Groups keyboard shortcuts have been updated
Dismiss
See shortcuts

Fw: Roger Penrose On Why Consciousness Does Not Compute

176 views
Skip to first unread message

BMP

unread,
May 7, 2017, 6:14:04 AM5/7/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 7, 2017, 1:55:17 PM5/7/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, 'Chris de Morsella <cdemorsella@yahoo.com>' via Everything List
On 07 May 2017, at 12:12, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:


Consciousness does not compute, indeed. That is right, but consistent and necessary with Mechanism.

What Penrose missed, assuming Mechanism at the start,  is that consciousness, or more generally the first person views, select the computation, in a first person indeterminate way, eventually in a large space of computations, structured by internal points of view. 

For example, if our body are machine, at some description level, we are duplicable, and if we are about to be duplicated, we can't predict the first person outcome of the self-duplication, already in that finite case.

That is what happens when we stop believing in the reduction of the wave packet, but that happens already in arithmetic (assuming digital mechanism) which pushes us toward a phenomenological account of both the wave reduction, like Everett, but of the wave itself, and this, thanks to mathematical logic,  with a mean to distinguish what the machine can prove, and what the machine can only experience and guess, or need to guess.

Contrarily to a widespread opinion, we can't have mechanism and materialism at once. I can explain why or give references.

Then it seems easier to explain the lawful illusion of matter to self-introspective numbers than to explain the illusion of consciousness (what could that mean?) to a piece of matter (what could that mean?).

In a sense there is nothing to explain. All universal self-introspective number got it eventually. Yet there are transfinities of detour.

Bruno Marchal








--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
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
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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/1527350184.4985146.1494151947219%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Paul Werbos

unread,
May 7, 2017, 2:53:24 PM5/7/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, 'Chris de Morsella <cdemorsella@yahoo.com>' via Everything List
I was very excited when I read recently that Penrose highlighted the clear contradiction between the DYNAMICS used in working quantum theory (like the quantum computing work following the vision of David Deutsch) and the THEORY OF MEASUREMENT attached to it like barnacles in most treatments of quantum theory. Is it possible, he asked, that consciousness itself could "live in the gap"
between the two?

In fact, since about 2014 (with ever greater clarity), I think I see exactly how this is true. How a correction to the theory of measurement, based directly on the dynamics, leads to a mathematically well-defined model of our consciousness exactly reflective of Plato's theory that our minds are like the shadows of a cave. Some aspects of this are covered in a chapter I wrote for a NATO book which just came out. (I also posted my chapter at www.werbos.com/NATO_terrorism.pdf.) A more complete and precise version is reviewed briefly at
 http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0264 (though I am already one stage beyond that in the mathematics). Because this group has a wider perspective, I should mention thoughts posted this very morning on how to connect these worlds:


I have many fond memories of a member of the Vedanta Society, "Mani" Sundramanian, who was a fellow graduate student at Harvard in Applied Math in the late 1960's, and helped me on the long path to a deeper understanding of the complex emergent reality we are all called to try to cope with.  

Best regards,

      Paul



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
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
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
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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.

Srinivasa Rao Kankipati

unread,
May 7, 2017, 9:58:37 PM5/7/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, 'Chris de Morsella <cdemorsella@yahoo.com>' via Everything List
Sorry, not able to follow a single phrase.

On 7 May 2017 at 21:50, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
Boxbe This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (mar...@ulb.ac.be) Add cleanup rule | More info


On 07 May 2017, at 12:12, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 8, 2017, 7:38:11 AM5/8/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Srinivasa,

On 08 May 2017, at 03:44, Srinivasa Rao Kankipati wrote:

Sorry, not able to follow a single phrase.


Can you, if only temporarily, conceive that the brain can be replaced by a computer, at some description level? (like today most people would accept an artificial pump in place of the heart)?

If yes, I can pursue the explanation, and will do this. If no, I will have to ask you preliminary questions before pursuing the explanation.

Regards,

Bruno





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.

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

Jack Sarfatti

unread,
May 8, 2017, 10:46:34 AM5/8/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com


My PQM not only explains this kind of "paranormal phenomena," but also ordinary consciousness in terms of mainstream theoretical physics.
see my endnotes to starting on p. 331 to p. 336
My point is that there is now a Popper falsifiable theory based on essentially conventional physics that explains what Annie has reported and that will lead to a valuable new post-quantum information technology that can hack present day quantum cryptographic networks mistakenly thought to be secure. In addition, the idea of uploading our actual conscious experiences to The Cloud in a kind of virtual personal immortality is now, in principle, doable.


Saturday Night Science: Phenomena

“Phenomena” by Annie JacobsenAt the end of World War II, it was clear that science and technology would be central to competition among nations in the postwar era. The development of nuclear weapons, German deployment of the first operational ballistic missile, and the introduction of jet propelled aircraft pointed the way to a technology-driven arms race, and both the U.S. and the Soviet Union scrambled to lay hands on the secret super-weapon programs of the defeated Nazi regime. On the U.S. side, the Alsos Mission not only sought information on German nuclear and missile programs, but also came across even more bizarre projects, such as those undertaken by Berlin’s Ahnenerbe Institute, founded in 1935 by SS leader Heinrich Himmler. Investigating the institute’s headquarters in a Berlin suburb, Samuel Goudsmit, chief scientist of Alsos, found what he described as “Remnants of weird Teutonic symbols and rites … a corner with a pit of ashes in which I found the skull of an infant.” What was going on? Had the Nazis attempted to weaponise black magic? And, to the ever-practical military mind, did it work?

