What Creates Consciousness?

[stevevw]

Renowned researchers David Chalmers and Anil Seth join Brian Greene to explore how far science and philosophy have gone toward explaining the greatest of all mysteries, consciousness--and whether artificially intelligent systems may one day possess it.

This program is part of the Big Ideas series, supported by the John Templeton Foundation.

Great video, Ive watched and read stuff by Chalmers before. I think the Mary thought experiment is insightful. I believe there is an aspect of reality beyond the material reductionist view that relays knowledge to us about what is going on. We sense this through intuition or some extra sense and its not a delusion but real.

We havnt woirked it out but we know we know its real and that the material explanations are not enough. I also like when they referred the the Hard problem of Matter or Mass rather than Consciousness. I think this is the case. That its Matter than we don't really understand and that Consciousness is actually the real experience of reality. We just create conceptions as limited humans as to what we experience.

I also like how Greene was explaining how we havn't really solved the Hard problem of life and the Moral question. As Chalmers says these are bound up in consciousness. We are moral beings because we are conscious of ourselves and others and we sense others pain. These aspects cannot be seperated from consciousness.

When you think about it just like the hard problem of consciousness is how can synapses and neurons produce subjective experiences like the color red or how can a machine, its wires and transitors be conscious when they just metal and electrical circuits is the same kind of Hard problem as to why electrons or Bosons could produce a life force. How inanimate matter can produce life.

But if even within the electron there was this spark of consciousness and that fundementally there is just consciousness suddenly life and consciousness coming from matter doesn't seem so unreal and may explain a lot of the problems classical science has come up against.

 

[Astrid]

Great video, Ive watched and read stuff by Chalmers before. I think the Mary thought experiment is insightful. I believe there is an aspect of reality beyond the material reductionist view that relays knowledge to us about what is going on. We sense this through intuition or some extra sense and its not a delusion but real.

We havnt woirked it out but we know we know its real and that the material explanations are not enough. I also like when they referred the the Hard problem of Matter or Mass rather than Consciousness. I think this is the case. That its Matter than we don't really understand and that Consciousness is actually the real experience of reality. We just create conceptions as limited humans as to what we experience.

I also like how Greene was explaining how we havn't really solved the Hard problem of life and the Moral question. As Chalmers says these are bound up in consciousness. We are moral beings because we are conscious of ourselves and others and we sense others pain. These aspects cannot be seperated from consciousness.

When you think about it just like the hard problem of consciousness is how can synapses and neurons produce subjective experiences like the color red or how can a machine, its wires and transitors be conscious when they just metal and electrical circuits is the same kind of Hard problem as to why electrons or Bosons could produce a life force. How inanimate matter can produce life.

But if even within the electron there was this spark of consciousness and that fundementally there is just consciousness suddenly life and consciousness coming from matter doesn't seem so unreal and may explain a lot of the problems classical science has come up against.

Woo woo is a problem, but not for science.

Except maybe to the extent that some who
feel that evidence based, disciplened logical
thinking has social value.

 

[dlamberth]

Woo woo is a problem, but not for science.

Except maybe to the extent that some who
feel that evidence based, disciplened logical
thinking has social value.

I'm wondering what part of @stevevw's post that you see as Woo Woo?

​

 

[Astrid]

I'm wondering what part of @stevevw's post that you see as Woo Woo?

​

Seriously?

 

[dlamberth]

Seriously?

It's an honest question on my part. I'm curious on what your thinking and asking that you elaborate.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm wondering what part of @stevevw's post that you see as Woo Woo?

​

I thought it was this false claim (no such thing is "known"):

"We havnt woirked it out but we know we know its real and that the material explanations are not enough." wrapped in a lot of squishy vaguery, but then I got to this:

But if even within the electron there was this spark of consciousness and that fundementally there is just consciousness suddenly life and consciousness coming from matter doesn't seem so unreal and may explain a lot of the problems classical science has come up against.

"sparks of consciousness" in electrons is straight up woo woo. Electrons are fundamental particles that are described by quantum electrodynamics (QED). They do not have consciousness nor are they part of some sort of field of consciousness.

 

[Astrid]

It's an honest question on my part. I'm curious on what your thinking and asking that you elaborate.

A philosopher who's gone beyond the
limits of science.

Belongs in the "controversial" section.

Reality beyond...sense thro intuition...
We know it's real...material not enuf...
Consciousness is really the real reality...
Life force...spark of consciousness in electron...
Solve what conventional science cannot...


Which part of that involves actual data
and rigorous thinking?

