Groups keyboard shortcuts have been updated
Dismiss
See shortcuts

Rudolph Tanzi, RE: C.s. Morrison, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Physics and qualia

50 views
Skip to first unread message

Vasavada, Kashyap V

unread,
Jun 20, 2017, 8:14:41 AM6/20/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Dear Rudy,

At the moment I am open to all ideas about quantum mechanics, sentient observation and particle interactions. Perhaps you can elaborate what you mean by “fine line” .

With regards.

Kashyap

 

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rudolph Tanzi
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 6:34 PM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Cc: C. S. Morrison <cs...@hotmail.co.uk>
Subject: Re: C.s. Morrison, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Physics and qualia

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

I would think there may be a fine line between “sentient observation” of a human and “reaction to an interaction” of a particle in considering experiences that define realties.

 

Rudy

 

 

 

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

Rudy Tanzi

unread,
Jun 20, 2017, 2:31:19 PM6/20/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
I meant where do we draw the line between our perception interpreting the universe that we participate in experientially in consciousness and the interactions of a single particle in which action-reaction likewise creates an experiential event? Is that not also a form of consciousness?

Sent from Rudy's iPhone 




--
----------------------------
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/54567b44b5b54c25b7b55ddbb36919b5%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
Jun 20, 2017, 4:08:27 PM6/20/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
NO RUDY!

there is no action-reaction in the case of a single particle!!
you do not seem to have understood anything I have said about that or what John Walker clearly wrote about that.

Anyone who cannot understand the math in Sutherland's papers will never really understand consciousness as a physical phenomenon.


Serge Patlavskiy

unread,
Jun 20, 2017, 9:04:54 PM6/20/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
-
Jack Sarfatti <jacksa...@icloud.com> on June 20, 2017 wrote:
>Anyone who cannot understand the math in Sutherland's 
>papers will never really understand consciousness as a 
>physical phenomenon.
.
[S.P.] Luckily, "anyone who cannot understand the math in Sutherland's papers" and is not satisfied with various panpsychistic and physicalistic solutions may opt for a good alternative approach. I mean that there is a chance to understand the mechanisms of consciousness by considering consciousness as a phenomenon of informational nature which can be isolated from complex systems like a living organism.
.
However, this approach is by no means easier. This is because that, before starting to talk about consciousness, we have first to consider a special meta-theory (which would make room for the activity of informational factor in general and consciousness in particular) and we have also to consider several important concomitant applied theories. 
.
A good analogy is as follows. Somebody may start from copying files to the flash drive -- this corresponds to start talking about consciousness immediately. But, in fact, we have first to consider some operation system to make out computer to work -- this corresponds to constructing a special meta-theory. Then we have to install the drivers necessary for the flash drive to be "seen" by operation system, and then to format our flash drive under FAT32 or NTFS -- this corresponds to constructing the concomitant applied theories. And only then we may start copying files to the flash drive -- this corresponds to starting constructing the very applied theory of consciousness.
.
Best,
Serge Patlavskiy





From: "'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "online_sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: Rudolph Tanzi, RE: C.s. Morrison, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Physics and qualia

C. S. Morrison

unread,
Jun 21, 2017, 12:31:37 PM6/21/17
to 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.

Dear Jack,  Rudy and others,

Might I offer the alternative suggestion that anyone who does not understand the implications of DARWIN's theory doesn't understand consciousness. We don't know what consciousness is.  But we do know that it is a highly complex instance of something that appears perfectly organised for some function - the encoding of sensory information (real or imagined) in a genetically evaluated way ( where by genetically evaluated I mean that situations that tend to be bad for our prospects of passing on our genes to future generations tend to give us unpleasant experiences whilst those that are good for those prospects tend to give us relatively pleasant ones (for most people most of the time)). Every example of such perfect organisation is explained as a product of positive natural selection.. The organisation in our consciousness ought therefore to be explained the same way. Each small step toward that organization must have had a beneficial effect upon our ancestors' chances of passing on their genes to future generations.

Just think what that means. Since we have no neuroscientific reason to expect visual data to be encoded in retinal-image-like forms anywhere in the human brain, the generators of colour qualia (whatever they are physically) must have been organised through natural selection to produce the colour qualia in these forms. This seems to me to imply that each point in our visual experience must be associated with a distinct output that the system we call our consciousness is generating. The effect of the different types of colour qualia that might appear there can then be understood as varying the probability of that output. For some reason it was beneficial for those colour-adjusted probabilities to vary across that space of potential outputs in a way that was more and more similar (even with colour constancy and the filled in blindspot, etc) to the patterns of light intensity variations across the retina. In my book THE BLIND MINDMAKER I have shown why such evolution would occur if we were the aspect of nature that selects the random outcomes of position measurements of a single quantum particle that the brain has adapted to introduce randomness into our attention-focussing process.