In the years after the war, the intelligence community and military services in both the U.S. and Soviet Union would become involved in the realm of the paranormal, funding research and operational programs based upon purported psychic powers for which mainstream science had no explanation. Both superpowers were not only seeking super powers for their spies and soldiers, but also looking over their shoulders afraid the other would steal a jump on them in exploiting these supposed powers of mind. “We can’t risk a ‘woo-woo gap’ with the adversary!”

Set aside for a moment (as did most of the agencies funding this research) the question of just how these mental powers were supposed to work. If they did, in fact, exist and if they could be harnessed and reliably employed, they would confer a tremendous strategic advantage on their possessor. Consider: psychic spies could project their consciousness out of body and penetrate the most secure military installations; telepaths could read the minds of diplomats during negotiations or perhaps even plant thoughts and influence their judgement; telekinesis might be able to disrupt the guidance systems of intercontinental missiles or space launchers; and psychic assassins could undetectably kill by stopping the hearts of their victims remotely by projecting malign mental energy in their direction.

All of this may seem absurd on its face, but work on all of these phenomena and more was funded, between 1952 and 1995, by agencies of the U.S. government including the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, the CIA, NSA, DIA, and ARPA/DARPA, expending tens of millions of dollars. Between 1978 and 1995 the Defense Department maintained an operational psychic espionage program under various names, using “remote viewing” to provide information on intelligence targets for clients including the Secret Service, Customs Service, Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Coast Guard.

What is remote viewing? Experiments in parapsychology laboratories usually employ a protocol called “outbounder-beacon”, where a researcher travels to a location selected randomly from a set of targets and observes the locale while a subject in the laboratory, usually isolated from sensory input which might provide clues, attempts to describe, either in words or by a drawing, what the outbounder is observing. At the conclusion of the experiment, the subject’s description is compared with pictures of the targets by an independent judge (unaware of which was the outbounder’s destination), who selects the one which is the closest match to the subject’s description. If each experiment picked the outbounder’s destination from a set of five targets, you’d expect from chance alone that in an ensemble of experiments the remote viewer’s perception would match the actual target around 20% of the time. Experiments conducted in the 1970s at the Stanford Research Institute (and subsequently the target of intense criticism by skeptics) claimed in excess of 65% accuracy by talented remote viewers.

While outbounder-beacon experiments were used to train and test candidate remote viewers, operational military remote viewing as conducted by the Stargate Project (and under assorted other code names over the years), was quite different. Usually the procedure involved “coordinate remote viewing”. The viewer would simply be handed a slip of paper containing the latitude and longitude of the target and then, relaxing and clearing his or her mind, would attempt to describe what was there. In other sessions, the viewer might be handed a sealed envelope containing a satellite reconnaissance photograph. The results were sometimes stunning. In 1979, a KH-9 spy satellite photographed a huge building which had been constructed at Severodvinsk Naval Base in the Soviet arctic. Analysts thought the Soviets might be building their first aircraft carrier inside the secret facility. Joe McMoneagle, an Army warrant office and Vietnam veteran who was assigned to the Stargate Project as its first remote viewer, was given the target in the form of an envelope with the satellite photo sealed inside. Concentrating on the target, he noted “There’s some kind of a ship. Some kind of a vessel. I’m getting a very, very strong impression of props [propellers]”. Then, “I’m seeing fins…. They look like shark fins.” He continued, “I’m seeing what looks like part of a submarine in this building.” The entire transcript was forty-seven pages long.

McMoneagle’s report was passed on to the National Security Council, which dismissed it because it didn’t make any sense for the Soviets to build a huge submarine in a building located one hundred metres from the water. McMoneagle had described a canal between the building and the shore, but the satellite imagery showed no such structure. Then, four months later, in January 1980, another KH-9 pass showed a large submarine at a dock at Severodvinsk, along with a canal between the mystery building and the sea, which had been constructed in the interim. This was the prototype of the new Typhoon class ballistic missile submarine, which was a complete surprise to Western analysts, but not Joe McMoneagle. This is what was referred to as an “eight martini result”. When McMoneagle retired in 1984, he was awarded the Legion of Merit for exceptionally meritorious service in the field of human intelligence.

A decade later the U.S. Customs Service approached the remote viewing unit for assistance in tracking down a rogue agent accused of taking bribes from cocaine smugglers in Florida. He had been on the run for two years, and appeared on the FBI’s Most Wanted List. He was believed to be in Florida or somewhere in the Caribbean. Self-taught remote viewer Angela Dellafiora concentrated on the case and immediately said, “He’s in Lowell, Wyoming.” Wyoming? There was no reason for him to be in such a place. Further, there was no town named Lowell in the state. Agents looked through an atlas and found there was, however, a Lovell, Wyoming. Dellafiora said, “Well, that’s probably it.” Several weeks later, she was asked to work the case again. Her notes include, “If you don’t get him now you’ll lose him. He’s moving from Lowell.” She added that he was “at or near a campground that had a large boulder at its entrance”, and that she “sensed an old Indian burial ground is located nearby.”. After being spotted by a park ranger, the fugitive was apprehended at a campground next to an Indian burial ground, about fifty miles from Lovell, Wyoming, where he had been a few weeks before. Martinis all around.

A total of 417 operational sessions were run in 1989 and 1990 for the counter-narcotics mission; 52% were judged as producing results of intelligence value while 47% were of no value. Still, what was produced was considered of sufficient value that the customers kept coming back.

