was going to send you the article but it has a number of typos that the journal will correct and I was going to wait until there was a clean copy.

I would love to join you group as long as it will not become too time consuming. What do you think?

In any case, I would love to have your thoughts, comments, and suggestions, positive and negative.  Perhaps we might have a phone conversation.

Warm regards,

Fred

Fredric Schiffer M.D.

30 Lincoln Street

Newton Highlands, MA 02461

voice 617-969-1188

fax 781-237-9620

[Robert Boyer]

Ram,

Please consider a paper by Hensley and me published in the ejournal NeuroQuantology that is a different perspective on Hameroff and Penroses' theory of consciousness:

A Further Review of 'Orch OR' Theory: The Universe in Consciousness 

(June 2015, 13, 2, 218-231).

Thanks for considering it.

Best wishes,

Bob

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/scientific-basis-of-consciousness.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/1427649893.1623461.1549910443092%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Dear Fred,

 

You article is very interesting. I have started reading it; it will take some time to complete it. I have few queries in whatever I read so far.

 

1. Orch OR: As per (Schiffer, 2019), “The Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR theory, which stands for "orchestrated objective reduction" in which orchestrated refers to the orchestration of the proto-conscious events that are emitted at the reduction of the quantum superposition to the classical state. […] Orch OR explains experience as emanating from ‘bings’ of proto-consciousness that are orchestrated, but the theory does not explain how the reduction of a superposition relates to or causes experience or how the created consciousness affects the brain.” 

 

Does this mean that if the quantum state of electron’s spin is reduced to the spin-up (without human observer), then Orch-OR implies that a proto-conscious event is emitted from the non-experiential inert electron interacting with inert the non-experiential apparatus? If this is correct, then my query is how can a proto-experience (a precursor of subjective experience) be emitted from the non-experiential matter that does not have a single trace of an experience? The metaphysics of Orch-OR is Neutral Monism (NM: a version of dual-aspect monism) as discussed in (Hameroff & Powell, 2009). However, I agree with you that Orch-OR needs further unpacking as elaborated in the eDAM (see below) by assuming the non-physical and physical aspects of the unmanifested state of neutral entity of NM are latent/hidden, which are manifested after Big Bang or equivalent cosmology.

 

2. Dual-aspect Monism: As per (Schiffer, 2019), “Panksepp (3)^{[Alcaro A, Carta S, Panksepp J. The Affective Core of the Self: A Neuro-Archetypical Perspective on the Foundations of Human (and Animal) Subjectivity. Front Psychol. 2017; 8:1424]} has described how consciousness is conserved evolutionarily from lower animals and how it relates to subcortical midline structures (SCMS) and affective states. He invokes ‘dual-aspect monism,’ from which he argues that SCMS and affective states are in effect two sides of the same coin.”

 

This is interesting because my framework is also an extended version of dual-aspect monism (eDAM). The extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM or Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita)^[1] framework has five components, which are elaborated in the following five articles: (Vimal, 2008b), (Vimal, 2010c), (Vimal, 2013), (Vimal, 2015d), and (Vimal, 2016d), and summarized in (Vimal, 2016b); see also the e-book (Vimal, 2012c).

 

As per (Alcaro, Carta, & Panksepp, 2017), “This issue leads us directly to touch upon a philosophic position known as “dual-aspect monism” adopted first by Spinoza (see Ravven, 2013) as well as by Jung and Pauli many years ago (Atmanspacher, 2012), and recently re-proposed by Mark Solms and other neuro-psychoanalysts (Kaplan-Solms & Solms, 2000). According to such a view, the material and the subjective worlds are two complementary manifestations of a unique, albeit perhaps unknowable unitary reality, to which Jung refers with the concept of “psychoid.” The presence of such underlying dimension has been widely underlined in Eastern cultural tradition, as well in some Western philosopher, such as A.N. Withehead (1929). In the 20th century, its existence was revealed by the study of quanto-mechanic processes in physics, and of unconscious processes in analytical psychology10.