That is why my theory of Position Selecting Interactionism is likely to be the correct explanation. Only if a consciousness is positioning a physical effect at particular positions under the influence of its qualia are you ever going to explain how its colour qualia came to be organised into patterns resembling the patterns of particular wavebands of incident light interacting with the retina.

And if your theory can't explain that, no matter how much of Sutherland's maths you understand, you can't possibly have understood consciousness.

Best wishes,
Colin

If interested, my theory is detailed in my book

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

Hameroff, Stuart R - (hameroff)

unread,
Jun 21, 2017, 1:44:09 PM6/21/17
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com

Which came first, consciousness or the brain?

 

The notion that consciousness emerged from complex brain computation is belied by the increasing number of mainstream scientists and philosophers who

resort to panpsychism, not to mention Eastern philosophers and quantum consciousness enthusiast who all agree, in various ways, that qualia and feelings existed before life.

If so, feelings (e.g. due to Penrose OR events) in the primordial soup may have prompted the origin of life, and driven its evolution. Behavior is based on reward (feelings,

not gene survival), including not only hedonism, but altruism and spirituality.

 

And I dont agree that consciousness is necessarily complex. What's complex about a toothache?

 

cheers

 

Stuart Hameroff


From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com <online_sa...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of C. S. Morrison <cs...@hotmail.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 9:25 AM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com; 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.; online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Rudolph Tanzi, RE: C.s. Morrison, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Physics and qualia
 

Jack Sarfatti

unread,
Jun 21, 2017, 1:44:31 PM6/21/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com


Sent from my iPad

On Jun 21, 2017, at 9:25 AM, C. S. Morrison <cs...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Jack,  Rudy and others,

Might I offer the alternative suggestion that anyone who does not understand the implications of DARWIN's theory doesn't understand consciousness.

No you may not.
Obviously many of you do not understand the culture of theoretical physics. You muddle general conceptual explanations with particular applications of the former. 

For example, when Einstein explained gravity IN GENERAL he did so by writing

Guv + 8piG/c^4 Tuv = 0

That does not mean one understands the PARTICULAR details of the Earth's gravity field without solving the above equations with input data from empirical measurements.

Similarly, when I explain consciousness IN GENERAL in terms of Rod Sutherland's PQM locally-retrocausal action-reaction Lagrangian"s "two-way" (Bohm-Hiley) coupling between INTRINSICALLY MENTAL advanced DESTINY/retarded HISTORY quantum information de Broglie-Bohm pilot fields and their classical level MATTER Bell "beables"
that does not mean that we understand all the PARTICULAR details of human consciousness, without a lot more information e.g. Hameroff's microtubules, MRI, EEG etc details of the classical neuronal beables.

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
Jun 21, 2017, 6:33:32 PM6/21/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

On Jun 21, 2017, at 11:39 AM, Rudy Tanzi <rudy...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree that species-specific perception must serve and be driven by survival taking on properties of a self-organizing system. Comparing bacteria to humans, we know there is much more to perceive than than that of bacteria reacting to attractant and repellents. Likewise, we would have to say the same about ourselves if we
consider alternately evolved beings that we are not capable of perceiving.  

Maybe so, but beside my point.

In perception, our senses bring us feelings of reward or punishment that serve survival. Our memories of reward and punishment become desires and fears, respectively. When these fears and desires become obligatory for survival, they eventually become genetically programmed instincts via a process that is partly Darwinian and partly epigenetic. The intellectual brain then strategizes, recapitulates, and projects around our instincts and acquired fears and desires, the bases of all emotions,  to create rational thought and imagination. 


Maybe so, but beside my point.


The heated debate arises when we consider the "true" nature of what is actually being perceived and processed by the brain in what we call consciousness.


That is the "hard problem" (David Chalmers) that I have solved. It is a simple physics problem. The proof will be in the pudding, i.e. conscious AI nano-electronic chips.

Most argue it is input from a purely physical world that is evolving. Others say it is pure awareness becoming aware of itself in self-organizing systems such as humans or bacteria. Some argue the only output of awareness is information that further modifies awareness in the absence of a physical substrate. 

Scientifically meaningless .Too vague, not testable. Your key nouns  "input", "awareness" "information" are not properly defined in any Popper-falsifiable way. This is in contrast to PQM in which your key nouns are all defined in terms of mathematical objects that are part of the battle-tested action principle (Lagrangians etc) of theoretical physics that are empirically Popper falsifiable in principle.

