• Blog

  • A Landscape of Consciousness

"Out of meat, how do you get thought? That’s the grandest question." So philosopher Patricia Churchland once said, when speaking about the hard problem of consciousness.

Recently, Robert Lawrence Kuhn applied FQxI ways of thinking to his original field of neuroscience and consciousness studies. In August 2024, he published a comprehensive review of theories of consciousness in Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology (“A Landscape of Consciousness: Toward a Taxonomy of Explanations and Implications” Volume 190, August 2024, Pages 28-169).

Read more about how he put together this 175,000 word tome, and his conclusions in Robert's QSpace post.

Hi , it is a very intriguing topic and like the quantum gravitation, the hard problem of consciousness is one of the holy graals of this physics community. There are several relevant approachs like the works of Hameroff and Penrose and these microtubules and objective orchestrated reduction, The real big question is must we consider our actual limited sciences and the neurosciences , the knowledges of the brain , the physics and this QFT , GR and QM and so we must respect the conservation of energy and momentum and this and that or must we consider deeper parameters philosophically speaking. Personally I believe that yes , this consciousness is maybe deeper than just an emergent property of our actual sciences . The best thinkers having prondered the most important equations and works in physics and maths considered like Einstein a kind of god of spinoza, a god of nature transforming and coding the energy and matters, there is nothing of odd in considering this ,here is the list of a part of these thiners, Heisenberg, Einstein, Planck, Bohr, Born, Newton, Pasteur, Galilei, chrodinger, Maxwell, Lorentz,Cantor,Godel, Darwin, and so more , I repeat but this determinsitic reasoning about the pantheism has nothing to do with the religions wich are these religions at my humble opinion limited human inventions and not really true I consider personally this an infinite eternal consciousness in 0D , and this thing that we cannot define is outside and inside omnipotent of the universe, This reasoning is a little bit like in the pantheism, where we try to understand this thing beyond our understand by the laws of this physicality in respecting our pure determinism and in accepting these limitations, we cannot so affirm to know the truth, we must doubt , This consciousness is maybe simply the main driving force of all this universe and maybe , I tell maybe all is conscious at its level of conmplexity, this consciousnes is not like the intelligence and free will. Have we a synchronisation with this 0D , I dont know, must we consider a field like a string chord in 1D from this hypothetical infinite eternal consciousnes, must we consider this superfluidity and these spherical volumes like in my model and a connection with this 0D main field of consciousness of this infinite eternal consciousness, have we a simple emergent consciousness in a pure mathematical universe without god due to the complexity of brains and others . We don t know and that is why it is a fascinating topic. I doubt personally that our limited actual knowledges can answer , we have 100 years of relativity and we have improved the details in the sciences, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine , maths and so the details of this QFT, QM, GR ....but we must recognise also that even if we have improved the world in technology and others, we are still very limited and we now still so few. Maybe even all what we measure and observe are just emergent properties hiding deeper truths not known. That is why the measurement problem and the interpetations are important philosophically in accepting these said limitations, that implies even a kind of humility, We can compare our actual knowledges in QM like our knowledges about the universe and the cosmology, we have ranked stars and better understood the BHs and this and that, but we are far to know the details of all the complexity of this universe and the planets, stars..... so we can compare our knowledges like the travel inside this universe, even our own galaxy the milky way we don t know it in details, imagine the more than 7000 billions of galaxies, so it is the same for our knowledges about the QM and details . This conscioiusness fascinates me I must say and I have read many papers on arxiv. It is well that there are many persons searching and so that inmplies many ideas and models. The aim probably is to consider different philosophies and probably also to go farer than our actual models . Not easy that said .Maybe , I don t affirm, if my reasoning is ok , with this DE and DM added to this SM and that this fith force also is a reality and is informational , so that completes the puzzle but does not explain the consciousness but if this 0D is added omnipotent and that the SM is in a kind of synchronisation with this , it can answer , what is this synchronisation, what is the link , with the fith force or without , even just with the GR and QM and QFT , what is this link, why we are conscious, is it due to our brains and the QM or have we something outside in the universe, This reasoning implies even deep questions about the physicality, the non physicality, the souls if we have souls also and what about the evolution of all this, it is this also in my theory of spherisation, the optimisation evolution of the universe, If all evolves , so the souls also but of course I don t affirm, I just explain my points of vue,

    There seems to be at least two issues, when talking about consciousness:

    Firstly, no one seems able to positively define exactly what consciousness IS. What is needed is a definition of what consciousness IS as a definite starting point, a definition which could be changed, altered or improved, e.g. as a result of experimentation or philosophical analysis.

    Without a proper definition to work with, one could fabricate almost any old story about consciousness. So, a sloppy definition would be to define consciousness as a thing that emerges from microtubules, which pretty much says nothing about what consciousness IS.

    Secondly, and related to above issue, why is consciousness necessary, what function does it perform (if any)? Like a peacock’s tail, which apparently appeals to peahens, why would consciousness persist, and apparently be ubiquitous in living creatures, if it had no necessary function?

    ……………………

    My view is that, we are so immersed in our higher-level consciousness that we have lost touch with the basics. The basics are that existence doesn’t imply knowledge of existence: on the one hand there is what exists; and on the other hand there is knowledge (i.e. consciousness) of what exists. Knowledge of what exists in one’s surrounding situation, is a separate, necessary, function of the universe, needed even at the level of particles and atoms.