Both disciplines recognized the influence of unobservable (paradoxical) phenomena within the normal flow of observable material and mental events.”

 

This is consistent with the eDAM.

 

3. Hypothesis: As per (Schiffer, 2019), “I am suggesting that information (composed of patterns of material elements) interacts with undiscovered quantum fields, much as accepted quantum fields interact with material elements within their field. Such interactions produce an alteration in the material. I am suggesting that certain brain information has structure and material dependence and interacts with undiscovered quantum fields and is altered. It is altered in that this information within the field acquires subjectivity that is specific to the information. I will speculate that brain information may ultimately be expressed as three - dimensional patterns of biophotons or as quantum networks of entangled biophotons (19) that interact with the undiscovered quantum fields. Biophotons are capable of entanglement, superposition and reduction, absorption and emission, as well as creation and annihilation and are good candidates for interactions with the undiscovered quantum fields to achieve subjectivity. But it is the fundamental, universal undiscovered quantum fields that ultimately enable subjectivity. I do not believe that this is panpsychism or evidence of a universal consciousness. I suggest that these quantum fields do nothing, the way a gravitational or electromagnetic field does noting unless it is activated by some material, in this case, by the material patterns of brain information. My hypothesis, then, is that there may be undiscovered quantum fields, which unlike known fields, induce Chalmers' "phenomenal properties" (of subjectivity) when they interact with certain brain information. […] This interaction creates a subjective aspect to the original brain information. This subjectivity itself is new information, which transports meaning to living material (brain information) and exerts force through the understanding it conveys. […] The main difference between these undiscovered fields and accepted fields, and it is a large difference, is that the fields that I propose have a fundamental property that relates to subjectivity, which has been vastly ignored by physics because physics is not yet developed enough to tackle the problem of subjectivity. […] My hypothesis is that the proposed new fields do not possess subjectivity themselves, but rather that they possess fundamental qualities that are able to alter certain brain information so that it acquires subjectivity.”

 

In your very interesting hypothesis, where does subjectivity (experiencer such as self and subjective experiences (SEs) such as redness) come from is unclear. In the eDAM, they (self and SEs) come from the non-physical aspect (Universal Potential Consciousness informational energy field: UPCIEF) of the dual-aspect unmanifested state of the primal entity (many names, unus mundus, Brahman, unified informational energy field: UIEF). Its inseparable physical aspect is physical UIEF (such as the quantum vacuum).

 

I have attached one article (Vimal, 2015d), meanwhile you may like to read to it.

---

[1] The extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM, Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita Vedānta) is a middle way (between materialism and idealism) framework. The eDAM has five components, which are elaborated in the five articles: (Vimal, 2008b), (Vimal, 2010c), (Vimal, 2013), (Vimal, 2015d), (Vimal, 2016d), and summarized in (Vimal, 2016b); see also the e-book (Vimal, 2012c).

 

 

In physics and biology, we have structure and function. In cognition, in addition, we also have consciousness (a mind, experiences, and an experiencer). In the eDAM, the structure is included physical aspect and the rest (function and experiences) are sub-aspects of the mental aspect of a state of an entity.

 

In the eDAM, a state of our mind-brain system has the inseparable 1pp-mental aspect (such as subjective experience redness when a trichromat looks at a ripe tomato) and 3pp-physical aspects (such as brain’s visual area V8-neural-network and its activities related to redness). The degree of the manifestation of aspects from the unmanifested state of the primal entity varies with the level of states of our mind-brain system. [1pp: 1^st person perspective and 3pp: 3^rd pp]. We have assumed that, in Nature, the subjective experiences potentially co-exist with its inseparable physical aspect. Here, the 1pp-mental aspect consists of superposed potential basis-states related to the potential primary irreducible subjective experiences (SEs) representing the co-existence of the potentiality of experiences for us. A specific SE is realized by the matching and selection mechanism (Vimal, 2010c).