The question is how can we do the experiments needed to address these possibilities using a scientific method.

Wrong, one must first have the correct theoretical idea in order to know what kind of experiments to do.

Those tapping into the intuition afforded by deep meditation may argue why bother with the science at all.

Such people are primitive throwbacks to a pre-scientific era. I am not denying that meditation may have health benefits, but that is again irrelevant - off topic digression.


The reply to that is intuition and meditation are entirely personal in terms of the answers they bring. But, science makes it universal for all of those who care to learn. 

(My apologies to any on this list who do not wish to receive my emails) 

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
Jun 21, 2017, 6:33:41 PM6/21/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
You can ask same question of any other key noun in theoretical physics like

"wave function"

"qubit'

"entropy"

"observable"

"particle"

"field"

"energy"

"linear momentum"

"angular momentum"

"spin"

"Born rule"

"chemical bond"

"energy band"

"quasi crystal"

"Bose-Einstein condensate"

"Higgs field"

"electron"

"proton"

"nucleon"

"meson"

etc. etc. etc.

Your uses of "information" "awareness" etc. have no empirical Popper-falsifiable fundamental operational meaning in terms of known physical laws with mathematical form.  Essentially, everything you and almost everyone else, says about consciousness is pre-scientific Scholasticism "replacing one mystery with another" and in the end invoking "deus ex machina" "and then a miracle happens" (e.g. Copenhagen "collapse" of the wave function). 
PS. The use of idempotent projection operators | > < | in Von Neumann strong measurement theory does not at all explain how "THE WORD becomes "FLESH," i.e. in Heisenberg's terms "potentia" —> "actual" aka "the reality problem"

In contrast, my use of the same nouns you use do have operational meaning (P.W. Bridgman) in principle in terms of battle-tested ideas of essentially mainstream theoretical physics today starting with the action principle of Schwinger, Feynman applied to the Bohm pilot wave theory as done by Rod Sutherland in a special toy model that points the way to generalization to more realistic models with more complex "beables" than the classical "point particle".


On Jun 21, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Rudolph Tanzi <rudy...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jack:

Regarding the interchange below, if the "key nouns" are all defend as "mathematical objects", then how does a non-mathematician try to understand this without the terms I used or similar ones? 

Rudy



Most argue it is input from a purely physical world that is evolving. Others say it is pure awareness becoming aware of itself in self-organizing systems such as humans or bacteria. Some argue the only output of awareness is information that further modifies awareness in the absence of a physical substrate. 

Scientifically meaningless .Too vague, not testable. Your key nouns  "input", "awareness" "information" are not properly defined in any Popper-falsifiable way. This is in contrast to PQM in which your key nouns are all defined in terms of mathematical objects that are part of the battle-tested action principle (Lagrangians etc) of theoretical physics that are empirically Popper falsifiable in principle.



On Jun 21, 2017, at 3:31 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jsar...@aol.com> wrote:

Most argue it is input from a purely physical world that is evolving. Others say it is pure awareness becoming aware of itself in self-organizing systems such as humans or bacteria. Some argue the only output of awareness is information that further modifies awareness in the absence of a physical substrate. 

Scientifically meaningless .Too vague, not testable. Your key nouns  "input", "awareness" "information" are not properly defined in any Popper-falsifiable way. This is in contrast to PQM in which your key nouns are all defined in terms of mathematical objects that are part of the battle-tested action principle (Lagrangians etc) of theoretical physics that are empirically Popper falsifiable in principle.

Dr. Rudolph E. Tanzi
Joseph. P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of Neurology
Harvard Medical School
Vice-Chair, Neurology; Director, Genetics and Aging Research Unit
Massachusetts General Hospital
114 16th Street
Charlestown, MA, 02129

My new TED talk:
(Curing Alzheimer’s with Science and Song)











Whit Blauvelt

unread,
Jun 21, 2017, 6:33:41 PM6/21/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Prof. Hameroff,

One of the things to like about your perspective: It can be taken to imply
that feelings are primary, and computation a secondary effect of
consciousness; in contrast to orthodox claims that computation is primary,
and feelings a secondary effect.

I'm sure this is too simple to fly, but wonder if roughly speaking it's the
direction you want to go with this. You at least seem to be suggesting that
evolution didn't make sex pleasurable; instead pleasure made evolution
sexual.

Best,
Whit

Rudy Tanzi

unread,
Jun 21, 2017, 6:33:41 PM6/21/17
to Jack Sarfatti, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
I agree that species-specific perception must serve and be driven by survival taking on properties of a self-organizing system. Comparing bacteria to humans, we know there is much more to perceive than than that of bacteria reacting to attractant and repellents. Likewise, we would have to say the same about ourselves if we
consider alternately evolved beings that we are not capable of perceiving.  