      Lorraine Ford Hi Lorraine, It is a complex puzzle and nobody has defined it really due to physical and philosophical limitations. The mystery of consciousness is one of the most challenging questions in both philosophy and neuroscience, with no single model universally accepted. There are several main theories but it is difficult because it is still a subjective experience if I can say , it is a state of being permitting the thoughts, the feeelings...

      .The fact that it is a subjective and qualitative experience is relevant, that is why we feel the joy, the pain, we hear the musics we create arts and imagine, we are able to create and take choices. We utilise informations and that permits reasonings and thinkings. It tells us so an important point, it is also a personal unique experience for each moments ,we feel ....
      Many models are interesting like the model about the informations and its integration with the brain networks ,the memory , it is mainly a model with the brain and its regions , it can be computed for the information processing but there is a problem about the subjective experiences even if the neurosciences tell that the brain capacity integrates the informations and its degrees.
      They quantize the informations and the complexity and rank the spectrum for each unique consciousness, but it seems that something is missing . The attention is important in this reasoning but can we explain the complexity of qualitative apsects of this consciousness with the awareness.
      David Rosenthal suggests that this consciousness arises due to higher orders of thoughts and mental states. Hameroff and Penrose them suggest in the Orch OR that quantum processes in the microtubules create inside the neurons quantum events and that these events are non computable , they are like souces of experiences. The relevance is that it is in this quantum mechanics instead of the classical computation , it is relevant because it gives a deeper road at my humble opinion that our actual standard neurosciences but we need proofs and empirical evidences .

      The real big question is why are we conscious after all , why we have a kind of survival mechanism also permitting behaviors and complex social and environnemental interactions, it seems the key, the outside and inside. There is a link and a deterministic logic. I beleive that this adaptation and survival and QM more the deeper parameters to add to our SM are a key with the informations if we find the primary informations, not only our actual BITs reasonings. In all the cases ,this consciousness like you told is not still defined and is mysterious , it is not just about the information processing and our qctual QM , but mainly about the expiences, so the subjectivity is important also. There is a logic in all this with the philosophy, the psychology, the evolution, the QM, the neurosciences, the informations theory and our deep unknowns in the quantum mechanics and cosmology,

          Lorraine Ford we are so immersed in our higher-level consciousness that we have lost touch with the basics. The basics are that existence doesn’t imply knowledge of existence: on the one hand there is what exists; and on the other hand there is knowledge (i.e. consciousness) of what exists. Knowledge of what exists in one’s surrounding situation, is a separate, necessary, function of the universe, needed even at the level of particles and atoms.

          This is so true. It is Gödelian in a way, a metasystem or even meta- meta-system. One, the hard problem is from inside, the other is from outside. In fact we have many ways to communicate information, not just nerves. The most basic system even lack a nerve system, and still it must be aware of the gradients in our environment, all + and -, using phases as instance.

          It is ridiculous to compare a basic state to a brainstate as instance, but many do this. Neurons are very specialized cells, with both analog and digital parts, like our bodies also are polar, and all cells are polar. Microtubulis are in all living structures I think, in bacterias a bit different only, and bacterias also forms superclusters like they are one individual..

              Steve Dufourny quantum gravitation, the hard problem of consciousness

              It is true quantum gravity as a reduced state resembles consciousness, the knowing part at least. If we are in a total chaos all becomes a bit overwhelming. This is maybe also why consciousness is seen as an ontological state in quantum, a result of the computation like a changed state, but how is this state changed? It would require some work, I think. Work is in epistemological part, all the asymmetries. But an adjoint system is symmetrical, it is one problem, so I look at non-Hermitian squeezed states and how they can become, divide, grow. etc. There you can more easily find the criteria for life (and consciousness so also?).
              The feeling part is different, more like an energizing part, transformations etc. Maybe the work?

                  Steve Dufourny
                  Hi Steve,

                  I think that human beings are very capable: after all, we have sent missions to Mars!! So, I don’t agree with the mysterian view that consciousness is, and will eternally be, a mystery to human beings. While human beings certainly have limitations, e.g. physical and lifespan limitations, I don’t agree that understanding consciousness is beyond the capabilities of human beings.

                  I also don’t agree that the answers to problems are necessarily to be found in the pages of old books, whether the old books are the Bible, or more recent books or papers on the subjects of (e.g.) philosophy or physics or neuroscience.

                  Unlike the quest to find the solution to some intractable mathematical problems, consciousness is an everyday, minute by minute, second by second, all-encompassing reality for all ordinary human beings, (and other living things too). Why would it be surprising that people could understand consciousness?

                  Just like there are individual particles, atoms, molecules and living things, consciousnesses are also individual. Consciousness can’t be thought of in the abstract; consciousness does not exist in a vacuum; consciousness exists in the real world; consciousness/ knowledge/ experience exists from the point of view of individual living things that are living in ever-changing and unique, real-world surrounding situations and circumstances.

                  Most consciousness, that individual people experience, has no feeling or sensation; most of this consciousness is merely knowledge/ information about the ever-changing surrounding situation. This basic-level consciousness is collated point-of-view knowledge/ information about the physical surrounding world, further collated with knowledge/ information about the physical self.