Most of this work and its products were classified, in part to protect the program from ridicule by journalists and politicians. Those running the projects were afraid of being accused of dabbling in the occult, so they endorsed an Army doctrine that remote viewing, like any other military occupational specialty, was a normal human facility which could be taught to anybody with a suitable training process, and a curriculum was developed to introduce new people to the program. This was despite abundant evidence that the ability to remote view, if it exists at all, is a rare trait some people acquire at birth, and cannot be taught to randomly selected individuals any more than they can be trained to become musical composers or chess grand masters.

Under a similar shroud of secrecy, paranormal research for military applications appears to have been pursued in the Soviet Union and China. From time to time information would leak out into the open literature, such as the Soviet experiments with Ninel Kulagina. In China, H. S. Tsien (Qian Xuesen), a co-founder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in the United States who, after being stripped of his security clearance and moving to mainland China in 1955, led the Chinese nuclear weapons and missile programs, became a vocal and powerful advocate of research into the paranormal which, in accordance with Chinese Communist doctrine, was called “Extraordinary Human Body Functioning” (EHBF), and linked to the concept of qi, an energy field which is one of the foundations of traditional Chinese medicine and martial arts. It is likely this work continues today in China.

The U.S. remote viewing program came to an end in June 1995, when the CIA ordered the Defense Intelligence Agency to shut down the Stargate project. Many documents relating to the project have since been declassified but, oddly for a program which many claimed produced no useful results, others remain secret to this day. The paranormal continues to appeal to some in the military. In 2014, the Office of Naval Research launched a four year project funded with US$ 3.85 million to investigate premonitions, intuition, and hunches—what the press release called “Spidey sense”. In the 1950s, during a conversation between physicist Wolfgang Pauli and psychiatrist Carl Jung about psychic phenomena, Jung remarked, “As is only to be expected, every conceivable kind of attempt has been made to explain away these results, which seem to border on the miraculous and frankly impossible. But all such attempts come to grief on the facts, and the facts refuse so far to be argued out of existence.” A quarter century later in 1975, a CIA report concluded “A large body of reliable experimental evidence points to the inescapable conclusion that extrasensory perception does exist as a real phenomenon.”

To those who have had psychic experiences, there is no doubt of the reality of the phenomena. But research into them or, even more shockingly, attempts to apply them to practical ends, runs squarely into a paradigm of modern science which puts theory ahead of observation and experiment. A 1986 report by the U.S. Army said that its research had “succeeded in documenting general anomalies worthy of scientific interest,“ but that “in the absence of a confirmed paranormal theory…paranormality could be rejected a priori.” When the remote viewing program was cancelled in 1995, a review of its work stated that “a statistically significant effect has been observed in the laboratory…[but] the laboratory studies do not provide evidence regarding the sources or origins of the phenomenon.” In other words, experimental results can be discarded if there isn’t a theory upon which to hang them, and there is no general theory of paranormal phenomena. Heck, they could have asked me.

One wonders where many currently mature fields of science would be today had this standard been applied during their formative phases: rejecting experimental results due to lack of a theory to explain them. High-temperature superconductivity was discovered in 1986 and won the Nobel Prize in 1987, and still today there is no theory that explains how it works. Perhaps it is only because it is so easily demonstrated with a desktop experiment that it, too, has not been relegated to the realm of “fringe science”.

This book provides a comprehensive history of the postwar involvement of the military and intelligence communities with the paranormal, focusing on the United States. The author takes a neutral stance: both believers and skeptics are given their say. One notes a consistent tension between scientists who reject the phenomena because “it can’t possibly work” and intelligence officers who couldn’t care less about how it works as long as it is providing them useful results.

The author has conducted interviews with many of the principals still alive, and documented the programs with original sources, many obtained by her under the Freedom of Information Act. Extensive end notes and source citations are included. I wish I could be more confident in the accuracy of the text, however. Chapter 7 relates astronaut Edgar Mitchell’s Apollo 14 mission to the Moon, during which he conducted, on his own initiative, some unauthorised ESP experiments. But most of the chapter is about the mission itself, and it is riddled with errors, all of which could be corrected with no more research than consulting Wikipedia pages about the mission and the Apollo program. When you read something you know about and discover much of it is wrong, you have to guard against what Michael Crichton called the Gell-Mann amnesia effect: turning the page and assuming what you read there, about which you have no personal knowledge, is to be trusted. When dealing with spooky topics and programs conducted in secret, one should be doubly cautious. The copy editing is only of fair quality, and there is no index.

Napoléon Bonaparte said, “There are but two powers in the world, the sword and the mind. In the long run, the sword is always beaten by the mind.” The decades of secret paranormal research were an attempt to apply this statement literally, and provide a fascinating look inside a secret world where nothing was dismissed as absurd if it might provide an edge over the adversary. Almost nobody knew about this work at the time. One wonders what is going on today.

Jacobsen, Annie. Phenomena. New York: Little, Brown, 2017. ISBN 978-0-316-34936-9.

This is a one hour interview with the author about the topics discussed in the book. It deserves a better interviewer.






Here is a talk by Russell Targ, who worked for decades with the government psychic program, on his experiences.






The following typically grainy Soviet footage is of Ninel Kulagina performing psychokinesis experiments. Information like this provided evidence for Soviet experimentation in parapsychology.