 

[dlamberth]

I thought it was this false claim (no such thing is "known"):

"We havnt woirked it out but we know we know its real and that the material explanations are not enough." wrapped in a lot of squishy vaguery, but then I got to this:




"sparks of consciousness" in electrons is straight up woo woo. Electrons are fundamental particles that are described by quantum electrodynamics (QED). They do not have consciousness nor are they part of some sort of field of consciousness.

I'm asking honest questions here.

How do you understand what consciousness is?
What would a "sparks of consciousness" look like?
What would a "field of consciousness look like?
Isn't the electrical activity of the brain basically the same "fundamental particles that are described by quantum electrodynamics"?

 

[stevevw]

I thought it was this false claim (no such thing is "known"):

"We havnt woirked it out but we know we know its real and that the material explanations are not enough." wrapped in a lot of squishy vaguery, but then I got to this:

"sparks of consciousness" in electrons is straight up woo woo. Electrons are fundamental particles that are described by quantum electrodynamics (QED). They do not have consciousness nor are they part of some sort of field of consciousness.

The idea that even electrons may have consciousness is not Woo. It has been supported by none other than the pioneers of QM and the idea that Mind or Consciousness is fundemental is accepted by many prominent Physicists. The Observer effect (conscious choice) in QM is supported as one of the possible interpretations of QM and is widely supported with experiements like the Double Split, Wigners Friend and the Delayed Choice experiment.

It was also supported by Chalmers in the video when he said Panpsychism can be a possibility. They spoke about the impossible gap between Matter and Consciousness that cannot be explained by reductionist material explanations. So its not out of the possibility. What they were more or less saying was that we have given names and descriptions of phenomena at the sub atomic level but we don't know what we are explaining actually is, what its nature is.

Explaining or describing how something is does not account for its nature. Doesn't make it a physical thing. At the fundemental level nothing is actually physical, there is no Mass or Matter. So all cards are on the table. What we may be describing at the fundemental level could well be associated with Consciousness we just don't know. So to say that consciousness or Mind is just Woo and therefore discount it as a possibility is Woo itself.

Add to this that there is a growing body of Journals, scientists and ideas including those mentioned by Chalmers like Panpsychism, QBism, the Quantum mind, Integrated Information, the Global Workspace, Intentional Schema theories and the many variations I would say calling the possibility of fundemental reality being some form of Mind or Consciousness Woo is way premature.

Many scientists have come to the Copenhagen Interpretation as their conclusion for understanding reality. The Copenhagen Interpretation comes from the school of quantum mechanics, and it believes that reality does not exist without an observer to observe it.

Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine".

Theoretical physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson says: "mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states we call “chance” when made by electrons".

Pioneering Quantum physicist David Bohm: "We have something that is mind-like already with the electron'.

Henry Stapp one of the greatest physicists on QM who also worked with Quantum pioneers Niels Bohr, Wolfgang Pauli, Werner Heisenberg and J.A. Wheeler who also support Mind and Consciousness as fundemental and has made many arguements in scientific journals on Mind being fundemental.

Stapp: The acquisition of knowledge does not simply reveal what is physically fixed and settled; it is part of the process that creates the reality that we know.

Information and the Nature of Reality: Minds and values in the quantum universe

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Information-and-the-Nature-of-Reality%3A-Minds-and-in-Stapp/61e7fc995b4b0d4f75c9da24955bccec78becd63

Then you have John Wheeler Participatory Universe principle

John Wheeler’s Participatory Universe

John Wheeler’s Participatory Universe

Image: The New York Times John Archibald Wheeler (1911-2008) was a scientist-philosopher who introduced the concept of wormholes and coined the term “black hole”. He pioneered the theory of nuclear fission with Niels Bohr and introduced the S-matrix (the scattering matrix used in quantum...

futurism.com

And other ideas being argued and having a scientific basis.

The “new wave” of panpsychism lacks the mystical connotations of previous forms of the view. There is only matter – nothing spiritual or supernatural – but matter can be described from two perspectives. Physical science describes matter “from the outside”, in terms of its behaviour, but matter “from the inside” is constituted of forms of consciousness. This means that mind is matter, and that even elementary particles exhibit incredibly basic forms of consciousness. What panpsychism offers us is a simple, elegant way of integrating consciousness into our scientific worldview.
https://theconversation.com/science-as-we-know-it-cant-explain-consciousness-but-a-revolution-is-coming-126143

Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality
A quantum object cannot be said to manifest in ordinary space-time reality until we observe it as a particle. The quantum object exists indefinitely as a non-local wave until it is being observed directly. Consciousness literally collapses the wave-function of a particle. without a conscious observer present to collapse this wave, it would remain physically un-manifested in a state of potentiality . Observation not only disturbs what has to be measured, it produces the effect.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

So I don't think we can just dismiss all this as Woo. At the very least science cannot discount these ideas because science, the materialist and reductionist view will never be able to explain consciousness. It can only describe the activity that we observe and not its nature. Something beyond the Physical paradigm is required and to disallow such possibilities is unjustified.