In perceptin, our senses bring us feelings of reward or punishment that serve survival. Our memories of reward and punishment become desires and fears, respectively. When these fears and desires become obligatory for survival, they eventually become genetically programmed instincts via a process that is partly Darwinian and partly epigenetic. The intellectual brain then strategizes, recapitulates, and projects around our instincts and acquired fears and desires, the bases of all emotions,  to create rational thought and imagination. 

The heated debate arises when we consider the "true" nature of what is actually being perceived and processed by the brain in what we call consciousness. Most argue it is input from a purely physical world that is evolving. Others say it is pure awareness becoming aware of itself in self-organizing systems such as humans or bacteria. Some argue the only output of awareness is information that further modifies awareness in the absence of a physical substrate. 
The question is how can we do the experiments needed to address these possibilities using a scientific method. Those tapping into the intuition afforded by deep meditation may argue why bother with the science at all. The reply to that is intuition and meditation are entirely personal in terms of the answers they bring. But, science makes it universal for all of those who care to learn. 

(My apologies to any on this list who do not wish to receive my emails) 
Sent from Rudy's iPhone 





On Jun 21, 2017, at 7:09 AM, Jack Sarfatti <jsar...@aol.com> wrote:

C. S. Morrison

unread,
Jun 21, 2017, 7:01:58 PM6/21/17
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com, Hameroff, Stuart R - (hameroff), Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Dear Stuart,

The complex thing about a tooth ache is the fact that it is felt to occur in a particular tooth. In fact it is felt to occur in a tooth that's damaged!  Need I say more!  That is an incredibly precise piece of qualia engineering.  So how does the brain accomplish this feat? How can it match the searing pain with the feeling of that tooth or at least that location in the set of feelings we call our mouth? How does Orch OR solve that problem? My theory of Position Selecting Interactionism published in my book THE BLIND MINDMAKER does explain this fact. It tells us why damage should be represented in very intense unpleasant sensations, and it tells us why the system that underlies human consciousness in my theory (a single quantum particle confined in a structure that regularly measures its position) would evolve in a way that makes representations of damage feel like they are occurring in the correct part of the body.

Anyway,  in my view consciousness has been around from day one.  It is in my view the essence of a single particle.  But the experiences of these consciousnesses are nothing like the highly organised consciousness that we constitute. They essentially consist of the infinite set of potential positions of the particle each of which is represented in qualia caused by other conscious particles whose intensity determines how likely the consciousness of the particle is to select that location according to the Born rule. It takes a vast amount of positive natural selection to produce the structures that make a single particle with this sort of experience feel like it is the whole organism in whose brain it resides and participates.

Best wishes,
Colin

C.  S.  Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.

Whit Blauvelt

unread,
Jun 22, 2017, 4:12:26 AM6/22/17
to 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:31:07PM -0700, 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

> That is the "hard problem" (David Chalmers) that I have solved. It is a simple
> physics problem. The proof will be in the pudding, i.e. conscious AI
> nano-electronic chips.

Considering we have skeptics who doubt that even other humans are conscious,
or doubt it of other mammals -- who I don't join with -- and considering
that there are others of us -- including me -- who think the Turing Test can
easily be passed by a conventional program of great enough complexity -- yet
no consciousnesss at all, what is the proof of the proof in this pudding?

Okay, if we start transporting our own consciousness into and back out from
such nano-electronics, that will be proof. And some singluarians claim we'll
soon do that. But short of that, what's a reliable experimental design to
spot true consciousness in an electronic chip?

Best,
Whit

Sungchul Ji

unread,
Jun 22, 2017, 4:12:26 AM6/22/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Stuart and Colin,

In my book just proofed [1], I suggested that there may be an irreducibly triadiic relation (ITR) among body, awareness and consciousness, just there is such relation among the three components of the Peircean sign, i.e., object, sign (also called representamen), and interpretant.  

There are many possible examples of ITR [2, 3, 4] in philosophy, religion, quantum mechanics, general relativity, category theory, chemistry, and biology (see Table 9.1 in [1]), which motivated me to apply ITR to the mind-body problem, leading to the results summarized in Figure 10.34 below (its PDF version is attached in case the figure is distorted in transit).  ITR can be visually represented as a commutative triangle in category theory having three nodes (e.g., body, awareness, and consciousness) and three edges (e.g., f, g, and h) that obey the commutative condition, i.e., f x g = h, which reads "f followed by g leads to the same result as h".    