This is an official film by the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) about experiments with Uri Geller in 1972. Yes, the person who posted this to YouTube managed to misspell “with”.






.

Published in Science & Technology

Sent from my iPad

On May 8, 2017, at 1:00 PM, Jack Sarfatti <jsar...@aol.com> wrote:

If my PQM is correct.
Stapp et-al (long list of Bohrians) think mind is something different from the quantum information Hilbert space. This is an error.

Mind/Matter Duality = Wave/Particle Duality (in sense of Bohm 1952) as updated in Rod Sutherland's 2015 Lagrangian eliminating configuration space with Costa de Beauregard's zigzag (Huw Price).

Qualia is a PQM locally retrocausal backactivity effect absent in QM.

This solves David Chalmers hard problem and will lead to trillion dollar conscious AI industry. I was right in 1976 about EPR applications (Kaiser How the Hippies Saved Physics) and I will prove right now as well. (Precognitive RV in action e.g. Annie JACOBSEN's "Phenomena")

"One of the central issues within Quantum Mechanics (QM) is the measurement problem. Thoughmany different solutions to it have been offered (e.g. [1–6]), there is no consensus among physicists that a satisfactory resolution has been achieved. Perhaps the main reason for this disagreement is the lack of clear experimental procedures that could distinguish an interpretation from another; in fact. For example, Bohm’s theory yields exactly the same predictions as the standard Copenhagen interpretation for quantum systems [7], at least for most measurable quantum systems1.

Among the proposed solutions, perhaps one of the most controversial is von Neumann’s idea that a measurement is the result of the interaction of a (conscious) mind with matter [11]. This idea posits two distinct types of dynamics for quantum systems: one linear, to which all matter is subject under its standard evolution, and another nonlinear and probabilistic, to which matter is subject when it interacts with the observer’s mind. This is a substance-dualist view, where matter and mind exist in different realms and satisfy different laws of Nature. This interpretation has Henry Stapp as its currently best-known supporter [12]. We shall also call the hypothesis that the interaction with a mind causes the collapse of the wave function the Consciousness Causes Collapse Hypothesis (CCCH).

Recently, some authors claimed that the CCCH was inconsistent with already available empirical evidence (see, e.g. [13, 14]). In this paper, we examine the CCCH with respect to such claims, in particular those of [13], and show that their proposal does not provide a way to falsify the CCCH. We then modify their proposal to a stripped-down version that retains the main features of an experiment needed to falsify the CCCH. This exposes a fundamental problem: to test the CCCH one would need to make a conscious being part of the experimental setup. Unless we subscribe to a panpsychist view of consciousness (which the CCCH proponents usually do not), such types of experiment pose a fundamental problem: to have a conscious being, one needs reasonably high temperatures (compared to absolute zero). Thus, any experiment that distinguishes two orthogonal states of a measurement, as we shall see is necessary, cannot be brought to its original quantum state, as this would imply controlling all the quantum states in a thermal bath. Therefore, For All Practical Purposes (FAPP), the outcomes of such experiments would be inconclusive, and they would not test the CCCH. In fact, this suggests that, due to environmental decoherence, the CCCH is unfalsifiable FAPP."

Can we Rule out the Need for Consciousness in Quantum Mechanics?

Abstract

J. Acacio de Barrosa, Gary Oasb

aSchool of Humanities and Liberal Studies San Francisco State University
San Francisco, CA 94132 bStanford Pre-Collegiate Studies Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305

page1image4088

In this paper we examine some proposals to disprove the hypothesis that the interaction between mind and matter causes the collapse of the wave function, showing that such proposals are fundamentally flawed. We then describe a general experimental setup retaining the key features of the ones examined, and show that even a more general case is inadequate to disprove the mind-matter collapse hypothesis. Finally, we use our setup provided to argue that, under some reasonable assumptions about consciousness, such hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

Keywords: Measurement problem; von Neumann-Wigner interpretation; collapse of the wave function; fourth-order interference 


Sent from my iPad


Sent from my iPad

Jack Sarfatti

unread,
May 8, 2017, 10:46:34 AM5/8/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 8, 2017, 10:46:34 AM5/8/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Paul,

Of course I don't know enough physics but what you say seems plausible. However, I am puzzled by your use of the expression 'Plato's theory that our minds are like the shadows of a cave.' Plato has no such theory as far as I know. If you are talking about the allegory of the cave in the Republic it is about the ascendancy of knowledge from the world of illusions (shadows of objects on the wall) to world of sensible particulars (the objects once seen as causes of the shadows) to the opening to the outside of the cave to the outside ending up with the sun as the highest type of knowledge, the knowledge of the good. One could say that the mind is the knower and thereby it is a theory of the mind, but that is stretching it. Perhaps you have something in mind so please elaborate.

Priyedarshi 

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

Eric Reyes

unread,
May 8, 2017, 7:06:44 PM5/8/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Bruno,

    In a sense this replacement of the brain by computer is happening currently, because we are utilizing computers for what was previously performed by the brain. Yet still it was the brain which helped creat the computer and not the other way around. And beyond both the brain and the computer is the identity, soul or consciousness, without which neither the brain or computer has any meaning. The consciousness is I think what the main focus of this forum is, my guess is that you understand that neither brains or machines can fully explain this consciousness. And also that mechanism and biological evolution cannot be the source or creation of consciousness, is this correct? This I also agree with.

    Regards, Eric Reyes
Dear Srinivasa,


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

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
May 8, 2017, 9:12:49 PM5/8/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Roger Penrose argues compellingly that the brain is not a classical computer.

