No Ghost in the Machine by Alan M. Kadin

Dear Alan Kadin,

We have, in past essays, agreed in general but differed in the details. For example, the wave aspect of fundamental particles reflects internal rotating vector fields while the external motion follows classical particle trajectories. Entanglement is rejected.

Similarly, we do not believe mind and consciousness to be related to quantum effects on the atomic level. [Or 'large' molecules, such as micro-tubules.]

You discuss consciousness and intelligence, but is not clear that we define them exactly the same. You find it feasible that consciousness is a virtual reality simulation, rising from biological neural nets, perhaps from the dynamics of classical nonlinear systems. You say above that "consciousness represents a specific brain structure, rather than any independent entity or aspect."

I believe there is enough similarity in our theories of fundamental particles and associated physics, and in molecular biology of the cell and neural networks that I do understand your model. I've designed robotic systems and hold robot patents and I've thought for decades on the issues involved, and I'm simply unable to believe that mechanisms become aware through added complexity. Of course, given awareness, they become more 'intelligent' with increased neural capabilities. As I don't believe either thesis is susceptible to proof, it truly is a choice. You choose to believe that evolved structures lead to self-awareness. I do not. AI has been hyped since ELIZA in the 60s or 70s and we're still no closer as far as I can tell. Robots will become increasingly effective for working in controlled environments, but "emulating" consciousness does not yield consciousness. Nor do I conceive of an agent-generating virtual-reality structure that "constitutes consciousness". I believe these are based on projections and extrapolations. You believe no field is needed. As neither is provable, it remains personal choice as to what's deemed more feasible.

I fully agree with you there is no need for a quantum basis for consciousness, if by this you are referring to Penrose, Hameroff, et al. If you are referring to my 'qubit model' in my endnotes, my primary reason for including that was to demonstrate how easy it is to project qubits onto physical reality, potentially obscuring everything but the 'two states'. It has nothing to do with explaining consciousness.

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. I always enjoy reading yours.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Nice essay Kadin,

Your arguments are excellent I just quoted some of them below....

1. I argue that biological intelligence is due to simple evolved structures based on neural networks, without the need for any new physical mechanisms (quantum or classical) or a "ghost in the machine". Humans see agency and intent everywhere, because we are programmed to do so. The conscious mind may turn out to be a virtual reality simulation that is largely illusory.

2. I argue that consciousness itself reflects an evolved brain structure that is not uniquely human, and provides an adaptive system capable of making rapid decisions based on simplified models and incomplete data.

3. VI. Minds, Dreams, and the Illusion of Consciousness : The most persistent illusion associated with human consciousness is that there must be an immaterial spirit. But this is clearly a remnant of pre-modern religious thinking, where everything is driven by immaterial spirits. Efforts to assert that somehow consciousness emerges from brains of a certain scale or complexity (see e.g., Teilhard de Chardin) are misdirected.

4. More recently in the 20th century, classical nonlinear dynamical systems were shown to be highly sensitive to initial conditions in a way that is practically unpredictable (the "butterfly effect") ............................ Here on this point I want you to have a look on the Dynamic Universe Model. It is not sensitive to initial conditions. These initial conditions are different from problem to problem or application to application. There are many applications from Micro level to Solar system level and Cosmos level. It derives predictable results....

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Best wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please................

=snp. gupta

Alan,

Quite brilliant! I'm in stunned admiration of ability to far better and more clearly express almost all the many concepts in my own essay, plus others. I've also argued that 'agency' is a misnoma in the strings but you put the case far better. I can't list all agreement but picked out the following;

"..most of human behavior is subconscious and irrational." "..a similar consciousness engine may be emulated artificially." "..each component affects the others, but also is affected by them via back-action." "...both determinism and free will are really straw men." "..our self- perceptions can be quite deceptive." "...human consciousness...may not be qualitatively different from that in "lower" organisms." ".....the human mind is preprogrammed to identify agency,"

