• Blog

  • The Multiverse and Existential Scale | Robert Lawrence Kuhn

Georgina Woodward
RE. "meaningless jumble of big words" lorraine Ford
Homeostasis-maintenance of internal conditions to preserve and maintain life functions, or maintain normal nonlife function, if non living.
Google search, AI top result "Homeostasis is the process by which living organisms maintain a stable internal environment to survive and function properly:
Eg. I am here (position in space).I am in a stable stance, I feel I am off balance, I am too hot, I am cold, I am hungry, I have eaten enough, I am thirsty, I am well hydrated, I am tired, I am alert and wide awake, I am fatiged, I am rested, I am in pain , I am injured, I am unwell, All is well.

    Steve Dufourny
    Steve,
    I don't think that consciousness and pan psychism are in any way related according to my definition of consciousness. I do however not discount the possibility that non life of sufficient complexity such as a general artificial inteligence could posess comparable consciousnss. If for example it is attached to sensors giving it some sence of it's environment and internal sensors giving awareness and control of proper functioning of the host machine, so that fuction is maintained.
    The machine and the human body are different and therefore we should not expect machines to have feelings like our own, generated by endocrine system functioning and sensations exacltly as generated by our brains from in put to our human sense organs. Perhaps in recognition of the differences it should be called machine consciousness. In the way we talk of machine intelligence to aknowlege machines work very differetly to human bodies .

      There seems to be an assumption that learned experts, of one sort or another, are required to explain to conscious people what it is like to be conscious.

      The conscious people themselves don’t feel confident to say what it is like to be conscious, and they look to experts, and the experts’ books and videos, to define consciousness for them.

      In particular, the conscious people don’t feel confident to say that their consciousness has a useful function.

      Are there any conscious people out there willing to risk saying that their consciousness is necessary and useful, i.e. that consciousness just might have a very necessary and very useful function in the world?

      No one is willing to risk it. No one is willing to risk saying that consciousness is necessary and useful.

        Ulla Mattfolk
        Ulla,
        life is not just structures of matter, it is energy taking part in many chemical reactions that work together to enable the organism to carry out the activities of living necessary for it'survival and that of it's kind. It is a happening rather than just existence..
        many of the activities of living are to do with getting energy and raw materials from food and oxygen . Getting oxygen, getting food, processing it to rovide raw materials for growth and repair and energy supply.Thereby resisting the second law of thermodynamics.


            Lorraine Ford
            Maintenance of homeostasis is vital for survival. Continual monotoring of the internal environment is used for this and adjustment by behavour ,as well as the automatic adjustments that occur is enabled.
            Gaining knowledge about the external environment through the senses is of vital importance ; for self and ones kind. PREDATORS, RESOURCES, MATES, SHELTER. can all be located using the products of the senses.

              Georgina Woodward
              SPELLING CORRECTION
              I don't really understand what you are saying about time Both animate and inanimate matter exist together. The living thing can prolong it's existence,

                There seems to be an assumption that learned experts, of one sort or another, are required to explain to conscious people what it is like to be conscious.

                The conscious people themselves don’t feel confident to say what it is like to be conscious, and they look to experts, and the experts’ books and videos, to define consciousness for them.

                In particular, the conscious people don’t feel confident to say that their consciousness has a useful function.

                Are there any conscious people out there willing to risk saying that their consciousness is necessary and useful, i.e. that consciousness just might have a very necessary and very useful function in the world?

                No one is willing to risk it. No one is willing to risk saying that consciousness is necessary and useful.

                So, you will never find Georgina, Steve or Ulla saying that consciousness has a very necessary and useful function in the world. Georgina, Steve and Ulla can find no use for consciousness. Georgina, Steve and Ulla seem to think that consciousness is not necessary. IF Georgina, Steve and Ulla found a use for consciousness, then they would probably be able to say what that use is. IF Georgina, Steve and Ulla thought that consciousness had a necessary function in the world, then they would probably be able to say what that function is. So, you will never find Georgina, Steve or Ulla saying that their own personal consciousness is necessary and useful. 🙁 And you will never find Georgina, Steve or Ulla saying that other people's personal consciousnesses are necessary and useful to those people, or saying that other animals' personal consciousnesses are necessary and useful to those animals. 🙁

                  Lorraine Ford
                  Your post shows that you haven't read the responses you have had . To knowledge gained through the senses I ougfht to add other hazzards besixdes predation.