                  The collatory aspect of consciousness is very significant because equations and numbers have no inherent collatory aspect, where the collatory aspect is the knowledge that: (this and this and this and this) is simultaneously true. The knowledge aspect and the collatory aspect of consciousness is different to the equations and numbers aspect of the world.

                      Ulla Mattfolk
                      Rather than being an exclusively high-level, brains and microtubules thing, I think that low-level consciousness (and free will) should be thought of as necessary parts of a real-world system, necessary because the low-level real-world system would not work without them.

                        Lorraine Ford Hi, Maybe it can be reached indeed with our actual quantum mechanics, sciences, neurosciences and QFT and GR but maybe we need deeper parameters to superimpose . When I spoke about the pantheism, It has nothing to do with the religions or old books like the bibble or philosophies or papers, we must recognise that our knowledges are very limited. The fact to have sent missions to mars is well ,but imagine the universe and its more than 7000 billions of galaxies, have we discovered and sent missions to the planets of our milky way and other galaxies, no ,we just observe the universe with tools , there is a difference with limited observations and the fact to be on a specific place.

                        We have many unknowns , what we measure and observe are emergent properties and our correlated interpretations cannot conclude about the philosophy of origin of this universe nor about what is a particle, we dont know what are the foundamental objects or informations in a sense. Maybe this consciousness is beyond our capabilities , maybe not.

                        I don t agree that consciousness is about knowledges,, we are not more conscious than a bee, we utilise our capabilities differently , the consciousness and intelligence are not the same. This consciousness is more than this, in all the cases it is like this that I see it , I don t affirm to know the truth, in fact nobody actually canm explain the primary cause of this onsciousness. We know yes that we are conscious but we have not found why and how . Regards

                          Lorraine Ford The perspective in all the cases are intriguing and oblige us to drive into nuances . The human capabiltiy can maybe expand our understanding of insurmontable mysteries but these limitations are very real. For Mars we have only scrarched the surface of this neighbour.The observations of the universe are indirect.

                          This consciousness is surely more than knowledges, it is mainly about subective experiences , like I told a bee and its awareness is not less vital and conscious than us, this consciousness seems a foundamental aspect of all lifes, not just the humans, The principles of this consciousness are not really identified , our intelligence allows us to categorize and solve complex problems but the consciousness is not this , it is a lived experience instrinsic and in the instant.
                          The singular experiences are relevant and it is not about static knowledges of facts and equations. It is more like an emergent experience arising from deeper parameters.

                          The objectivity is one thing and this subjectivity an other actually.,
                          If the consciousness considering the pantheism is a foundamental property of this universe , so we are experiencing one aspect of the consciousness but the property is not owned by the individual beings, it is important like difference. And actually we cannot measure or interpret this consciousness, we have just assumptions.
                          we lack a full understanding of what constitutes the "fundamental objects" or the information structures of reality. The origin of particles, fields, and, by extension, consciousness itself remains unresolved. We are limited by our observations, measurements and knowledges simply.

                          That is why I think that a TOE is not possible because all this puzzle about the deepest philosophical, physical and mathematical limitations are not about knowledges, intelligence at my humble opinion only , The aspects of this reality tell us a truth about these said limitations. The mysteries of the universe imply the necessity to go farer in the dimensions probably but not easy even with the geometrical algebras and mathematical tools like the non commutativity,

                              Lorraine said: we are so immersed in our higher-level consciousness that we have lost touch with the basics.

                              You have forgot this? The basics does not require any nerves, not a brain. These are simple organisms.

                                Ulla Mattfolk You tell an important point about the life and the most primitive organisms like a bacteria, it is about communication and others and not nerves or brains only, that is why it is important to differenciate the intelligence and the consciousness, The levels of intelligence and complexity are one thing, the consciousness an other ,

                                    Lorraine Ford consciousness is an everyday, minute by minute, second by second, all-encompassing reality for all ordinary human beings, (and other living things too).

                                    Yes, this is a basic trait, the flow of conscious moments.

                                    Chalmers already found two kinds of consciousness, the easy problem, about which you talk, and the hard problem, where the feelings are central. Also minute feelings and sensations are important like an attraction or repellation. In fact Damasio showed we cannot do decisions without small feelings.

                                    The knowledge as information is not the hard problem. In fact Knowledge 'eats' the consciousness, so the more informed we are the less conscious we are? We reject possibilities that does not 'fit'. This if we take consciousness as fundamental from quantum or the measurements. There are models that talk of an optimization as fitness also. Hoffman is one.

                                    This also leads to an image where consciousness is not computational at basic level. Esp.the part we see as subconscious is hard to compute. How do we compute feelings? Arithmetics and other ways meet Gödel... And also if we put some artificial number for consciousness, like a Pythagorean triangle, we have hard time finding its physical correlate. From our material view it is not credible. This leads to consciousness as something 'unseen' or dark if we use this metaphor from physics. Maybe a 5D? Actually this dimensional computing is interesting. It can be we have also more dimensions involved. Infinitesdimensional even? This is something we begin to explore now.

                                    Many of our experiencies use lower dimensions also, like Seth talk of. Experience is not bound to 3D?

                                    You notice the many ? I hope.

                                      Steve Dufourny Intelligence versus consciousness.

