Proposal for Quantum Consciousness by Janko Kokosar

Janko Kokosar

Essay Abstract

As first, a mechanism how quantum coherence in the brain can last long enough is shown. This mechanism is based on very light elementary particles. Then the arguments follow as why consciousness should be a quantum phenomenon, and how such introduction of quantum consciousness modifies the formalism of quantum mechanics. This can also be tested by an experiment. Without use of quantum mechanics it is shown how to relativize ego, to atomize consciousness, how to improve the Tononi's model, how to explain the Libet experiment, and why location of feeling of consciousness is an important paradox. It is also shown that panpsychism is an answer to many questions about consciousness. The author claims that consciousness and free will are physically so fundamental that they are not a result of some complex phenomena, but they are so fundamental as quantum physics and space-time. But, he denies dualism, and claims that connections between consciousness and physics are movement and quantum randomness. Thus, research of consciousness can tell a lot of about fundamental physics. Besides, the quantum mechanics and its interpretation are not perfect, because they do not explain quantum gravity and consciousness.

Author Bio

In young age, the author had obtained some prizes in the country level competitions in mathematics, physics, and chess. He graduated in Physics in 1989 and then he has been working in steel industry. He developed some theories in fundamental physics and theories of consciousness. He found some formulae for the elementary particles masses, offers an explanation of three space dimensions, he developed one step toward quantization of gravity, and generalized the uncertainty principle. He also tries to simplify explanations of the fundamental theories of physics. He is waiting for the valuation of his theories.

Download Essay PDF File

Paul Reed

Janko

Consciousness, the operation of the senses, or anything else that is going on in the brains/processing faculty of any sentient organism has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical circumstance. It does not affect it in any way. All it does is enable the possessor thereof to be aware of a physical input, the output being a perception of that input. That input, whilst being physically existent is not what occurred, but a representation thereof, the most obvious example being light. And that is only affected in so far as upon receipt ie being sensed)it ceases. What occurred has already occurred.

Paul

Janko Kokosar

When you consciously decided to write this essay, your consciousness changed the world around you.

If I decides to break a stick and doing this, my consciousness changes physical world around me.

Paul Reed

Janko

Incorrect. The 'world around you' had either already occurred, was occurring (including you action), or had not yet occurred. Any action just alters what would have otherwise occurred, there is no pre-determined 'future'. Which is a statement of the obvious, ie a definition of cause and effect. Any given reality is a function of its predecessor.

Paul

Janko Kokosar

Paul,

Any given reality is a function of its predecessor and (!) at least of Conway's "free will". (Conway's reference is in my essay.)

Please be more specific: do you believe, that we are only observers of our bodies without free will? (On this point we can ignore my claim that humans's free will is the same, as Conway's one, let us say that they are different.) If we have free will, we influence on world around us. Do you think that we have free will and despite of this consciousness does not influence on a world around us.

Please be specific, that we can talk further.

Paul Reed

Janko

I will explain with two threads.

1 We receive physical input, which is then processed. In the case of a brick, there is no subsequent processing. The physical circumstance cannot be affected by consciousness/whatever, be cause it has already occurred.

2 Any action we make, like any other action, is the cause of the subsequent effect (ie the consecutive realities in the sequence). That subsequent effect did not physically exist, it was created. There was no alteration to the physical circumstance, as there was none. All that happened is that a different reality occurred to whatever would otherwise have occurred. But this is what happens every time. The subsequent reality is always a function of its predecessor, not a range of theoretical alternative possibilities.

Paul

Janko Kokosar

Dear Paul,

I have a feeling that you reject all conclusions from quantum theory. But I need your further explanation.

My claims which we analyse here, are:

1. Consciousness influnences on physical world.

2. Consciousnes is everywhere.

Your claim is

3. Consciousness has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical circumstance.

4. Any given reality is a function of its predecessor.

You need to give me your opinion about two questions:

1. Are we only observers of our bodies, do we have free will?

2. Conway said that electrons have free will, thus their action are not completely predetermined. Reference and quotation is in my essay. Do you agree with this?

Janko

Paul Reed

Janko

1 We, and all sentient organisms, ie all entities which have acquired some form of sensing ability, are aware of existence (which includes ourselves)be cause we receive physical input, which is then processed by the sensory/brain systems into a perception of what was received. I have no idea what free will can be.

2 No. And another way of answering your two questions is that we are, physically, fundamentally no different from an electron or a brick in terms of existence, ie we are not 'different'.

Paul

Janko Kokosar

Paul, Conway wrote, what the free will of the electrons is (From my essay):

Quotation 1:"

The theorem states that, given the axioms, if the two experimenters in question are free to make choices about what measurements to take, then the results of the measurements cannot be determined by anything previous to the experiments."

Quotation 2:

"The world it presents us with is a fascinating one, in which fundamental particles are continually making their own decisions. No theory can predict exactly what these particles will do in the future for the very good reason that they may not yet have decided what this will be!"