 

In other words, there are two robust reproducible sources of information 1pp and 3pp in our wakeful conscious life; this is empirical data that we need to explain how they are linked. In the eDAM, the doctrine of the inseparability of aspects tightly links these two sources of data.

 

The eDAM uses dual-mode and the matching and selection mechanisms to connect qualia/subjective experience (SE, such as redness when a trichromat views a ripe tomato) to neurons: this is discussed in (Vimal, 2010c). Briefly, there are two modes: stimulus-dependent-feed-forward-signals-related-extrinsic-mode and cognitive-feedback-signals-related-intrinsic-mode. They interact for conjugate matching and then the selection of a specific subjective experience occurs and experienced by the self (Bruzzo & Vimal, 2007).

 

For experiencing a specific SE, there are three major interacting signals: (i) stimulus-dependent feed forward (FF) signals, (ii) stimuli-related-memory-dependent cognitive feedback (FB) signals, and (iii) self-related signal that is a part of reentrant FB signals. The potential SEs are embedded as memory traces in FB signals during the developmental period.

 

The self (a) is the subjective experience of subject (Bruzzo & Vimal, 2007), (b) consists of proto-self, core-self, and autobiographical-self (Damasio, 2010), and (c) is the 1pp-mental aspect of a state of ‘self-related neural network (such as cortical and subcortical brain-stem midline structures: (Northoff, 2014b; Northoff & Bermpohl, 2004)) and its activities (intrinsic activities).

 

The matching/interaction is between FF and FB signals (or mode if we use QED); then the self-related signals/modes interact with the resultant signal/mode representing the matching between stimulus-related FF signal/mode and cognitive FB signals/mode; thus, there are interactions between the three major signals/modes; this interactive process can be called as ‘the specific SE is selected and experienced by the self’.

 

The eDAM (extended dual-aspect monism) is NOT the interactive substance dualism that has many problems. The physical aspect of a state of an entity includes both its appearance and its intrinsic nature (entity-in-itself).

 

The 3pp-appearance of matter (such as color related V8-NN and its activities) and matter-in-itself (such as V8-NN-in-itself) are inseparable and are parts of the physical aspect of a state of an entity (such as V8-NN for color). This physical aspect is inseparable with 1pp-mental aspect (such as the experience redness when a trichromat views a ripe-tomato) of the same state of the same entity (such as V8-NN for color). Therefore, the eDAM is a monist framework because of the doctrine of inseparability. In dualism, aspects and/or sub-aspects are separable, for example, mind and matter can exist independently but they can interact; this metaphysics has serious problems.

 

In any case, we cannot ignore 99.99… % of our universe that we cannot ‘see’ or we do not know; they are also the manifestation of the primal entity. I tend to agree with idealists that all sciences, philosophy, and all our activities in our daily lives are in wakeful consciousness in mind-dependent reality (MDR).

 

We, as physicists, usually make models such as relativity, QM, string theory, Standard Model (that has the mass, charge, and spin of 17 elementary particles, QFT and so on) in MDR and assume that they are for mind-independent reality (MIR) once we have some consensus. We do not know the intrinsic nature of matter-in-itself (although we have postulated mass, charge, spin of 17 elementary particles as their intrinsic nature) and consciousness-in-itself (Universal potential Consciousness: UPC), but we try our best in MDR to assume they might be for MIR. We have hypothesized that experiences (such as redness, greenness, blueness, and so on) are quantized (Hameroff, email communication on 3/6/16) as excitations of UPC, in analogy to an elementary particle is a quantized mode of the excitation of a quantum field.

 

In my view, the fundamental reality is a dual-aspect potential field from which both physical and mental aspects co-arise, co-evolve and co-develop and they co-exist and are inseparable; same reality but with two inseparable aspects: mental and physical.

 

One could argue that what ways the doctrine of inseparability different from the identity theory, eliminativism, emergentism of materialism.  

