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
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
Dear commentators below my essay.
I will try to answer you and to read your essays as soon as possible, although it is a lot of pages.
I think that arguments and anti-arguments give new knowledge and feeling how to formulate our thoughts. Arguments and anti-arguments also help to change our belief. Also from these reasons, I do not like scores without comments. So, as further, I hope that you will not give scores without comments.
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
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.
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,"
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
Dear Janko,
I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.
Regards and good luck in the contest,
Sreenath BN.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827
Dear Sir,
This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.
Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear. The left hand sides of all equations depict free will, as we are free to chose or change the parameters. The equality sign depicts the special conditions necessary to start the interaction. The right hand side depicts determinism, as once the parameters and special conditions are determined, the results are always predictable. Hence, irrespective of whether the initial conditions could be precisely known or not, the results are always deterministic. Even the butterfly effect would be deterministic, if we could know the changing parameters at every non-linearity. Our inability to measure does not make it chaotic - "complex, even inexplicable behavior". Statistics only provides the minimal and maximal boundaries of the various classes of reactions, but never solutions to individual interactions or developmental chains. Your example of "the deer population in Northern Michigan", is related to the interdependence and interconnectedness of the eco system. Hence it is non-linear.
Infinities are like one - without similars. But whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceived, the dimensions of infinities are not perceptible. (We have shown in many threads here without contradiction that division by zero is not infinite, but leaves a number unchanged.) We do not know the beginning or end of space (interval of objects) or time (interval of events). Hence all mathematics involving infinities are void. But they co-exist with all others - every object or event exists in space and time. Length contraction is apparent to the observer due to Doppler shift and Time dilation is apparent due to changing velocity of light in mediums with different refractive index like those of our atmosphere and outer space.
Your example of the computation of evolutionary sequence of random numbers omits an important fact. Numbers are the inherent properties of everything by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, then it is one; otherwise many. Many can be 2,3,...n depending upon the sequence of perceptions leading to that number. Often it happens so fast that we do not realize it. But once the perception of many is registered in our mind, it remains as a concept in our memory and we can perceive it even without any objects. When you use "a pseudorandom number generator to generate programs consisting of (almost) random sequences of numbers", you do just that through "comparison and exchange instructions". You develop these by "inserting random minor variations, corresponding to asexual mutations; second, by 'mating' parent programs to create a child program, i.e., by splicing parts of programs together, hoping that useful instructions from each parent occasionally will be inherited and become concentrated" and repeat it "thousands upon thousands of time" till the concept covers the desired number sequences. Danny Hillis missed this reasoning. Hence he erroneously thought "evolution can produce something as simple as a sorting program which is fundamentally incomprehensible". After all, computers are GIGO. Brain and Mind are not redundant.
Much has been talked about sensory perception and memory consolidation as composed of an initial set of feature filters followed by a special class of mathematical transformations which represent the sensory inputs generating interacting wave-fronts over the entire sensory cortical area - the so-called holographic processes. It can explain the almost infinite memory. Since a hologram retains the complete details at every point of its image plane, even if a small portion of it is exposed for reconstruction, we get the entire scene, though the quality is impaired. Yet, unlike an optical hologram, the neural hologram is formed by very low frequency post-synaptic potentials providing a low information processing capacity to the neural system. Further, the distributed memory mechanisms are not recorded randomly over the entire brain matter, as there seems to be preferred locations in the brain for each sensory input.
The impulses from the various sensory apparatus are carried upwards in the dorsal column or in the anterio-lateral spinothalamic tract to the thalamus, which relays it to the cerebral cortex for its perception. At any moment, our sense organs are bombarded by a multitude of stimuli. But only one of them is given a clear channel to go up to the thalamus and then to the cerebral cortex at any instant, so that like photographic frames, we perceive one frame at an instant. Unlike the sensory apparatuses that are subject specific, this happens for all types of impulses. The agency that determines this subject neutral channel, is called mind, which is powered by the heart and lungs. Thus, after the heart stops beating, mind stops its work.
However, both for consolidation and retrieval of sensory information, the holographic model requires a coherent source which literally 'illuminates' the object or the object-projected sensory information. This may be a small source available at the site of sensory repository. For retrieval of the previously consolidated information, the same source again becomes necessary. Since the brain receives enormous information that is present for the whole life, such source should always be illuminating the required area in the brain where the sensory information is stored. Even in dream state, this source must be active, as here also local memory retrieval and experience takes place. This source is the Consciousness.
Regards,
mbasudeba@gmail.com
Hai Janko,
I have read and rate your work that I see as an unique approach to solving global problems. Meantime I don't want to say that I am fully agree with your interpretation. I think however it is normal situation - I can't rate any work as ,,worse,, because of the approach is different from my! I see your work on proper level and interesting to read. And who is right more it can be defined within time. I hope my work also can deserve to your attention (I mean mainly the references on my work which related to your examined questions - link text) Hope hearing you in my forum.
Best wishes in contest,
George
Dear Janko,
Regarding your essay I want to make following comments. You, like me, have based 'consciousness' at the fundamental level and have analyzed its role in the field of human ontology as well as in in the field of physics and biology. I stress you to go through the biology section of my essay (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827) and see the role played by mind and consciousness in the development of epistemology and of science in general. You have rightly recognized the fact that consciousness and free-will play important role in the quantum world. In support of your claims you have illustrated experiments. You have based your essay on logical arguments and proofs. For this I am going to give high rating. Please go through my essay and express your comments on it in my thread.
Best regards,
Sreenath
Dear Janko,
I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.
I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.
You can find the latest version of my essay here:
http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf
(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).
May the best essays win!
Kind regards,
Paul Borrill
paul at borrill dot com
Dear Paul
I partially agree with your ideas, and I also think before about such idea.
One important "postulate" of physics for me is Ockham razor. Such additional sub-time is against Ockham.
But, all model of physics are allowed, which are mathematically correct, because they better visualize physics. So also your model does.
Time inside quantum coherence is really symmetric.
It is interesting that quantum computer can be much faster than classical computer or faster than stochastic one. Can you explain this with your model?
You deserve and will get good score.
P.S you have good editors. Are you on university, that they find time for you.
Hello,
I like reading your thoughts on consciousness. I rate you a ten.
I hope you enjoy my essay as well
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1616