 

[Ace777]

How do you understand what consciousness is?
What would a "sparks of consciousness" look like?

Consciousness refers to the quality or state of being aware, both of oneself and the external environment. It encompasses our sensations, emotions, thoughts, and awareness of the world

Isn't the electrical activity of the brain basically the same "fundamental particles that are described by quantum electrodynamics"?

Neurons, the building blocks of the brain, communicate through electrical impulses. I was in a drug induced coma for a week and I do not remember anything. But there are LOTS of people on You Tube that had NDE and they remember something. Even though they were unconscious. One of those people that wrote a book was a brain surgeon. In some cases people have a life review and they remember everything. Even though they are unconscious.

The only thing I remember is my wife asking me: "Do you know who I am"? I laughed because I was thinking, of course I know who you are. You are my wife. But she recounts the story that it really freaked her out.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm asking honest questions here.

How do you understand what consciousness is?
What would a "sparks of consciousness" look like?

It's not my field, so I would know how to test it.

What would a "field of consciousness look like?

An all pervasive force that binds the living things of the universe together is not supported by physics. A "field of consciousness" *is* woo. What the relevant investigators have told us is that consciousness is the property of living things, particularly animals with brains.

Isn't the electrical activity of the brain basically the same "fundamental particles that are described by quantum electrodynamics"?

Electrons do not have a special property of consciousness. They can be organized in a number of complex structures (in association with nuclei) with many properties not intrinsic to electrons. For example, the interactions of a photon with an electron is pretty boring, but bind the electron to a nucleus and discrete transition lines emerge. Those specific frequencies are not the properties of the electrons, but of electrons paired with specific nuclei. There are a whole lot of such associations inside the brain so the properties are a lot more complex than the spectrum of hydrogen.

 

[dlamberth]

Consciousness refers to the quality or state of being aware, both of oneself and the external environment. It encompasses our sensations, emotions, thoughts, and awareness of the world

Would you say that plants that follow the sun is a type of consciousness?

 

[Ace777]

Would you say that plants that follow the sun is a type of consciousness?

Plants follow the sun through a process called heliotropism or phototropism. This is a biological response where plants grow towards light sources to maximize photosynthesis12. Sunflowers are a well-known example, as they track the sun’s movement across the sky during the day2.

However, this behavior doesn’t indicate consciousness. Plants lack a nervous system and brain, which are essential for consciousness as we understand it. Their responses to light and other stimuli are driven by biochemical processes rather than awareness or intentionality12.

Even more interesting is they respond to music. My wife is good with plants. She can revive them and get them to be healthy again. So they must be responding to something she is doing. Our impression is that they are very happy plants because they are so healthy. Esp the way the sun lights them up.

 

[dlamberth]

Plants follow the sun through a process called heliotropism or phototropism. This is a biological response where plants grow towards light sources to maximize photosynthesis12. Sunflowers are a well-known example, as they track the sun’s movement across the sky during the day2.

No matter the process, the plants know where the sun is, and track it. I guess I'm not understanding how that is not a type of consciousness.

However, this behavior doesn’t indicate consciousness. Plants lack a nervous system and brain, which are essential for consciousness as we understand it.

Isn't what your describe nothing more than a biological response? Maybe of a different kind than plants as you suggested above, but isn't it still biological? Why is one biological response consciousness and another not consciousness?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The idea that even electrons may have consciousness is not Woo.

Oh, it absolutely is. QED ( Quantum electrodynamics - Wikipedia ) is an extremely well characterized and accurate theory. There is no place in it (and therefore the properties of electrons) to have a "consciousness field/property".

It has been supported by none other than the pioneers of QM and the idea that Mind or Consciousness is fundemental is accepted by many prominent Physicists. The Observer effect (conscious choice) in QM is supported as one of the possible interpretations of QM and is widely supported with experiements like the Double Split, Wigners Friend and the Delayed Choice experiment.

It was also supported by Chalmers in the video when he said Panpsychism can be a possibility. They spoke about the impossible gap between Matter and Consciousness that cannot be explained by reductionist material explanations. So its not out of the possibility. What they were more or less saying was that we have given names and descriptions of phenomena at the sub atomic level but we don't know what we are explaining actually is, what its nature is.