                                      In my thinking consciousness is the basis from which we select. Intelligence is how well we select. (This is also a kind of measurement problem. Even if we reject something does not mean it vanish from the consciousness pool, it just makes no subjective sense to ourselves. You know how difficult it is to communicate ideas.) They are two different. If we take an AI using equations it is our knowledge we insert in them, so they must be conscious at some basic equational level, but this is not enough? We should also be careful to compare to human consciousness here. We are so much more.

                                      Turing test is passed already for AI, but there is an urgent need for better tests. We should though not wait human consciousness from them. We can maybe say AI-consciousness is possible?

                                        Ulla Mattfolk it tells us a lot about what is the consiousness when we compare our human consciousness in relation to other forms of lifes, The interations with the environments and the stimuli for the survival can permit to give roads, So a bacteria for example utilise the stimuli but not a kind of developped thought or in all the cases a less developped thought for the choices and free will. These bacterias have a consciousness and a kind of intelliegence, but they are not the same, like for us. The difference between the bacterias and us is the complexity , we have a more complex momory, imagination, abstract thinking permitting even to understand the time and the past, present and future and so we make decisions , so the abilities are different but it is not a reason to tell that our consciousness is more than the consciousness of a bacteria, It implies debates of course about the philosophy and sciences , are we more conscious than a bacteria or are we all conscious at a kind of same level considering a foundamaental universal principle of consciousness. So in resume have we a special quality of consciousness or is it similar to the othe simplest organisms.
                                        This consciousness is mainly an universal trait for me , It is not appeared in humans only , it is a thing starting in thre simplest organism, and even we can go farer in telling that it begins even at this quantum scale. We arrive at deep philosophical questions about the matters and the energy and the consciousness. If the consciousness and the responses to envoronments and adaptations, processings, simuli, survivals for the bacteria , plants , animals exist, so from this perspective, there is a common thread tyring all together with experiences and mechanism and complexities. and even needs. It is like if we had a vast universal interdependent web of consciousness with no higher or lower states of consciousness but utilised personally and singulary and subjectivelly speaking.

                                            Steve Dufourny The objectivity is one thing and this subjectivity an other actually.,

                                            Yes, 1p is very different from 3p perspective, and a big problem. Objectivity is the holy graal of science, but we observe or percieve subjectively, every cell does. If we draw a parallell to the famous cat analogy we are in the closed box, and the friends of Wigner are around us observing us and our behaviour, concluding if we are conscious or not. Observation is indirect, as you said. Now living systems have solved this by allowing a surplus of energy flowing through, forcing the system to be open. So now Wigner and his friends can now something about us, maybe just if we moves or not?

                                            Open systems becomes a problem when we go to self-adjoint quantum systems, because also those must be open to 'live'? The systems form many-body systems etc. Non-Hermitian systems can be such?

                                              Steve Dufourny These bacterias have a consciousness and a kind of intelliegence, but they are not the same, like for us. The difference between the bacterias and us is the complexity , we have a more complex momory, imagination, abstract thinking permitting even to understand the time and the past, present and future

                                              A bacteria maybe has not much reason to predict the future, but also very primitive organisms can give warning signals, so this is a prediction like a 'knowledge in beforehand', so they can adapt their behaviours.

                                              Actually also for us these predictions require most of our energy if we look to the brain work. It is important for us to predict our next step, and this is maybe what our subconsciousness does for us? Note the similarity to AI and its predictions of 'next step' or word.... I think this is really a quantum charachter, so AI are quantum computers already? We should maybe analyze better what the statistical entropy is?

                                                I would recommend we start with a simple observation that consciousness may be the process of examining what is consciousness.

                                                  Steve Dufourny
                                                  Steve and Ulla:

                                                  I’m saying that:

                                                  • Just like higher-level matter is constructed out of smaller units of lower-level matter, higher-level consciousness is constructed out of smaller units of lower-level consciousness. And conversely, when (e.g. in death) matter breaks down into smaller units, consciousness also breaks down into smaller units.
                                                  • Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the world, requiring different methods of symbolic representation (symbols like AND, OR and IS TRUE are required to represent consciousness), but they always exist together. There is no free-floating consciousness.
                                                  • Low-level consciousness has a function; it is the necessary knowledge aspect of the world, whereby the world can know itself, i.e. know its own law-of-nature equations, categories (like mass and position), and numbers that apply to the categories.
                                                  • Consciousness is a basic aspect of the world like particles, atoms and molecules are basic, and like laws-of-nature, categories and numbers are basic. So, being a basic aspect of the world, the question of how consciousness feels, or doesn’t feel, is actually irrelevant.

                                                      I am a theoretical physicist, interested, among others, in foundations of quantum mechanics and its relation to consciousness. I think that "the hard problem of consciousness, in the way it is usually thought of, is harder than hard, it's impossible." Consciousness is fundamental, one cannot explain how consciousness arises from the brain activity, because the brain as a physical object is already being experienced in consciousness. Trying to explain (my) consciousness as an activity of my brain is like a serpent eating its own tail. Trying to explain how consciousness arises from the brain activity of other people is mixing two different levels of representation: other people's brain activity (if I observe it by means of suitable equipment) is just a representation in (my) consciousness, a picture within a picture, a story within a story... (see "Goedel, Escher, Bach" by Hofstadter for further insight). But such a view faces the problem of solipsism.