His calculation has a similar conclusions as Bell's equation.

I understand free will of people that we decide to drink a glass of whiskey, not that processes in our body are the full reason. So you think that we are only observers of our bodies, without free will?

But, in one think we agree: "we are, physically, fundamentally no different from an electron or a brick in terms of existence,"

Manuel Morales

Janko,

You have an interesting approach well worth consideration.

You might find of interest the evidence I have obtained that serve to unify gravity with the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces as one super-deterministc force. I invite you to review my findings and rate my essay when you get the chance:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

Good luck with your entry.

Regards,

Manuel

Koorosh Shahdaei

Mr. Kokosar,

Consciousness is interesting subject with regards to physics, and agree that little attention has been paid to that from physicists. Although brain activities are electrical signaling in the background of our consciousness, do you mean the聽consciousness itself has such nature?

Regards

Koorosh

Akinbo Ojo

Dear Janko,

Just to commend your bold atomization policy, even extending it to something like consciousness!

On this policy, is space atomized? If so, what separates the atoms of space, since space cannot be the same thing separating itself?

Then you say, "...because everything what exists in physics is movement"

If something annihilates (disappears) to nothing has it moved? Likewise, if something that was not there emerges from nothing, has motion taken place?

Good luck in the contest,

Akinbo

Janko Kokosar

Akinbo,

Annihilation to nothing and vice versa are virtual processes. They are caused by uncertainty principle and they are very small part of (partially) not moving processes among others. It is too small part, that we can say that this process is something special and different in physics.

James Hoover

Janko,

Are you saying that all matter has consciousness and that consciousness is not a product of number of neurons or neuron connections? Certainly among anthropic principle advocates, consciousness is not analyzed enough, explaining where it was at the time of the Big Bang, if that is proposed.

Jim

Janko Kokosar

Jim,

In the essay, I claim that our consciousness is a product of memory, which is supported by neurons and neuron connections. But this consciousness is built up from the primitive consciousness, which is everywhere.

I do not follow your opinion about consciousness at Big Bang?

Paul Reed

Janko

And physically, what is this consciousness which is everywhere?

Paul

Janko Kokosar

Paul,

As I wrote in section 1, the foundation of physical world are dimensionless masses of elementary particles. These are also information. Physical world around us is virtual reality (VR). This VR is also qualia. More primitive qualia is also in unicellular organisms and in non-living matter. Qualia are the only reality.

Paul Reed

Janko

This is not a scientific answer.

Paul

Janko Kokosar

Dear Paul,

what is a scienfic answer is mainly a subjective decision and not a specific answer. I cannot guess where do you see a problem, but If my answer was not specific enough, you can read also my essay, where it is written more.

The only way to talk is to be specific. What I think about scientific system, I wrote in viXra in section 7 at the end. Arguments at chess are easier verifiable than at theoretical physics, for instance.

Paul Reed

Janko

"what is a scienfic answer is mainly a subjective decision"

Not so. Existence as potentially knowable to us is a definitive physical circumstance. Whether we can know all that is unlikely, but another matter. And that knowability is a function of a physical process. Science must correspond with reality as knowable, not as believed in. And there is no consciousness everywhere, neither does the consciousness of any sentient organism have an affect on the physical circumstance.

Paul

Satyavarapu Gupta

Dear Kokosar

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

Pdf download:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

Part of abstract:

- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

It from bit - where are bit come from?

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

.....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

Marcus Arvan

Janko: I agree with you that consciousness is fundamental, but I don't see how panpsychism alone explains quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is entirely probabilistic. But consciousness seems very different. Our conscious choices *determine* our actions; they are not simply random.

Janko Kokosar

Marcus,

This is a very important question. I wrote about this in my last section. But, because I am not sure about everything, I proposed two options:

1. Inclusion of consciousness changes formalism of QM, but it is not measured at all quantum measurements until now. And every decision is primarily influenced by past experiences for living beings, but not for quantum phenomena in non-living world.

2. Inclusion of consciousness does not change formalism of QM, and every decision is primarily not influenced by past experiences.

If you will read this section and will ask, I will answer more clearly.

Vladimir Rogozhin

Hello, Janko!

A very interesting essay and sweeping conclusions for inclusion of consciousness into a coherent picture of the world and building a "model of self-aware of the Universe" (philosopher and mathematician Basil Nalimov). Good luck! Regards, Vladimir

Antony Ryan

Hello Janko,

Consciousness is a good starting point when it comes to information, as we are observers of both Bit and It. My essay sets about utilising observation too. Hope you take a look.

Best wishes,

Antony

Chidi Idika

Dear Janko,

I agree with you that "consciousness and free will are physically so fundamental that they are not a result of some complex phenomena". And I actually have found sort of a number to define the conscious/unconscious as a physically measurable parameter which i call the "observer".

You may find time to see how it corroborates your position: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1850

Idika