Proposal for Quantum Consciousness by Janko Kokosar

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

This is not a scientific answer.

Paul

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

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

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

"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

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

I really enjoyed your essay as mentioned above. Certainly worth a higher score so delighted to assist in my rating now.

Dear Sir,

Your essay is unique in the areas it has covered and we thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Though we broadly agree with your views, there are some differences in detail that we are discussing.

You are correct that consciousness is a physical phenomenon. But mathematics including Tononi's model, cannot explain conscious actions. Mathematics explains only "how much" one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not "what", "why", "when", "where", or "with whom" about the objects involved in such interactions until they are 'given'. Whatever is 'given' (including inputs for emotion) are the subject matters of physics. Mathematics is an expression of Nature, not its sole language. Though observer has a central role in Quantum theories, its true nature and mechanism has eluded the scientists. There cannot be an equation to describe the observer, the glory of the rising sun, the grandeur of the towering mountain, the numbing expanse of the night sky, the enchanting fragrance of the wild flower or the endearing smile on the lips of the beloved. It is not the same as any physical or chemical reaction or curvature of lips. Hence we cannot discard ontology.

Regarding atomization of consciousness, you are correct from your point of view. Perception is the processing by a conscious agent of the result of measurements of different but related fields of something with some data stored in memory to convey a combined form "it is like that", where "it" refers to an object (constituted of bits) and "that" refers to a concept signified by the object (self-contained representation or information). Measurement returns restricted information related to only one field at a time. To understand all aspects, we have to 'integrate' these aspects.

In communication technology, the mixing is done through data, text, spread-sheets, pictures, voice and video. Data are discretely defined fields. What the user sees is controlled by software - a collection of computer programs. What the hardware sees is bytes and bits. In perception, these tasks are done in the brain. Data are the response of our sense organs to individual external stimuli - e.m. fields by eye, etc. Text is the excitation of the neural network that carries these impulses to the brain. Spreadsheets are the excitation of the neural network in specific regions of the brain. Pictures are the inertia of motion generated in memory (thought) after a fresh impulse, linking related past experiences. Voice is the disturbance created due to the disharmony between the present thought and the stored image (this or that, yes or no). Video is the net response that emerges out of such integration. This is ego. Hardware includes the neural network. Bytes and bits are the changing interactions of the sense organs (string) with their respective fields generated by the objects evolving in time. Software is the operations of mind. Split personality is a malfunction of the mechanism for mixing the fresh impulse with stored memory.

All of these are digital, but none of these are conscious. They act mechanically according to the laws of conservation, inertia, language, command and control like the hardware and software of the computer, where the brain acts like the CPU. The computer can be operated with electric energy. The heart provides this energy through pumping of not only blood, but also oxygen. Consciousness (the 'I' part) is the operator, which is beyond all these. It not only switches on the electricity and the computer, but also perceives and uses the information. Like space and time, it is infinite - hence present everywhere - not outside the biological world.

The consciousness of a woman Cindy is detected only as whether she is alive or dead or at best whether she is awake or sleeping. Beyond this, whatever is detected is her emotions expressed verbally or through non-verbal communication. In the wakeful state, the sense organs receive impulse from the physical world, which are bound by the laws of physics. Like a sculptor making a die, a mirror image of the impulse is carried by the sense organs. The neurons do not interact with the external world, but carry the mirror image from the sense organs to appropriate regions of the brain to make an imprint there giving the proper image. Hence they are not bound by the laws of the physical world. During dream, the link from the external world is cut off, the neurons are still active. Thus, the ego can integrate various stored images in a dream without any constraint. If we have earlier seen horses and some birds flying, we can dream of flying horses or ourselves flying, which is not possible in wakeful state. These two states are causal states. During deep sleep, the neurons cease to act. Though the ego remains active in deep sleep (we get up if someone calls us), it cannot act on its own till some impulse is received by it as its only role is integration of impulses. But consciousness remains the observer as long as the energy circulating system is active in the body.

Since consciousness is infinite, it cannot be enlarged. Perception by the ego or memory can be enlarged. The first time we perceive, we do not cognize it properly, but it gets registered in our memory. The next time we perceive it, we cognize it as "It is like that". Color blindness is due to defect in our sensory organs either individually or collectively in some geographical location. We have discussed about perception in detail in our essay:

"INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776" published on May 31.

Sub-conscious learning and subconscious memory are like ordinary memory, where there is a delay in retrieval of the response to the received impulse. Freewill is not an illusion. The basic mechanism of action is as follows: If we feel a deficit of or a necessity for something, and from our memory, if we could find a way to fulfill our requirement, then we have a desire to do that. The appropriate part of our brain issues necessary command to the necessary body parts to act accordingly. When our knowledge is total, our action appears as freewill. Otherwise, we act as if in doubt. It is true that the brain acts as a quantum computer, but it is still an inert body part, as there is no difference between the brain of a person just before and after death. Thus, brain is not conscious.

Regards,

mbasudeba@gmail.com

Hello Janko

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

Good luck and good cheers!

Than Tin