                                                      There is a way to avoid solipsism as follows. Wave function is a representation of a quantum state which in my interpretation is consciousness.There are many possible wave functions/quantum states. One is such that I experience myself being a person A, experiencing the world that includes a person B as a picture in (my) consciousness. Another wave function (quantum state) is such that I experience myself being the person B, experiencing the world that includes the person A. There is a common cross-section world of both persons (and all other persons) that they interpret as an objective world. In both cases there is the "I", first person's experience, "me feeling". Consciousness is fundamental, the "external" world is a part of consciousness, and yet in this setup there is no solipsism. Objective reality is the Hilbert space of all quantum states, which are the states of different possible streams of consciousness.

                                                        Lorraine Ford Hi Lorraine, your general ideas about this consciousness are interesting philosophically and physically, I see differently but I recognise that the categories and laws of nature could be a key also. Now we need of course to know more about these basic units and what they are really considering the informations and their properties and why these basic units with their oscillations and motions create all the other properties like mass, momentum , positions, consciousness, numbers, .... that becomes relevant in considering the main primary informations and what they are but we have limitations still like I told because we don t know what are these primary informations and even what are these foundamental objects. Strings, points in 1D , spheres,.....or a mathematical universe like the works of Max Tegmark, we don t know .

                                                          Lorraine Ford Lorraine has the same like Moran in her # it is the necessary knowledge aspect of the world, whereby the world can know itself, i.e. know its own law-of-nature equations, categories (like mass and position), and numbers that apply to the categories." Gödels metastates are not easy to put in. It is like a supersymmetry I think?

                                                          Also this "Consciousness is a basic aspect of the world like particles, atoms and molecules are basic, and like laws-of-nature, categories and numbers are basic. " This has been debated so much and nobody so far can prove it right, I think. This is why I have gone into the dimensional thinking.

                                                            Matej Pavsic I look now at fractal dimensions and they show common pitches like the harmonic A in music, a pure state. Maybe we are instruments for consciousness?

                                                            It is good you have two or more waves. The cat analogy is not so good when it has only one wave that is scattered into two states, as wave they must be sin and cos. But then the simultanous measurement of both are not possible, I think, only 'almost simultan'. And as a closed box the cat must know which.

                                                              Regarding the Landscape it is a difficult task to compare like this, and many theories fall in several categories. It is some kind of guide maybe? There are also missing theories.

                                                              Matej Pavsic Thanks for sharing, This perspective on consciousness, using Hilbert space to conceptualize the relationship between individual experiences and an "objective" world, is intriguing and resonates with certain ideas in quantum mechanics and philosophy of mind. I ask me if it is sufficient or if we need deeper parameters,Chalmers told interesting philosophical things about the hard problem of consciousness, can we reduce the consciousness to the brain processes or physical structures, all seems there . Is it a thing arising from the physical systems or is it a foundamental property of the reality.

                                                              The self referential dilemma that you told about the sperpent eating its own tail is interesting when we consider the brain like a part of the reality and the subjectivity of the experiences of consciousness merit deeper analyses. That tells us that the observer cannot fully explain its own foundamantal consciousness through something.

                                                              The hilbert space and quantum state of consciousness mathematically is interesting for the possible quantum states of a system, the wave function so implies unique experiences of consciousness with multiple subjective possibilities , the singular experiences so become interesting in this reasoning, like if we had a general foundamental hilbert space of consciousness but with different quantum states, I like this idea but I have stopped to consider it because there are probaly deeper paramaters to add to our actual SM, QFT and GR. But that does not change the fact that there is a unified whole of consciousness with different possible perspectives if I can say. If the interaconnections are a reality , so how to consider the solipsism transcending this Hilbert space because each consciousness is unique and the quantum states also. That becomes complex for the objectivity and the subjectivity .

                                                              You speak about the works of Hofstadter and the recursive structures and self reference and the loops . Can we consider that the consciousness is self referential and observe itself , I don t know but it is a little bit against the real subjectivity considering this subjective experiences like a shared objetive general one. Can we consider that each subjective experience is not isolated but a part of a complex recursive network of possibilities, Maybe I don t know , it is intriguing. It becomes metaphysical I think . The mathematical abstraction and all these possible quantum states permitting an objective reality is interesting but it seems that something is missing like a link between the outside and inside .

                                                              If the consciousness is a foundamental field, so what is its origin philosophical, we return at these limitations about the foundamental objects, the primary informations, the philosophical origin of the universe.can we reduce the consciousness like told Lorraine at basic units or in this case at fields permitting all possible perspectives in the hilbert space. The problem is these limitations and so each individual experience with specific quantunm states or basic units interconnected in the reality with an emergent objective reality need proofs and to reach the foundamental informations or objects and it is not the case, we are not even sure if this GR alsone is the key and if the SM and QFT are complete even if the a quantum gravitation is not renormalised, That said the non locality and entanglement are intriguing. If all this is true what is this unified field of consciousness and how it is interconnected, if all is false, what are the other logics of reasong to reach this consciousness. We have the same problem for the interpretations of our quantum mechanics and the measurement problem, all these interpretations like the qbism, the informations theory, the many world, copenaghe, the relational one,de broglie bohm , the transational one, or wheeler interpretation or others, are limited interpretations, we cannot affirm that one is the truth, maybe all these interpretations are unified in a kind of universal objective interpretation, but for this we must be sure about the informations primary and foundamantal objects and origin of the universe and it is not the case, the same so for the consciousness,
                                                              Regards

                                                                  Lorraine Ford the question of how consciousness feels, or doesn’t feel, is actually irrelevant.