Consciousness is no mystery. It is a non-algorithmic locally retrocausal post-quantum emergent phenomenon from direct action-reaction between quantum mind waves and the matter they move.



This is good stuff below cited by Hal Cox but be aware it is on the classical beable matter side of the PQM mind-matter gap.

Mind the gap! ;-)

The bridge is the PQM action-reaction Lagrangian in Sutherland's locally retrocausal action-reaction non-linear non-unitary non-statistical theory prior to taking the linear unitary Born probability limiting case for dead matter. 

Advanced and retarded Bohm-Aharonov pilot waves are literally "mental" or "mind waves" - not conscious however until PQM back activity from the classical matter they pilot kicks in.


1.  arXiv:1509.07380 [pdf]
Interpretation of the Klein-Gordon Probability Density
Comments: 6 pages
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
2.  arXiv:1509.02442 [pdf]
Lagrangian Description for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics -- Entangled Many-Particle Case
Comments: 34 pages
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
3.  arXiv:1509.00001 [pdf]
Energy-momentum tensor for a field and particle in interaction
Comments: 9 pages
Subjects: Classical Physics (physics.class-ph)
4.  arXiv:1502.02058 [pdf]
Naive Quantum Gravity
Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
5.  arXiv:1411.3762 [pdf]
Lagrangian Formulation for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics: Single-Particle Case
Comments: 12 pages
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
6.  arXiv:quant-ph/0601095 [pdf]
Causally Symmetric Bohm Model
Comments: 35 pages, 5 figures, new sections 12 and 13 added
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)

On May 9, 2017, at 1:01 AM, Hal Cox <hkco...@gmail.com> wrote:

This work, presented today, is representative of state of the art analysis of deep learning, leveraging compressed sensing and convex optimization technologies just recently developed over the last 10 years. 

The methods were developed to discover deep structure in images and video, but remarkably have been applied to text and music. 

This was mainly developed at Microsoft in Beijing which has some sort of lock on the technology. 

Low-dimensional Structures and Deep Models for High-dimensional (Visual) Data

http://events.berkeley.edu/?event_ID=109080&date=2017-05-08&tab=all_events











Yi Ma, Professor and Executive Dean, School of Information Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University




In this talk, we will discuss a class of models and techniques that can effectively model and extract rich low-dimensional structures in high-dimensional data such as images and videos, despite nonlinear transformation, gross corruption, or severely compressed measurements. This work leverages recent advancements in convex optimization from Compressive Sensing for recovering low-rank or sparse signals that provide both strong theoretical guarantees and efficient and scalable algorithms for solving such high-dimensional combinatorial problems. We illustrate how these new mathematical models and tools could bring disruptive changes to solutions to many challenging tasks in computer vision, image processing, and pattern recognition. We will also illustrate some emerging applications of these tools to other data types such as 3D range data, web documents, image tags, bioinformatics data, audio/music analysis, etc. Throughout the talk, we will discuss strong connections of algorithms from Compressive Sensing with other popular data-driven models such as Deep Neural Networks, providing some new perspectives to understand Deep Learning. 




This is joint work with John Wright of Columbia, Emmanuel Candes of Stanford, Zhouchen Lin of Peking University, Shenghua Gao of ShanghaiTech, and my former students Zhengdong Zhang, Xiao Liang of Tsinghua University, Arvind Ganesh, Zihan Zhou, Kerui Min of UIUC etc.




Brief Biography: Yi Ma has been a Professor and the Executive Dean of the School of Information and Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University, China since 2014. From 2009 to early 2014, he was a Principal Researcher and the Research Manager of the Visual Computing group at Microsoft Research in Beijing. From 2000 to 2011, he was an Associate Professor at the Electrical & Computer Engineering Department of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His main research interest is in computer vision, high-dimensional data analysis, and systems theory. He has written two textbooks “An Invitation to 3-D Vision” published by Springer in 2004, and “Generalized Principal Component Analysis” published by Springer in 2016. Yi Ma received his Bachelors’ degree in Automation and Applied Mathematics from Tsinghua University (Beijing, China) in 1995, a Master of Science degree in EECS in 1997, a Master of Arts degree in Mathematics in 2000, and a PhD degree in EECS in 2000, all from the University of California at Berkeley. Yi Ma received the David Marr Best Paper Prize at the International Conference on Computer Vision 1999, the Longuet-Higgins Best Paper Prize (honorable mention) at the European Conference on Computer Vision 2004, and the Sang Uk Lee Best Student Paper Award with his students at the Asian Conference on Computer Vision in 2009. He also received the CAREER Award from the National Science Foundation in 2004 and the Young Investigator Award from the Office of Naval Research in 2005. He was an associate editor of IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI), the International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV), and IEEE transactions on Information Theory. He is currently an associate editor of the IMA journal on Information and Inference, SIAM journal on Imaging Sciences, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine. He served as a Program Chair for ICCV 2013 and is a General Chair for ICCV 2015. He is a Fellow of IEEE. He is ranked the World's Highly Cited Researchers of 2016 by Clarivate Analytics of Thomson Reuters and is among Top 50 of the Most Influential Authors in Computer Science of the World, ranked by Semantic Scholar, reported by Science Magazine, April 2016.






-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foundationsofmind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foundationsofm...@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 9, 2017, 6:24:02 AM5/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 08 May 2017, at 14:00, 'Jack Sarfatti' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

If my PQM is correct.
Stapp et-al (long list of Bohrians) think mind is something different from the quantum information Hilbert space. This is an error.