 

Materialists want to either eliminate experiences or try to create experiences from non-experiential matter (such as a brain). Thus, they have a serious problem: how can they eliminate experiences when they are the main source of empirical reproducible 1pp-data? Or how can they create experiences from non-experiential matter that does not have a single trace of an experience? The identity theory and emergentism of materialism have a serious problem simply because their matter is non-experiential. An analogy: there is no way we can create oranges from apple seeds that do not have a single trace of orange.

 

In the eDAM, we use an alternative definition of matter that has the potentiality of experiences and framed it in dual-aspect language to avoid category mistake. We postulate that a state of an entity has inseparable mental and physical aspects. The degree of manifestation of aspects varies with an entity.

 

There are two concepts of the matter:

 

(i) First, the Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept of matter, where matter has rūpa/form and has the potentiality for experiences (Pereira Jr., 2013; Radhakrishnan, 1960; Swami Krishnananda, 1983); it is used in our frameworks (Pereira Jr., 2013; Pereira Jr. et al., 2015; Vimal, 2013).

 

(ii) Second, the Kaṇāda-Democritus’ concept of matter (who identifies matter with atoms/particles), which implies that matter is non-experiential (Vimal, 2015d); it is used in science (such as physics, chemistry, and biology).

 

The second concept misleads materialistic biologists who make the grave mistake of following non-experiential materialism that has serious unsolvable problems and hence cannot address the hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers, 1995) because it does not explain about life, especially how experiences arise from non-experiential matter. Biologists who follow Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept of matter should not have such problems.

 

There is a simple argument against the above second concept: you want to create an experience from the brain; brain as matter must have a potential for creating experiences, otherwise, how can brain create experiences out of ‘nothing’. For example, apple seeds have the potential to create apple tree; that is why apples can be created from apple-seeds. In other words, we cannot create oranges from apple-seeds.

 

To sum up, let us make sure that we cannot create experiences from non-experiential non-mental matter that does not even have a single trace of the potentiality of experiences. We cannot create apple out of orange seeds.

By the way, once you accept Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept of matter, then you are no more materialist; you are dual-aspect. 

 

The frameworks, such as the extended Dual-Aspect Monism (eDAM), that follow the first concept of matter do not face such problems (Vimal, 2015).

 

Cheers!

Kind regards,

Rām

----------------------------------------------------------

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

Vision Research Institute Inc, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal 

Researched at the University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

[Deepak Chopra]

FYI 

https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/chopra/article/Unveiling-Reality-13606383.php

Unveiling Reality - SFGate There are countless versions of the same teaching. “Be still and know that I am God” is a religious version. So is “The kingdom of Heaven is within.” www.sfgate.com

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

The Healing Self: A Revolutionary New Plan to Supercharge Your Immunity and Stay Well for Life

 

 

 

---

From: 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Scientific Basis of Consciousness <scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 9:06 PM
To: Fredric Schiffer M.D.; 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Scientific Basis of Consciousness
Cc: Online Sadhu Sanga
Subject: Re: The Physical Nature of Subjective Experience and Its Interaction with the Brain by Fredric Schiffer (2019)

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/1903717114.1708441.1549937201268%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Avtar]

Hi Deepak 

Totally agree with your description of reality. This is also empirically vindicated by URM predicted reality. 

🙏Avtar 

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 12, 2019, at 6:39 AM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

FYI 

https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/chopra/article/Unveiling-Reality-13606383.php

Unveiling Reality - SFGate There are countless versions of the same teaching. “Be still and know that I am God” is a religious version. So is “The kingdom of Heaven is within.” www.sfgate.com

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

<Outlook-1515547920.png>
 

<Outlook-1515547941.png>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/BN8PR18MB273948D10ED8C721EA50EB3B80650%40BN8PR18MB2739.namprd18.prod.outlook.com.