                                                                  How do you proceed without the hard problem of consciousness? I don't understand this.

                                                                      Steve Dufourny You raised important points. Some of them are attempted to be clarified in the video "Biocentrism: A Physics Perspective" My talk offers an impartial and unbiased analysis of the implications of quantum mechanics. It has roots in the last part of my book The Landscape of Theoretical Physics: A Global View (Kluwer Academic, 2001), since 2005 available, by permission of the publisher, at https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610061. A more technical discussions is in Sec. 4 of the scientific paper https://www.academia.edu/43640633/The_Embedding_Models_of_Induced_Gravity_with_Bosonic_Sources, published in Foundations of Physics in 1994. I also intend to discuss and try to clarify all this here, but I think that looking at the works mentioned above could help understanding my points and facilitate further discussion.

                                                                          Matej Pavsic thanks for sharing, I am going to read the papers and see your youtube, it seems very relevant, regards

                                                                            Ulla Mattfolk
                                                                            Steve and Ulla:

                                                                            I have tried to concisely explain, in a clear and organised way, what I think consciousness actually IS. What is YOUR positive model of what consciousness actually IS ? And, in the context of MY model of what individual consciousnesses actually ARE, I think that how consciousness feels, or doesn’t feel, is irrelevant because it is just a basic characteristic of consciousness.

                                                                            Here is a quick question: are you saying that individual consciousnesses are:

                                                                            1. Functional ?
                                                                            2. Non-functional ?

                                                                            My answer is 1, individual consciousnesses are functional.

                                                                                Dear Lorraine,thanks, I have explained if you read well my ideas, it is a model with ideas that I don t affirm, It is important to not affrim when we are not sure and when it is not proved, It is yes in a sense functional but there is philosophically deep unknowns where we can go beyond the functionality, the universe has deep unknwons. What is the origin of the universe, what are the foundanmental objects, do you consider strings in 1D at this planck scale or points like in the geometrodynamics and after the geometrical algebras for the details about the fields and so the basic units for the matters and consciousness have details. Or spaces like the hilbert space, that needs details about the basic units. and you don t give them, Do you consider bits for example and that the universe is like a computer in this logic, Tell me more please generally speaking . You are going to understand me better about the functionality of this consciousness .

                                                                                Philosophically, consciousness can be framed in ways that go beyond pure functionality. Functionally, we might describe what consciousness does, but that doesn't fully encompass what it is in a more abstract, existential sense. Because it is not merely a product of brain function or biological processes, it is at my opinion more a foundational parameter of this reality. Let s take the time, the space, the matters and let s extrapolate so the consciousness, it is in the fabric of the existence itself and so the consciousness is a local manifestation of a more universal consciousness, in my model it is even correlated with the infinite eternal consciousness, I don t affirm but I see like this yes, and there is nothing of odd in considering an infinite eternal consciousness like in the pantheirm , see the list of thiners thining like this in the first post that I have written. Nobody can affirm and nobody knows this philosophical origin,. This consciousness is a phenomena where the experiences take significance. That is why the subjective meaning is important , because in this logic the consiousness is the basis for all that has value and meaning , and it is singular and individual . This consciousness is not static , it is a process and it even evolves . It is like a flow at my humble opinion and it is shaped by this time , the experiences,the memory..... So in a sense , it is both even, functional and philosophical , it is of course about the integration of informations , but like it is different than this intelligence,we have the adaptation, the free will, the choices, the decisions,.....tell me more I am interested to know more Philosophically speaking, That is wh the questions that I have asked are important to see the whole of ideas and model, Regards

                                                                                  Matej Pavsic I have listened your yourtube and it is excellent ,congrats , I liked your approach and how you analyse the conscience experiences and the quantum mechanic,. It is very interesting the links with the biocentrism. If the life and consciousness shape the understanding of this reality, it becomes relevant when we consider the observations and the objective reality. So your interpretations and links with Everett and the many worlds become relevantr for the outcomes and the different versions . So no collapse of the waves function. It is intriguing for the experiences and the superpositions. If the space , time, matter are constructs from this consciousness , so the observer becomes a key . It imples the relativity of wave functions in function of these observers. Entanglement in biocentrism where all observers are connected is a complex topic , and I am understanding the diffiulty to extrapolate about this topic.

                                                                                  If the consciousness is a primary aspect and not a product of matter but give rise to matter and reality, so the observer role is essential Like you told .If these observations define this reality and that time and space are subjective in a sense creating by the consciousness and don t exist independently, So the consciousness is foundamental, It is this that I like a lot because it is like it is the main foundamental essence of the universe. These higher dimensions with the hilbert space so are very relevant because the measurements and collapses with the consciousness of the observer converge with the works of Wigner and the copenaghian interpretation like if the reality is co denpendent with the physicality and the observer role , it improves the biocentrism idea. There is an intriguing extrapolation about the foundamental structure of the universe and these deeper parameters to add . If this consciousness has a significant affect on the fabric of this reality, and that the observer dependent is essential so these higher dimensions and their properties are relevant philosophically. I like because it is beyond the physicality and need deeper parameters and higherdimensions like pregeometries , deeper spatial structures. Your works give questions about the nature of the consciousness and the impacts on the foundamental laws of nature.