Mind/Matter Duality = Wave/Particle Duality (in sense of Bohm 1952) as updated in Rod Sutherland's 2015 Lagrangian eliminating configuration space with Costa de Beauregard's zigzag (Huw Price).

Qualia is a PQM locally retrocausal backactivity effect absent in QM.

This solves David Chalmers hard problem and will lead to trillion dollar conscious AI industry. I was right in 1976 about EPR applications (Kaiser How the Hippies Saved Physics) and I will prove right now as well. (Precognitive RV in action e.g. Annie JACOBSEN's "Phenomena")

"One of the central issues within Quantum Mechanics (QM) is the measurement problem. Thoughmany different solutions to it have been offered (e.g. [1–6]), there is no consensus among physicists that a satisfactory resolution has been achieved. Perhaps the main reason for this disagreement is the lack of clear experimental procedures that could distinguish an interpretation from another; in fact. For example, Bohm’s theory yields exactly the same predictions as the standard Copenhagen interpretation for quantum systems [7], at least for most measurable quantum systems1.

Among the proposed solutions, perhaps one of the most controversial is von Neumann’s idea that a measurement is the result of the interaction of a (conscious) mind with matter [11]. This idea posits two distinct types of dynamics for quantum systems: one linear, to which all matter is subject under its standard evolution, and another nonlinear and probabilistic, to which matter is subject when it interacts with the observer’s mind. This is a substance-dualist view, where matter and mind exist in different realms and satisfy different laws of Nature. This interpretation has Henry Stapp as its currently best-known supporter [12]. We shall also call the hypothesis that the interaction with a mind causes the collapse of the wave function the Consciousness Causes Collapse Hypothesis (CCCH).

Recently, some authors claimed that the CCCH was inconsistent with already available empirical evidence (see, e.g. [13, 14]). In this paper, we examine the CCCH with respect to such claims, in particular those of [13], and show that their proposal does not provide a way to falsify the CCCH. We then modify their proposal to a stripped-down version that retains the main features of an experiment needed to falsify the CCCH. This exposes a fundamental problem: to test the CCCH one would need to make a conscious being part of the experimental setup. Unless we subscribe to a panpsychist view of consciousness (which the CCCH proponents usually do not), such types of experiment pose a fundamental problem: to have a conscious being, one needs reasonably high temperatures (compared to absolute zero). Thus, any experiment that distinguishes two orthogonal states of a measurement, as we shall see is necessary, cannot be brought to its original quantum state, as this would imply controlling all the quantum states in a thermal bath. Therefore, For All Practical Purposes (FAPP), the outcomes of such experiments would be inconclusive, and they would not test the CCCH. In fact, this suggests that, due to environmental decoherence, the CCCH is unfalsifiable FAPP."

Can we Rule out the Need for Consciousness in Quantum Mechanics?

It is plausibly the other way round. We should, and apparently can, derive QM (without collapse) form the Descartes-Mechanical assumption that the body/brain is a digital machinery (and that solves in part the mind-body problem).

That will not lead to million dollars industries, which prefer that the machine remains as a slave. An intelligent machine do strike, ask for salary augmentation, develop its own project, and might eventually conclude she cannot afford the human costly presence on this planet.

I am very skeptical that anything could collapse the quantum wave. We have already all computations, and an appearance of a universal wave, without collapse, in elementary arithmetic.

Bruno


Abstract

J. Acacio de Barrosa, Gary Oasb

aSchool of Humanities and Liberal Studies San Francisco State University
San Francisco, CA 94132 bStanford Pre-Collegiate Studies Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305

page1image4088

In this paper we examine some proposals to disprove the hypothesis that the interaction between mind and matter causes the collapse of the wave function, showing that such proposals are fundamentally flawed. We then describe a general experimental setup retaining the key features of the ones examined, and show that even a more general case is inadequate to disprove the mind-matter collapse hypothesis. Finally, we use our setup provided to argue that, under some reasonable assumptions about consciousness, such hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

Keywords: Measurement problem; von Neumann-Wigner interpretation; collapse of the wave function; fourth-order interference 


Sent from my iPad


Sent from my iPad


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

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 9, 2017, 6:24:02 AM5/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Eric,

Your first two sentences in your response to Bruno are fine. The human brain constructed the computer no doubt. Hence, the computer could be seen as an extension of the biological evolution of the human brain. But your next statement is problematic: "And beyond both the brain and the computer is the identity, soul or consciousness, without which neither the brain or computer has any meaning." How do you arrive at this statement? Is it a mere assumption? Is it some sort of an inference to best explanation for the emergence of the human brain? Surely beyond or before the human brain nature, the universe, and even the earth with organic life existed. Humans evolved out of this at some time in history. Where does consciousness come in as the explanation of the existence of the human brain and thereby of computers?

Priyedarshi

Dear Srinivasa,

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.
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
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
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
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 9, 2017, 6:27:37 AM5/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 09 May 2017, at 00:57, 'Eric Reyes' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

Dear Bruno,

    In a sense this replacement of the brain by computer is happening currently, because we are utilizing computers for what was previously performed by the brain. Yet still it was the brain which helped creat the computer and not the other way around.

I am not sure we have create them. They have been discovered existing, in all their possible relative states in arithmetic. Then it more easy to explain how those brains, which exist in arithmetic, dream about being human in deep long apparently physical realities, than to explain what would be primary matter, and how it would select special computations in arithmetic and making them "real".