[Deepak Chopra]

Thanks Avtar - agree

Love from India 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

www.discoveringyourcosmicself.com

 

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/36F7DC9A-841C-4D84-BA95-E89441FB9753%40aol.com.

[Bernard Baars]

For what is may be worth, I would choose dual-aspect monism IF I had to choose among the conventional polarities. BUT I happen to think that all the traditional positions are badly posed, and science does not work for poorly posed, untestable questions. 

I think a viable heuristic position might be "dual source inductivism," meaning there are certainly subjective and shared subjective positions (we call the shared subjective position "public" or "physical," but it is actually a shared conscious experience, like two hunters trying to thrown very accurate stones at a poor, jinxing bunny rabbit.) 

So perhaps it should be "shared source inductivism," which is arguably the root of empirical crafts and sciences. The point of "inductivism" is that we do not yet know the brain mechanism in sufficient detail, but it is being studied very clearly now. Empirically it looks like a testable question, and it has emerged very nicely in recent years. 

This is a testable, and therefore NOT a metaphysical way of stating the obvious fact that we have a subjective flow of experience in waking (and in dreaming) (and, in higher states, perhaps in deep sleep as well). Then we can often share our experiences with our moms and infants, and then in the classical "Mommy, Airplane!" act around age one or two. "Mommy Airplane!" means shared consciousness of the same object, the airplane. In traditional arts and crafts shared consciousness is a very common way to work, and then these crafts can also be done by single individuals. But teaching children has a big shared-consciousness component, because you can essentially point at shared conscious objects. 

Pointing (deixis in linguistics) is also a basic use of spoken language, and grammatical particles like "which" and "that" are deictic. So is the physical act of pointing, and so is the I-E word "tik" --- the basis of "digit," "finger" (in the Germanic branch of the I-E languages), and possibly "sit" in Sanskrit. 

There are all kinds of strong cognates among the IE languages, and 40 percent of living people speak some I-E language. The source of proto-IE has now been pinned very nicely to the "revised Kurgan hypothesis," referring to a human population near the Black Sea, which developed agriculture, but also the WHEEL and words for wheels, wooden carts, chariots, and domesticated horses, oxen, sheep, and the usual European farm animals. The proto-IE speakers were militarily superior because horse-borne soldiers are fast and very dangerous, and of course Arjuna in the Gita is something of a prototype. Chariots were also extremely powerful against farmers and shepherds, and chariots made of wood and bronze, and using bows and arrows as well as bronze swords, those were the military superiority tech of the time. So they spread their genes and memes all over the place. They were not just herders and horse-riders, but also farmers and plausibly fishing peoples, and by that time water travel was already well-known. So this is something like 8000 YA.

The New York Times published a nice article last year, based on genomic tracing (both male-male and female-female lines, and looking for the intersection of those lines). This converges extremely nicely with archeological artifacts, including clay funnels and beakers, which suggest milk drinkers. Normally adults lose the lactose adaptation that allows for adult milk consumption, but a small human population shifted a chunk of DNA to allow for milk digestion in adults. That, by itself, made it easier to travel faster and over longer distances, so the proto-IE peoples swept over the Eurasian land mass. The argument that they also used the spread of farming as well is not really a contradiction to the steppe hypothesis, because they probably did both. Humans are adaptable.

So we have all these cognate words among the I-E languages, and they are a full vocabulary for people using carts and wheels, horses and donkeys, oxen and people to draw carts and carry shoulder yokes to double their loads. Oxen are yoked, and "yoke" is cognate to "yoga, yogi," etc.

But -- I suppose I could launch my much-reduced position on the M-B problem, "shared source inductivism." I know I need a multisyllabic mind-boggling name, and maybe this is it? 

b

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/B3362929-189D-4E4D-8819-C887CEA6516D%40chopra.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Kind regards, Bernard J. Baars Editor-in-Chief Society for MindBrain Sciences Email baa...@gmail.com Publications BernardBaars.com