                                                                                  Your interpretations of the waves functions and these many possibilities like in the ideas of hawking and wheeler and Everett are intriguing if the observations affect or create the reality . If the mathematical representation in QM give various possible states, and that this wave function evolves in time, so the multiple positions , momentum ...also is the big difference with the copenaghian interpretation where we have only a single one. I ask me philosophically speaking what is the begining of the universe, it has been a main unknown in ,my theory, from what and how it has begun, hawking considered a no boundary proposal with no singular begining in time, but I told me that we need a kind of begining , but all this is beyond our understanding still .
                                                                                  The no-boundary proposal suggests that every possible configuration of the universe coexists within a larger wave function, and an observer's presence could influence the selection of one history over another. I am not sure about this , maybe we need a concrete begining and deeper physical and philosophical parameters.

                                                                                  Congrats for your works encircling the consciousness, the reality and extrapolating the works of Everett, Hawking, Wheeler, it is a beautiful and relevant general idea with the observer playing a foundamental role with this consciousness to define and determine the reality through the collapse of the wave function and the many possibilities,

                                                                                  Best Regards

                                                                                      Steve Dufourny Thank you for listening my YouTube video. I am glad that you liked it. At the beginning of that interview I said that different interpretation of quantum mechanics might not exclude each other, but each reveals a part of the true nature of quantum mechanics. Something similar you said in your first reply. As I explained, Everett's many worlds and the Copenhagen collapse are compatible, if one distinguishes between the first person and the third person view, and takes into account the hierarchy of representations. Another person's brain activity is just a representation (a picture) in (my) consciousness. That representation can be very detailed if I am measuring the brain processes in a scientific experiment, or it can be superficial, if I only speak to the person. But it remains only a representation. Consciousness is my (first person) experience, it is associated with the wave function determining the world of my experience. I briefly explained in the previous post why this is not solipsism. I also explained it in more technical terms in the Foundations of Physics paper, and less technically in the last part of my book "The Landscape of Theoretical Physics".

                                                                                        Steve Dufourny I am separately mentioning here also the book "The Grand Biocentric Design: How Life Creates Reality" that I co-authored with Robert Lanza, just in case that this will be deleted if as a violation of the forum rules. There you will find a detailed description related to your point "...and an observer's presence could influence the selection of one history over another. I am not sure about this , maybe we need a concrete begining and deeper physical and philosophical parameters."

                                                                                            Matej Pavsic thanks for sharing, I am not myself sure to be fran about this begining of the universe and this hypothetical BB, I have a theory but not easy. I have thought a lot about this and why we exist and from what and how is really created this physicality. I have imagined several possibilities and learnt many papers about the different interpretations but we have deep limitations . Our quantum mechanic and QFT even we have improved a lot the details are emergent properties but we don t know unfortunatelly what are the primary informations or the foundamental objects. So it is difficult also to conclude about the philosophical origin of this universe, we know that the matters and energy are under specific laws of nature and this general relativity has permitted to better understand this universe but is it the only one truth with the QFT and EFE , we have difficulties to renormlise this quantum gravitation due to divergences and infinite quantities to eliminate when we consider the gravitons like the quantas of gravitational waves, we have also this dark matter and dark energy wich are not easy to understand really, these limitations are a reality, we evolve but we are arrived at technological and philosophical and physical limitations. Have you alreadythought about this quantum gravitation , have you a model with the hilbert space or clifford or lie geometrical algebras, maybe the non commutativity could solve but it seems complicated.

                                                                                            The concepts of gravitational waves must distinguish at my opinion first the gravity waves and these gravitational waves because they arrive in different contexts. If we take the gravity waves in fluid dynamics so the fluid medium implies forces and density gradients like in hydrodynamics , so like the navier stokes equations for the motions of these said waves.
                                                                                            The gravitational waves in the GR are different than these classical fluid dynamics because they are ripples in the fabric of the spacetime due to acceleration of massive objects like BHs or neutron stars gnerating these waves. The perturbations so are relevant to analyse considering the Einstein field equations and metrics of the spacetime.
                                                                                            The waves are quadrupolar due to the second time derivative and the quadrupole moment of the distribution of mass, it is different than a dipole moment lie in the electromagnetic waves and it is ther that it becomes relevant. The gravitons so are hypotherical elementary particles mediating the force of this gravity like the photons mediate the electromagnetism, so if the gravitons are the quanta of this gravitational field and so the smallest quantum of possible energy of gravity , so that implies problems to create a quantization of this gravity like th other foundamental forces , it is non renormalizable due to infinite quantities and divergences, if they are considered like spin2 bosons like the gravitational waves spin 2 polarization states, so the difference is there with the photons spin 1 .
                                                                                            The moments and lagrangians so are relevant but it is there that the complexity implies these divergences . So maybe and it seems evident that they dont exist these gravitons du to a lack of empirical evidences, the gravitational waves yes have been detected but not these gravitons, there is an enormous incompatibility with the QFT. Maybe the problem is that they don t exist and so this bridge between the quantum mechanics and GR for this gravity is on an other philosophical resoning. I don t affirm of course, I try just to understand why we have this problem not possible to quantize.
                                                                                            It is there that the problem appears with the spin 2 nature of gravitons associated with the quadrupolar moments , the fact that they carry 2 units of angular moments in QM creates the problem of quantizing it because that does not conferge with the actual quantization of other forces. If we take the EFE and the 2 polarization states like for the electromagnetism for example , so the problem is due to the curvature of this spacetime and changes of shape , it is different than for the electric and magnetic filds , so the tensors taken instead of vectors are important. So the tensors representations instead of vectors representations .
                                                                                            That is why the spin 2 is not renormalisable due to a philosophical problem ,something must be changed or added in the differences btween dipoles, quadrupoles and the oscillations, moments and spins. The mass is correlated in this case with the mass distribution and the changes and the time is important for the motions. The diffrence so between charges and mass seem a key .
                                                                                            The non renormalizability due to these infinite quantities to eliminate even with the non commutativity is a reality , we can take the feynmann diagrams or the lie groups, the non commutativity , the strings, the loop QG ....that does not solve the quantization of the gravitons and the links with the fluctuations of the geometry of the spacetime , so the divergences and infinite quantities are real We see easily that the spin 2 gravitons interact with themselves at the difference of photons spin 1 interacting only with the charged particles and it is there the most important. So the QFT and this self interaction of gravitons is more than challenging, it seem even impossible even at the planck scale or in considering the vaccuum.
                                                                                            What is the operator to the solution of the wave equation to quantized excitations , how this spin 2 and the angular momentun can correspond of the changes of the metric of this said spacetime,. The photons being the quanta of electromagnetic waves and these gravitons being the quantas of gravitational waves is more than problematic considering these gravitons, They could not exist so I repeat due to the high energy energies small scales analyses.