                                         f                                    g

                       Body ------------> Awareness ---------->  Consciousness
                   (Firstness)                (Secondness)                  (Thirdness)
             <Experience (E)>         <Subjective E>             <Objective E>
              <Information (I)>          <Physical I>                  <Mental I>

                     [Object]                       [Sign]                      [Interpretant]
                           |                                                                       ^
                           |                                                                        |
         
                  |____________________________________|

                                                             h


Figure 10.34.  A possible distinction between 'Awareness' and 'Consciousness' within the context of the Peircean principle of ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation; Chapter 9). The symbol, "A ---> B", can be read as "A determines B", "B presupposes A", or "B supervenes on A", etc.   f = physical or physiological process; g = mental process; h = information flow resulting from historical and/or social selection processes.  E = Energy; I = Information.  Reproduced from Section 10.22 in [1].


The ITR diagram (also called the ITR template) can be read in two complementary ways -- synchornically and diachronically -- the concepts imported from linguistics.

Reading Figure 10.34 diachronically  suggests that body emerges first and then awareness followed by consciousness, which may provide a possible answer to the question raised by Stuart.  


In passing, it is interesting to note that the synchronic reading of Figure 10.34 would suggest that body, awareness, and consciousness are the different aspects of the same entity X that can be referred to as any one of the three elements of the triad, consciousness, awareness or body (due to the irreducibility), with equal validity, depending on the convenience of thought.  In other words, the naming of X is arbitrary from the semiotic point of view.   


Finally, one challenging question raised by Figure 10.34 is whether or not Body can be entities other than living organisms such as humans.  For example, can Body be elementary particles ?  In other words, can elementary particles be conscious ?  The easier question to answer would be "Can ITR be applied to abiotic entities ?".  The answer to this question is yes, in my opinion.  I have reasonalbe evidence that ITR applies to all self-organizng chemical reactions such as the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction  (see Figure 9.8 in [1]).  If someone can prove that ITR applies to elementary particles, that would validate the the prediction recently made by Josephson in [5]: 


   "Semiotics will eventually overtake quantum mechanics in the same way as quantum mechanics overtook classical physics."


For the convenience of future discussions, I took the liberty of referring to this statement as the Josephson conjecture [1, Statement (4.8)].


With all the best.


Sung


References:

   [1] S. Ji (2017) The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter.  World Scientific, New Jersey (in press).

   [2] Ji, S. (2016). WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY IN PHYSICS AND BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES.  Symmetry: Science and Culture 27 (2): 99-127 (2016).  http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PDE_SymmetryFestival_2016.pdf
    [3]  Ji, S. (2015). Planckian distributions in molecular machines, living cells, and brains: The wave-particle duality in biomedical sciences.  In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Biology and Biomedical Engineering, Vienna, March 15-17, 2015. Pp. 115-137. http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PDE_Vienna_2015.pdf
   [4]Ji, S. (2015). PLANCKIAN INFORMATION (IP): A NEW MEASURE OF ORDER IN ATOMS, ENZYMES, CELLS, BRAINS, HUMAN SOCIETIES, AND THE COSMOS.  In: Unified Field Mechanics: Natural Science beyond the Veil of Spacetime (Amoroso, R., Rowlands, P., and Kauffman, L. eds.), World Scientific, New Jersey, 2015, pp. 579-589).  http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PDE_Vigier9.pdf
 
 [5] Josephson, B. (2016).  Biological Organization as the True Foundation of Reality.  http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/2277379




 


On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 6:43 PM, C. S. Morrison <cs...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Stuart,

The complex thing about a tooth ache is the fact that it is felt to occur in a particular tooth. In fact it is felt to occur in a tooth that's damaged!  Need I say more!  That is an incredibly precise piece of qualia engineering.  So how does the brain accomplish this feat? How can it match the searing pain with the feeling of that tooth or at least that location in the set of feelings we call our mouth? How does Orch OR solve that problem? My theory of Position Selecting Interactionism published in my book THE BLIND MINDMAKER does explain this fact. It tells us why damage should be represented in very intense unpleasant sensations, and it tells us why the system that underlies human consciousness in my theory (a single quantum particle confined in a structure that regularly measures its position) would evolve in a way that makes representations of damage feel like they are occurring in the correct part of the body.

Anyway,  in my view consciousness has been around from day one.  It is in my view the essence of a single particle.  But the experiences of these consciousnesses are nothing like the highly organised consciousness that we constitute. They essentially consist of the infinite set of potential positions of the particle each of which is represented in qualia caused by other conscious particles whose intensity determines how likely the consciousness of the particle is to select that location according to the Born rule. It takes a vast amount of positive natural selection to produce the structures that make a single particle with this sort of experience feel like it is the whole organism in whose brain it resides and participates.