And beyond both the brain and the computer is the identity, soul or consciousness, without which neither the brain or computer has any meaning.

The meaning can be expalined by a reference to the (abosulte) truth. With mechanism, arithmetical truth is "enough" (it is someting big and non-computable). Then we get consciousness/knowledge by the Theaetetus' definition "true justifiable-belief". It works precisely because proof does not entail truth per se, by the incompleteness phenomenon.



The consciousness is I think what the main focus of this forum is, my guess is that you understand that neither brains or machines can fully explain this consciousness.

That is partially right. but a type of machine, which I call Löbian, or Gödel-Löbian,  can already know that they are conscious, that they have a soul, that such soul is NOT a machine, etc. My contribution is that If we suppose Mechanism, then we must derive physics and the natural science from the theology of the Gödel-Löbian numbers. Mechanism reduces the mind-body problem into a "belief in apparent body" problem, which is reduced to number theology, which is reduce to arithmetic. The physical reality has "evolved" in the space of all computations (


And also that mechanism and biological evolution cannot be the source or creation of consciousness, is this correct? This I also agree with.

I agree that biology, nor any natural science could ever explain consciousness, and I can prove that, in the frame of the mechanist hypothesis. 

But consciousness is still explainable in term of the proposition that all self-introspecting machine can discover, which can be true iff not provable. In fact, consciousness can be shown *not definable* by the machine, and yet very well known by it, if not obvious, from her first person perspective. It is the incompleteness theorem which imposed those nuances like first person view, third person view, first person plural views, etc.

The price of that explanation is that now, we really need to derive the *whole* of physics, from the canonical theology of the universal machine. Such theology id defined by all what is true about the machine, even when the machine cannot prove it, nor even define it.

It seems that we agree on the limitation of the natural science for consciousness, but we might disagree on the fact that math, even arithmetic, might explain the origin of the coupling "mind/matter-appearance", perhaps.

Now, the cosmic or absolute consciousness, might be the consciousness of the "virgin universal number". It is big, and can only diminish in its various particular instantiation through its infinitely many run made by the infinitely "other universal numbers", all that existing in elementary arithmetic.

Are you OK that 2+2=4 is true independently of any contingencies? We need this to just define what we mean by "machine", and the Church-Turing thesis, etc.

Best regards,

Bruno Marchal






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

Eric Reyes

unread,
May 9, 2017, 9:10:30 AM5/9/17
to mar...@ulb.ac.be, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Bruno, I have an interest in numerology actually, and that all sounds quite interesting. I do think there's much relationship between arithmetic, physics, sound, light, creation etc.

Eric Reyes
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal

Eric Reyes

unread,
May 9, 2017, 9:10:30 AM5/9/17
to pje...@gmail.com, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Priyedarshi,

    You state "before the human brain nature, the universe, and even the earth with organic life existed." Yet how do you know it existed? How do you know anything for that matter? Because you are conscious of it plain and simple. Therefore consciousness is primary. Without it there is no knowing, being. Consciousness is primary and what we experience through the mind and senses is secondary. Or do you explain this differently? This seems self evident to me anyway.
Dear Srinivasa,


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
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist. org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19420889.2016.1160191
 
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
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist. org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

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
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
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
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 9, 2017, 9:10:37 AM5/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 09 May 2017, at 02:21, 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

Roger Penrose argues compellingly that the brain is not a classical computer.

Hameroff does that. penrose argues, non compellingly (I think), that the brain is not a computer at all, not even, unlike Hameroff, a quantum computer.

Anyway, physics is not the good science to tackle the mind body problem, unless, like Penrose, you assume that mechanism is false. But that seems speculative to me.




Consciousness is no mystery. It is a non-algorithmic locally retrocausal post-quantum emergent phenomenon from direct action-reaction between quantum mind waves and the matter they move.

Do you agree that consciousness is "true", and non justifiable, yet undoubtable? can you explain why qualia verifies this in your theory?

Bruno




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

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
May 9, 2017, 11:11:29 AM5/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Trying to understand consciousness using quantum mechanics is like trying to understand gravity using special relativity.

“Little could Herbert, Sarfatti, and the others know that their dogged pursuit of faster-than-light communication—and the subtle reasons for its failure—would help launch a billion-dollar industry.   … Their efforts instigated major work on Bell’s theorem and the foundations of quantum theory. Most important became known as the “no-cloning theorem,” at the heart of today’s quantum encryption technology”

MIT Physics Professor David Kaiser in the book “How the Hippies Saved Physics”

Let me know if these links help.






On May 9, 2017, at 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:


On 08 May 2017, at 14:00, 'Jack Sarfatti' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

If my PQM is correct.
Stapp et-al (long list of Bohrians) think mind is something different from the quantum information Hilbert space. This is an error.

Mind/Matter Duality = Wave/Particle Duality (in sense of Bohm 1952) as updated in Rod Sutherland's 2015 Lagrangian eliminating configuration space with Costa de Beauregard's zigzag (Huw Price).

Qualia is a PQM locally retrocausal backactivity effect absent in QM.