                                                                                            I d be happy if you have ideas to share about this quantum gravitation, best regards

                                                                                              Lorraine Ford in the context of MY model of what individual consciousnesses actually ARE, I think that how consciousness feels, or doesn’t feel, is irrelevant because it is just a basic characteristic of consciousness.

                                                                                              How can this be? It is exactly the interactions or function that is problematic and if you cast away what is basic for consciousness as something irrelevant I dont understand you. To get some kind of fundamental interaction for this 'feeling' or self-knowing is though difficult. As instance we can ask if Schrödingers cat know if it is dead or alive itself before someone measure it. Like I said open systems are maybe a solution?

                                                                                              It does not help much to mathematically add something. So I ask how you mean it?

                                                                                              I have no theory of my own, I try to tweak many theories, but I like the ideas of Penrose and others. We need to fundamentally rewrite what a quantum is, but then this reduced state of today (self-adjoint quantum state) works quite well mathematically, so there are maybe not so much interest?

                                                                                                Steve Dufourny
                                                                                                Steve and Ulla,

                                                                                                Is one’s own arm functional? Uncontroversially, one knows that the answer is “yes”.

                                                                                                Is one’s own leg functional? Uncontroversially, one knows that the answer is “yes”.

                                                                                                Are one’s own ears functional? Uncontroversially, one knows that the answer is “yes”.

                                                                                                Is one’s own individual consciousness functional?

                                                                                                Apart from me, this is seemingly too difficult a question for anyone to definitely say “yes” or “no”!!! Physics and philosophy books must be consulted to find an answer; videos must be viewed to find an answer; but the ONLY thing in life that every person in the world DOES know for sure, i.e. one’s own personal consciousness, apparently no definite use can be found for it !!

                                                                                                Although one’s own personal consciousness is the ONLY thing in the world that one DOES know for sure, why is it that no use can be found for one’s own personal consciousness?

                                                                                                    Lorraine Ford Is one’s own individual consciousness functional?

                                                                                                    This is not the question, you have misunderstood. As so many have asked, where am I, are I the arms, legs or ears? Answer is NO. I am not there, I can replace them with artificial parts even.

                                                                                                    "Is one’s own individual consciousness functional?
                                                                                                    "the ONLY thing in life that every person in the world DOES know for sure, i.e. one’s own personal consciousness," - Nobody disputes this, and it is why we are interested, esp how we feel or experience. What is the function? It is mental, forming a mind Also subconscious, with opinions, maybe even evolution?
                                                                                                    "apparently no definite use can be found" - see above, answer is it is absolutely necessary for how we adapt.

                                                                                                    Usually scientists does not reject consciousness on these grounds, but only because the math is difficult, esp if we start with subconscious aspects and randomness. But today with all these artificial parts of us (AI) the situation is different, more interest now.

                                                                                                        Ulla Mattfolk exactly what you told about the fact to replace them, it is the body mind problem....our consciousness resists such simple classification like the functionality of arms, legs or ears. The paradox is that, unlike our physical body parts, consciousness doesn’t have an easily identifiable or interchangeable "function." Yet, it feels essential, unique, and irreplaceable

                                                                                                        We can even tell that the physicality of legs, arms, ears are in a kind of certainty, the consciousness it is the opposite it is the uncertainty. They are even measurable these legs, arms, ears...., not the consciousness , it is subjective even, we have no concrete clearly defined fucntion for the consciousness. We can even tell that the consciousness is irreplaceable , the legs or arms or others can be replaced due to medecine or technology or implants or others, , the fact that it is subjective is very important for this consciousness.
                                                                                                        The body mind problem is relevant because we cannot affirm that the consciousness is an emergent function of brain processes like tell the materialists , we cannot affirm to know the truth about the origin and mechanism of this consciousness actually, It is different than this intelligence.