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 21 Jun 2017 18:43, "Hameroff, Stuart R - (hameroff)" <hame...@email.arizona.edu> wrote:

Which came first, consciousness or the brain?

 

The notion that consciousness emerged from complex brain computation is belied by the increasing number of mainstream scientists and philosophers who

resort to panpsychism, not to mention Eastern philosophers and quantum consciousness enthusiast who all agree, in various ways, that qualia and feelings existed before life.

If so, feelings (e.g. due to Penrose OR events) in the primordial soup may have prompted the origin of life, and driven its evolution. Behavior is based on reward (feelings,

not gene survival), including not only hedonism, but altruism and spirituality.

 

And I dont agree that consciousness is necessarily complex. What's complex about a toothache?

 

cheers

 

Stuart Hameroff


Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 9:25 AM
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com; 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.; online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: Rudolph Tanzi, RE: C.s. Morrison, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Physics and qualia

Dear Jack,  Rudy and others,

Might I offer the alternative suggestion that anyone who does not understand the implications of DARWIN's theory doesn't understand consciousness. We don't know what consciousness is.  But we do know that it is a highly complex instance of something that appears perfectly organised for some function - the encoding of sensory information (real or imagined) in a genetically evaluated way ( where by genetically evaluated I mean that situations that tend to be bad for our prospects of passing on our genes to future generations tend to give us unpleasant experiences whilst those that are good for those prospects tend to give us relatively pleasant ones (for most people most of the time)). Every example of such perfect organisation is explained as a product of positive natural selection.. The organisation in our consciousness ought therefore to be explained the same way. Each small step toward that organization must have had a beneficial effect upon our ancestors' chances of passing on their genes to future generations.

Just think what that means. Since we have no neuroscientific reason to expect visual data to be encoded in retinal-image-like forms anywhere in the human brain, the generators of colour qualia (whatever they are physically) must have been organised through natural selection to produce the colour qualia in these forms. This seems to me to imply that each point in our visual experience must be associated with a distinct output that the system we call our consciousness is generating. The effect of the different types of colour qualia that might appear there can then be understood as varying the probability of that output. For some reason it was beneficial for those colour-adjusted probabilities to vary across that space of potential outputs in a way that was more and more similar (even with colour constancy and the filled in blindspot, etc) to the patterns of light intensity variations across the retina. In my book THE BLIND MINDMAKER I have shown why such evolution would occur if we were the aspect of nature that selects the random outcomes of position measurements of a single quantum particle that the brain has adapted to introduce randomness into our attention-focussing process.

That is why my theory of Position Selecting Interactionism is likely to be the correct explanation. Only if a consciousness is positioning a physical effect at particular positions under the influence of its qualia are you ever going to explain how its colour qualia came to be organised into patterns resembling the patterns of particular wavebands of incident light interacting with the retina.

And if your theory can't explain that, no matter how much of Sutherland's maths you understand, you can't possibly have understood consciousness.

Best wishes,
Colin

If interested, my theory is detailed in my book

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

-- 
----------------------------
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_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
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_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
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_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
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_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
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_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