I particular I agree and also identify the "...two distinct systems at work in the human mind: System 1 and System 2. System 1 ("fast thinking") is the unconscious mind that does things automatically without us having to think about them. System 2 ("slow thinking") is the conscious mind, which requires deliberate attention and thought. System 2 operates with a simplified model and a coherent narrative, and when the model appears inconsistent ("cognitive dissonance"), the perceptions may be altered to maintain a consistent picture." And that;

"...neural nets with many "hidden layers" between the input and output can be trained to be particularly efficient in learning to match patterns this is known as "deep learning". "

That's not yet half but I'll stop there for now to discuss and ask a question. You refer to the "...more exotic quantum effects, but it is unclear whether quantum entanglement has any significant impact ..some of these paradoxical aspects may provide a basis for aspects of the human mind and consciousness.." then (again I agree that) "Quantum Computing is not the Future of Computing ...the promised exponential enhancement in performance is based on the presence of quantum superposition and entanglement.

..early in the 20th century, both Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrödinger questioned the foundations of quantum mechanics. Recently, Steven Weinberg (2017) has also questioned these foundations. .. ....if I am correct, this will radically disrupt the orthodox understanding of quantum mechanics, leading to the adoption of a new quantum paradigm, with major long-term implications for the future of physics."

The question is then Alan, do you yourself think you can overcome the cognitive dissonance (which I've discussed in strings and of which my essay is a self referenced test) of being presented with a simple mechanistic solution emerging providing classical foundations to QM? (also suggesting your assumptions that QM noise can't be decoded may not be entirely the case!)

I've predicted all will use thinking system 1 so reject it a-priori. Proved correct so far. But does knowing the need for system 2 actually make the difference? (the test is my essay and the accompanying video).

Great job on the essay anyway, from all perspectives.

Peter

Dear Dr. Alan M. Kadin,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

"My view is that that the subjective experience of consciousness reflects the brain activity associated not with the entire brain, but only that small portion that is projected into this self-conscious virtual reality construct." My guess is that the preceding statement represents an important insight. What is the evolutionary role of consciousness? It might be a mechanism for coordinating and triggering the various brain areas needed for decision-making and short-term learning -- good decision-making and short-term learning would be that which promotes survival and reproduction -- "good" would mean that which nature selects.

"The field of "artificial intelligence" is almost as old as computers themselves, but it has long fallen far short of its goals. The traditional method of artificial intelligence is to devise a list of rules about a particular topic, and program them into a conventional computer. But knowledge of a fixed set of rigid rules in not what we generally mean by intelligence." The preceding is another important insight, in my estimation. The "rule-based approach" to AI seems to me to be a fundamentally misguided "control freak" approach to AI. Heuristic algorithms and logic programming might work for about 5% of AI problems, but deep learning and robotics-based open-ended feeding of deep learning might be needed for 95% of AI problems. The problem would be that if the human brain becomes obsolete, human beings might find out that Darwinian evolution is brutal, wasteful, relentless, and inevitable. See how people treat mice and rats in laboratories and ask yourself if you want the human brain to become obsolete.

Alan,

Fascinating! We are diametrically opposed on the issue of consciousness and intention. I am rating you highly, as you express the reductionist abstraction from the irreducible in elegant and classic fashion. But your explanations are unable to explain your own creativity, which is wonderfully ironic.

Please allow me to quote one aspect of consciousness that is inexplicable in your terms, from my paper at http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/453:

"Consciousness can be NEGATIVE. By "negative" I don't mean its common

association with being quarrelsome or pessimistic, although they do involve

negativity. To be negative is to negate what is - to say "no", or "not", to refuse, to

decide that something shouldn't exist, or to imagine that something which doesn't

exist should. And there is no likeness of negativity in the objects of science."

"A chemical interaction is understood to be the product of what-is. Molecule A

reacts with molecule B in a definite way, unless something external and

accidental interferes. Genetic mutations, as understood in biology, are accidental

modifications; they don't occur because an existing gene is not good enough, or

because some alteration might be better. Whether a mutation is an improvement

to an organism is irrelevant to its occurrence. But our abilities to critique, to

imagine, to wish for what is-not express conscious, deliberate negations that

elude the scientific world of cause-and-effect -- just as they elude the world of

supposed randomness and unpredictability proposed by quantum theory."