Explaining or describing how something is does not account for its nature. Doesn't make it a physical thing. At the fundemental level nothing is actually physical, there is no Mass or Matter. So all cards are on the table. What we may be describing at the fundemental level could well be associated with Consciousness we just don't know. So to say that consciousness or Mind is just Woo and therefore discount it as a possibility is Woo itself.

Add to this that there is a growing body of Journals, scientists and ideas including those mentioned by Chalmers like Panpsychism, QBism, the Quantum mind, Integrated Information, the Global Workspace, Intentional Schema theories and the many variations I would say calling the possibility of fundemental reality being some form of Mind or Consciousness Woo is way premature.

Many scientists have come to the Copenhagen Interpretation as their conclusion for understanding reality. The Copenhagen Interpretation comes from the school of quantum mechanics, and it believes that reality does not exist without an observer to observe it.

Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine".

Theoretical physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson says: "mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states we call “chance” when made by electrons".

Pioneering Quantum physicist David Bohm: "We have something that is mind-like already with the electron'.

Henry Stapp one of the greatest physicists on QM who also worked with Quantum pioneers Wolfgang Pauli, Werner Heisenberg and J.A. Wheeler who also support Mind and Consciousness as fundemental and has made many arguements in scientific journals on Mind being fundemental.

Stapp: The acquisition of knowledge does not simply reveal what is physically fixed and settled; it is part of the process that creates the reality that we know.

Information and the Nature of Reality: Minds and values in the quantum universe

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Information-and-the-Nature-of-Reality%3A-Minds-and-in-Stapp/61e7fc995b4b0d4f75c9da24955bccec78becd63

Then you have John Wheeler Participatory Universe principle

John Wheeler’s Participatory Universe

John Wheeler’s Participatory Universe

Image: The New York Times John Archibald Wheeler (1911-2008) was a scientist-philosopher who introduced the concept of wormholes and coined the term “black hole”. He pioneered the theory of nuclear fission with Niels Bohr and introduced the S-matrix (the scattering matrix used in quantum...

futurism.com

And other ideas being argued and having a scientific basis.

The “new wave” of panpsychism lacks the mystical connotations of previous forms of the view. There is only matter – nothing spiritual or supernatural – but matter can be described from two perspectives. Physical science describes matter “from the outside”, in terms of its behaviour, but matter “from the inside” is constituted of forms of consciousness. This means that mind is matter, and that even elementary particles exhibit incredibly basic forms of consciousness. What panpsychism offers us is a simple, elegant way of integrating consciousness into our scientific worldview.
https://theconversation.com/science-as-we-know-it-cant-explain-consciousness-but-a-revolution-is-coming-126143

Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality
A quantum object cannot be said to manifest in ordinary space-time reality until we observe it as a particle. The quantum object exists indefinitely as a non-local wave until it is being observed directly. Consciousness literally collapses the wave-function of a particle. without a conscious observer present to collapse this wave, it would remain physically un-manifested in a state of potentiality . Observation not only disturbs what has to be measured, it produces the effect.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

This provides no evidence that electrons have magical properties.

So I don't think we can just dismiss all this as Woo.

Yep we can, and yes i did.

At the very least science cannot discount these ideas because science, the materialist and reductionist view will never be able to explain consciousness. It can only describe the activity that we observe and not its nature. Something beyond the Physical paradigm is required and to disallow such possibilities is unjustified.

If you want to argue about non-material stuff, fine (I find it hollow, but I'm not going to get drawn into this debate again), but electrons are *DEFINTELY* material under your definition and mine. Your non-material cause (even if it existed) is not part of the very material and well described electron.

 

[dlamberth]

If you want to argue about non-material stuff, fine (I find it hollow, but I'm not going to get drawn into this debate again), but electrons are *DEFINTELY* material under your definition and mine. Your non-material cause (even if it existed) is not part of the very material and well described electron.

When does consciousness enter the material for it surely does at some point?

 

[Hans Blaster]

When does consciousness enter the material for it surely does at some point?

What? There is not evidence that consciousness is a substance that can enter things.

 

[Ophiolite]

When does consciousness enter the material for it surely does at some point?

It doesn't enter into material, it emerges from material. If we knew what is was (or had a more specific definition) then we would be better equipped to determine when this occurs. Caveat: the structure of your question suggests consciousness is binary - present, or absent. It seems much more likely consciousness lies on a spectrum, and thus it emerges over time.

 

[dlamberth]

What? There is not evidence that consciousness is a substance that can enter things.

What words would you use to describe that first spark of consciousness in an fetus?

 

[Tinker Grey]

What words would you use to describe that first spark of consciousness in an fetus?

Boot up of self-monitoring program.