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



--
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
609-240-4833

www.conformon.net
A_model_of_consciousness.pdf

Serge Patlavskiy

unread,
Jun 22, 2017, 4:12:26 AM6/22/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
-
Stuart Hameroff  <hame...@email.arizona.edu> on June 21, 2017 wrote:
>The notion that consciousness emerged from complex brain 
>computation is belied by the increasing number of mainstream 
>scientists and philosophers who resort to panpsychism, not to 
>mention Eastern philosophers and quantum consciousness 
>enthusiast who all agree, in various ways, that qualia and feelings
> existed before life.
.
[S.P.] First. There is nothing like "mainstream scientists and philosophers". The case is that comprehensive paradigm in the field of consciousness studies is not established yet. By "mainstream scientists" in this field we must understand those who do have their own solutions to how the objective events (like physical sensory signals) become transformed into subjective events (like appearance of new elements of experience, new elements of knowledge, new information, and suchlike). 
.
Second, as to "increasing number". Consciousness studies is a field where the quantity does not automatically change into quality. I mean that the increasing number of those who do not understand how consciousness works will never result in the effective version of the theory which explains how consciousness works. I have mentioned this fact yet in my reply to David Chalmers on Psyche-D forum on Oct 26, 2007. In his post on Oct 25, 2007 David wrote:
.
"We are pleased to announce the launch of MindPapers, a new website with a bibliography covering around 18000 published papers and online papers in the philosophy of mind and the science of consciousness."
.
As I see, nothing has changed in understanding of the problem among Arizona guys for the last decade -- a stagnation concerning new ideas continues. The mainstream cognitive environment in the field of consciousness studies must be constituted by the thinkers who do have their versions of the theory of consciousness, even if there will be just a few of them.
.
[Stuart Hameroff] wrote:
>Which came first, consciousness or the brain?
.
[S.P.] As I hold, the possession of consciousness is indispensable for life. I use the term "consciousness" to stand for a natural ability of the living organism to reduce own overall entropy by processing the physical sensory signals and transforming them into elements of experience. I mean that to have an adequate model of the outer world (due to activity of consciousness) is as important for the organism as to consume food and to take part in energetic interactions. Here, by "living organism" I mean as unicellular, so multicellular organisms. My principle is: one organism -- one exemplar of consciousness.
.
In so doing, every living organism has such a brain+nervous system+sense organs (or whatever stands for these in the given organism) as is required by normal functioning of its exemplar of consciousness. So, possession of such a body organ as a brain is secondary in reference to possessing the exemplar of consciousness.
.
[Stuart Hameroff] wrote:
> And I dont agree that consciousness is necessarily complex.
.
[S.P.] The adult and serious thinker must understand that this problem is extremely complex, and we can hardly expect to get easy solutions to it. Many those, who, as thinkers, are not still adult and serious, start directly from trying to explain consciousness. They naively expect that since they can explain how the wall-clock works (they have all the necessary methods and models to explain this), they can explain how consciousness works as well. 
.
But my solution is much more complex. This is because that, before to start talking about consciousness, I think it is necessary first to construct a special meta-theory (which would make room for the activity of informational factor in general and consciousness in particular) together with several important concomitant applied theories. 
.
A good analogy is as follows. Somebody may start from copying files to the flash drive -- this corresponds to start talking about consciousness immediately, or having used the traditional methods and models, like those we use in Physics. But, in fact, we have first to consider some operation system to make our computer to work -- this corresponds to constructing a special meta-theory. Then we have to install the drivers necessary for the flash drive to be "seen" or accessible by operation system, and then to format our flash drive under FAT32 or NTFS -- this corresponds to constructing the concomitant applied theories. And only then we may start copying files to the flash drive -- this corresponds to start constructing the required applied theory of consciousness.
.
The effective theory of consciousness cannot be constructed within the limits of the existing meta-theory called the Modern Materialistic (Physical) Picture of the World. By analogy, the MS Word program cannot be launched under DOS operation system -- it requires a special operation system, like MSWindows or iOS. So, to construct a special meta-theory and a set of concomitant applied theories is an objective necessity before we can start explaining how consciousness produces experience. In other words, the problem of consciousness is objectively irreducibly complex. 
.
[Stuart Hameroff] wrote:
>What's complex about a toothache?
.
[S.P.] To be honest, I have no interest in spending time on playing with children in a sandbox. I patiently await for an adult and serious discussion of the problem.
.
With respect,
Serge Patlavskiy




From: "Hameroff, Stuart R - (hameroff)" <hame...@email.arizona.edu>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <online_sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 8:43 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Which came first, consciousness or the brain?

Stephen Jarosek

unread,
Jun 22, 2017, 4:12:26 AM6/22/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
>"at least seem to be suggesting that evolution didn't make sex pleasurable; instead pleasure made evolution sexual."

I like this twist, Whit. Here's my more general take on your theme (feelings are primary, and computation a secondary effect of consciousness):

"The desire to be is the source of complexity."

Note that the desire to be has to assume a toolkit of emotions, because once an entity desires to be, they have the basis for all other emotions... like desiring food, pursuing comfort, fearing loss and avoiding pain. And this, in turn, brings us to the mind-body problem, and how an entity interfaces with experience.

Thus, how an entity defines the things that matter depends on how its body is predisposed to interacting with it environment. A leopard with four paws is predisposed to interacting with its environment very differently to a hunter with a spear. Subsequently, their neuroplastic brains will be wired very differently. Yet the one thing that both the leopard and the hunter have in common is the desire to be.

sj
--
----------------------------
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/20170621184413.GA23369%40black.transpect.com.

Ganesh L S

unread,
Jun 22, 2017, 6:16:40 AM6/22/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

It's a most absorbing discussion that has raised the following questions and points in my mind, and i hope members of this group will please help provide some answers.


1.  To what extent do we share identical or similar definitions of "consciousness" and "mind"?  Hopefully, we agree (almost?) completely about the "brain" as a physical object.


2.  In any case, all of us clearly and unambiguously observe that there are conditions, laws and rules (CLaR) that operate in our Universe, and should be so in others (multiverses) too.  Even the absence of CLaR (anywhere) will automatically and trivially dictate a primal or root CLaR specifying so.  On the contrary, is "nothingness" feasible at all anywhere, anytime?  These CLaR inter alia relate to all aspects of our lives, physical, mental and beyond, if any.  So, what is the primal or root source of these CLaR?