"It's easy to say an insight like Einstein's theory of relativity -- a radical negation of

established beliefs -- was caused by the performance of his most excellent

network of neurons, and at a higher level, by various psychological, sociological,

and historical factors. But a negative insight can only be reduced to a series of

positive reactions by a determined refusal to negate implausibility. A theory is

what it is, its inconsistencies are what they are, and for someone to say that a

theory is not complete or not perfect or even wrong is to go beyond the

convention, to refuse what is given, to negate and conceive something else in its

place, which is to do something that is not just un-caused, but un-causable."

I welcome your reaction to this, and to my essay "Quantum spontaneity and the development of consciousness."

Dear Alan M. Kadin

I invite you and every physicist to read my work "TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I'm not a physicist.

How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....

6) ....worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn't a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time "existence" is exclusive as a "measuring system", its physical existence can't be proved by science, as the "time system" is. Experimentally "time" is "movement", we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure "constant and uniform" movement and not "the so called Time".

12)The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in "time" and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor

Wonderful essay. Loved the suggestion towards the end of the essay on using dreams as a measure of consciousness. I agree that Turing test is not good enough, principally because it requires reference to humans. My own suggestion on separating intelligent systems is the result of the model I have built in my essay. It is premised on the Constitutional nation state being the next level of emergence after the level of the individual.

I agree with you that most animals could have some form of consciousness, but I would argue that even if that were so, they would not be classified as being intelligent. You appear to be hopeful that AI systems will appear in the next few decades. I am not sure where I stand with regard to intrinsic AI systems, but I am negative on extrinsic AI systems. The difference between the two is that the former will be self-contained (like an individual) while the latter will be more like a government.

Regards. Willy

Hi Alan, you have said a great many sensible things. I thought it a well written, very accessible essay.

A few quibbles...

You wrote in regard to evolution; "There is no underlying goal or intent, apart from survival." A. Kardin 2017. I think that not even survival is a prior goal but survival is the outcome of a functional structure able to avoid its elimination. Tommaso Bolognesi has written in his essay about the linguistic use of 'goal' when it is actually an external viewpoint post occurrence of outcome.

You wrote: "The primary feature that distinguishes biological systems from physical systems is exponential reproduction, based on the digital code of DNA." A. Kardin 2017. I don't know why you have called it digital. It is a chemical code and the structure of those chemicals are necessary for the function of protein building and mRNa building. The letters of the base pairs are not just like numbers but associated with material structure. I can't readily see a definition of digital that would fit.

Re. your: "In particular, only a guided design can produce a radical redesign in a single step. In contrast, the unguided design of natural selection can only make minor modifications per generation, each of which must be adaptive." A. Kardin 2017. Not all genes are equal in the effect they have on structure or function. Also some are control genes that have effects on many other genes. So a small change can have a large effect. Also there can be epigenetic effects altering gene expression of many genes. Not all selection is adaptive. A characteristic can be harmful but so long as the carrier is able to survive and reproduce rather than not it can be passed on in the gene pool.

Kind regards Georgina

This felt more like a long setup than an essay; it's all accurate, but there's so much further to go! The idea that our conscious perception of our aims is mainly a post-facto rationalization isn't that controversial, and I'd be more interested in *why* this property exists. What is it about conscious, simplified models of the world that allows for better decision-making in complex environments? Why, if both the world and our minds are mostly chaotic and difficult to perceive, is it adaptive for organisms to set up conscious aims at all? This implies a certain level of order above the chaotic interactions of particles that only emerges at particular scale, and allows for reasonable interpretations of the terms "aims and intentions" beyond the idea of "conscious goals."

To be fair, after reading through the other essays, there are apparently plenty of people in the world who still believe in Cartesian dualism to the point of mysticism, but the scientific community is pretty well over it. I just thought this essay focused to much on interpreting the topic as "spiritual" vs. materialist consciousness, which isn't the only way to approach it, and spent a lot of time reiterating a solid but very old set of arguments.