This solves David Chalmers hard problem and will lead to trillion dollar conscious AI industry. I was right in 1976 about EPR applications (Kaiser How the Hippies Saved Physics) and I will prove right now as well. (Precognitive RV in action e.g. Annie JACOBSEN's "Phenomena")

"One of the central issues within Quantum Mechanics (QM) is the measurement problem. Thoughmany different solutions to it have been offered (e.g. [1–6]), there is no consensus among physicists that a satisfactory resolution has been achieved. Perhaps the main reason for this disagreement is the lack of clear experimental procedures that could distinguish an interpretation from another; in fact. For example, Bohm’s theory yields exactly the same predictions as the standard Copenhagen interpretation for quantum systems [7], at least for most measurable quantum systems1.

Among the proposed solutions, perhaps one of the most controversial is von Neumann’s idea that a measurement is the result of the interaction of a (conscious) mind with matter [11]. This idea posits two distinct types of dynamics for quantum systems: one linear, to which all matter is subject under its standard evolution, and another nonlinear and probabilistic, to which matter is subject when it interacts with the observer’s mind. This is a substance-dualist view, where matter and mind exist in different realms and satisfy different laws of Nature. This interpretation has Henry Stapp as its currently best-known supporter [12]. We shall also call the hypothesis that the interaction with a mind causes the collapse of the wave function the Consciousness Causes Collapse Hypothesis (CCCH).

Recently, some authors claimed that the CCCH was inconsistent with already available empirical evidence (see, e.g. [13, 14]). In this paper, we examine the CCCH with respect to such claims, in particular those of [13], and show that their proposal does not provide a way to falsify the CCCH. We then modify their proposal to a stripped-down version that retains the main features of an experiment needed to falsify the CCCH. This exposes a fundamental problem: to test the CCCH one would need to make a conscious being part of the experimental setup. Unless we subscribe to a panpsychist view of consciousness (which the CCCH proponents usually do not), such types of experiment pose a fundamental problem: to have a conscious being, one needs reasonably high temperatures (compared to absolute zero). Thus, any experiment that distinguishes two orthogonal states of a measurement, as we shall see is necessary, cannot be brought to its original quantum state, as this would imply controlling all the quantum states in a thermal bath. Therefore, For All Practical Purposes (FAPP), the outcomes of such experiments would be inconclusive, and they would not test the CCCH. In fact, this suggests that, due to environmental decoherence, the CCCH is unfalsifiable FAPP."

Can we Rule out the Need for Consciousness in Quantum Mechanics?

It is plausibly the other way round. We should, and apparently can, derive QM (without collapse) form the Descartes-Mechanical assumption that the body/brain is a digital machinery (and that solves in part the mind-body problem).

That will not lead to million dollars industries, which prefer that the machine remains as a slave. An intelligent machine do strike, ask for salary augmentation, develop its own project, and might eventually conclude she cannot afford the human costly presence on this planet.

I am very skeptical that anything could collapse the quantum wave. We have already all computations, and an appearance of a universal wave, without collapse, in elementary arithmetic.

Bruno


Abstract

J. Acacio de Barrosa, Gary Oasb

aSchool of Humanities and Liberal Studies San Francisco State University
San Francisco, CA 94132 bStanford Pre-Collegiate Studies Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305

In this paper we examine some proposals to disprove the hypothesis that the interaction between mind and matter causes the collapse of the wave function, showing that such proposals are fundamentally flawed. We then describe a general experimental setup retaining the key features of the ones examined, and show that even a more general case is inadequate to disprove the mind-matter collapse hypothesis. Finally, we use our setup provided to argue that, under some reasonable assumptions about consciousness, such hypothesis is unfalsifiable.


Sent from my iPad


Sent from my iPad

Asingh2384

unread,
May 9, 2017, 11:48:19 AM5/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Bruno:

I do not agree with the statement- “….physics is not the good science to tackle the mind body problem”

E=mC**2 is at work in the brain to convert conscious thought energy to the self-induced motion in conscious beings including plant, animals, and human beings. Below are excerpts from my recent paper (see attached) –

The brain-mind problem is parallel to the mass-energy problem in physics. How a mass or particle behaves as a wave carrying energy under certain conditions is similar to how the brain acts as mind. Thoughts of the mind generated via kinetic firings of neurons are similar to packets of kinetic wave energy. Any thought or emotional activity of the mind involves energy flow, consumption or generation. We feel exhausted or invigorated after an arduous or joyful activity respectively, demonstrating the energy flow out or into our body. The neuron firings in our brains represent a form of kinetic energy or wave energy related to our conscious and free-willed or self-induced mental activities without any imposed external physical force. Thoughts or emotions are free willed activities in this sense, similar to the generation of a photon, a kinetic energy wave packet, via self-induced decay of quantum particles. Both processes are spontaneous or self-induced without the presence of an external physical force.
 
In a recent New York Times article [7], Brian Greene enumerates this fact elegantly by describing how our conscious moment-by-moment activities are governed by the physics of mass-energy equivalence described by Einstein’s special relativity theory:
 
“The standard illustrations of Einstein's equation - bombs and power stations - have perpetuated a belief that E = mc² has a special association with nuclear reactions and is thus removed from ordinary activity. This isn't true. When you drive your car, E = mc² is at work…..When you use your MP3 player, E = mc² is at work…… As you read this text, E = mc² is at work. The processes in the eye and brain, underlying perception and thought, rely on chemical reactions that interchange mass and energy, once again in accord with Einstein's formula.”

Best Regards
Avtar Singh, Sc.D.
Alumni, MIT
Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"
 

Manus FQXi_A Scientific Roadmap to the Universal Purpose.pdf

Asingh2384

unread,
May 9, 2017, 11:48:19 AM5/9/17