3.  There have been some points earlier about primal or root randomness.  However, as mentioned above, even this should arise from the corresponding CLaR.  All models and theories dealing with QM and its interpretations, however fine they may be, must eventually meet head on with CLaR and their eventual single source.


4.  Let's note that CLaR are not physical in themselves, but do have a strong presence by manifesting in and through our physical Universe.  Clearly, the CLaR must precede any physical manifestation.


Best wishes,
LSG.
--------------------------------------------------------



From: 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 9:14 AM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Which came first, consciousness or the brain?
 
--
----------------------------
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.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Jun 22, 2017, 6:46:56 AM6/22/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Stuart,


On 21 Jun 2017, at 19:01, Hameroff, Stuart R - (hameroff) wrote:

Which came first, consciousness or the brain?

I can explain that IF the brain/body (or whatever is assumed for "my" consciousness to occur) is Church-Turing emulable, THEN consciousness came first (but not necessarily human consciousness).

It is a bit like:

Number-addition-multiplication ==>
Number-3p-self-reference ==>
Number-1p-self-reference ==>
Consciousness ==>
Number's relative Dreams ==>
Coherent multi-consistent dreams ==>
Physical laws ==>
Humans ==>
Human consciousness.



 

The notion that consciousness emerged from complex brain computation is belied by the increasing number of mainstream scientists and philosophers who


The problem with this view is that it needs to ascribe to material object a magical ability to select a computation among an infinity which are already realized in elementary arithmetic (and arithmetic is usually postulated by all scientists). 






resort to panpsychism, not to mention Eastern philosophers and quantum consciousness enthusiast who all agree, in various ways, that qualia and feelings existed before life.

If we assume Mechanism (in cognitive science, not in physics), that is, if we assume the brain to be Turing emulable (be it quantum or not), then it is simple to show that elementary arithmetical truth realize already all computations. In that sense, qualia and feelings existed "before life", in fact even before time, and space, which we can recover as stable coherent sheaves of number dreams. A dream is the 1p view that we can associate to any computation rich enough to sustain machine or number-self-reference.





If so, feelings (e.g. due to Penrose OR events) in the primordial soup may have prompted the origin of life, and driven its evolution. Behavior is based on reward (feelings,
not gene survival), including not only hedonism, but altruism and spirituality.

OK. 


 

And I dont agree that consciousness is necessarily complex. What's complex about a toothache?

The machine already know that consciousness is very simple and obvious from the 1p view, and very complex to explain, even impossible, in pure 3p view. The explanation can be done in the pure 3p view, but only by adding an act of faith, which Mechanism can limit to the belief that we can survive with an artificial computer (maybe a quantum one) at the place of the body. We need to not forget this, or we get an inconsistent 3p complete account of 1p, which has been proved impossible. 

Many people try to use quantum physics to explain consciousness. If we assume Mechanism, the contrary happens. We get an explanation of the quantum (and material) aspect of reality by assuming only elementary arithmetic, and a principle of invariance of consciousness for a digital functional permutation. The quantum arises from the fact that we have infinitely many virtual (immaterial) relatively implemented bodies in arithmetic. 

Note that some theory of human consciousness based on the quantum might be partially correct, but have to be incomplete, as the laws of physics *have to* be retrieved from arithmetic if Digital Mechanism is assumed in the cognitive science.

Best,

Bruno



 

cheers

 

Stuart Hameroff

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.

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

Stephen Jarosek

unread,
Jun 22, 2017, 8:39:52 AM6/22/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Excellent points. Hence my own interest in the semiotics of CS Peirce, where the potential for this kind of thinking is ripe for further development. Firstness, secondness and thirdness, perhaps understood in the context of motivation, association and habituation respectively, are relevant to any entity that makes choices from an ecosystem. This opens up the narrative to explore concepts like nothingness, void, space, etc. At its most primal, for example… what are the laws that “motivate” a virtual particle of the quantum void to become a matter particle that persists across time?

Asingh2384

unread,
Jun 22, 2017, 11:47:01 AM6/22/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear All:
Human neuro-biological consciousness (qualia) is a subset of and powered by the eternal universal consciousness represented by the implicate order or laws of the universe.
Since, there is no unique universal clock or time, "what came first?" is an ill-posed question. Human brain experienced or qualia clock is local with a relative time that has NO relevance to the eternal universal consciousness.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh  


Bruno Marchal

unread,
Jun 22, 2017, 12:45:01 PM6/22/17