                      Lorraine Ford Hi Lorraine, lol , there is a function evidently , but we have not still reached it. The conscious mind, the subconscious mind, why and how, that is the question. But there is a function and processings indeed. The sensory inputs, the thoughts, the feelings, the informations...are all important to better understand this consciousness and this intelligence is maybe a kind of transcendant consciousness where we can create and extrapolate. The adaptation and survival to our environments so are relevant at my humble opinion. We have like so a main function for this consciousness divided in several functions and complexities when the cognitive paramaters are considered. I consider philosophically a kind of main function where this pantheism, panpsychism and materialism are considered but we have not reached these parameters. But if the informations, cognitions, sensory inputs, memories, adaptations to environments are important for the reflection of senses, thoughts, feelings.....so the fact to take choices due to the cognitions seem essential and so we encode in the memory and learn and it is key because we improve the intelligence with this learning and memory and so we improve the choices even in evolving. That is why the experiences are important and this evolution. That is why the fact to be able to solve problems is also essential for the adaptation and survival and permit to live and adapt in the environments because we have this creativity .That implies now the communications and even social interactions all this . That implies now relevant extrapolations possible when we consider the universal altruism and the 3 main possible roads, panpsychism,pantheism and materialsim because we align to values and goals and intentions in function of feelings. That is why the experiences are an important key at my humble opinion with all the parameters cited above because it implies the ethical comportments even and moralities , it is a hard problem to explain physically and reach due to the parameters missing but we see the generality. We are different from mindless robots......

                          Georgina Woodward
                          Well done! You’ve only made 3 spelling mistakes, this time, in the 2 sentences you wrote.

                          No Georgina, it’s YOU who hasn’t differentiated consciousness from a zombie mathematical system, and a zombie brain and zombie senses, zombie-processing their zombie mathematical equations, leading to zombie mathematical outcomes/ responses.

                          You have merely relabelled parts of this zombie processing as “consciousness” or “knowledge”.

                          You have merely RELABELLED.

                          You HAVEN’T said that consciousness is a separate aspect of the world that has a necessary and useful function in the real-world system.

                            Steve Dufourny
                            Steve, lol.

                            Obviously, the real-world mathematical system is necessary. But I think that you, like Georgina, have merely RELABELLED zombie mathematical processing as “thoughts”, “feelings”, and “consciousness”. So, you can then say that “thoughts”, “feelings”, and “consciousness” are necessary; but what you really mean is that mathematical processing is necessary.

                            If you want to say that consciousness is necessary, then consciousness has to be an entirely SEPARATE part, as well as a necessary part, of a viable mathematical system.

                            I’m saying that consciousness/ knowledge is a separate aspect of the world, and that consciousness/ knowledge is a necessary part of a viable mathematical system.

                                Lorraine Ford lol , yes indeed there are specific mathematical, physical functions, , we have understood what you told about the consciousness, knowledge wich is a necessary part of mathematical system, now you must develop with concrete mathematics and a speific formalism, show me please I am curious, your ideas are interesting but need details I think, regards

                                     We have two processing speeeds -re. Daniel kahnman

                                    They are fast, automatic, unconscious. These are familiar,,repetative, such as motor reflex action that does not even require the brain in some cases.
                                    The other is slow, not automatic but deliberate, conscious The task is unfamiliar, particulrly complex or interesting and fully engages the brain in the thought process.
                                    Slow processing is associated with consciousness ,if it is necessary we do not know though a survival advantage is likely, allowing it to persist across generations.

                                      Georgina Woodward
                                      I mean by my last pagraph, slow processing, and resultant behavioral response to reciept of internal and external sensory information, that is associated with awareness of sensory products, products of hormones acting on the body and awareness of self talk. I am using the term 'consciosness' to refer to all of that. The first part is the process of consciosness. The other part is the experience of consciosness. I am not sure if the 3 kinds of awareness are absolutely necessary for the slow processing and resulting behaviour. Maybe the parts are in nature inseparable.

                                        I think that there are 3 choices for the nature of consciousness, in a mathematical system:

                                        • Relabelling – consciousness is not separate. Consciousness is not separate to the existing zombie mathematical system. So, knowledge, thoughts, and feelings are just a relabelling of small regions of the existing zombie mathematical system.
                                        • Emergence – consciousness is a separate thing that emerges. Consciousness is a separate thing that emerges from the existing zombie mathematical system. I have previously explained why emergence is a failed idea because nothing actually emerges from model mathematical systems.
                                        • Separate part – consciousness is separate. Consciousness is a separate and distinct, but necessary, part of the zombie mathematical system. In which case the “zombie” mathematical system is not actually a zombie mathematical system after all. Knowledge, thoughts, and feelings signify that there exists a separate and distinct, but necessary, consciousness aspect of the world.

                                        What is a mathematical system?

                                        There is an idea that the real-world mathematical system can be described in terms of 3 things: categories (like mass and position), relationships between these categories, and numbers that apply to the categories. This is the zombie mathematical system idea.

                                        But I’m saying that the real-world mathematical system requires at least 4 things to describe it: categories (like mass and position), relationships between these categories, numbers that apply to the categories, AND logical connectives. Consciousness is a logical connective in the mathematical system.

                                          Lorraine Ford
                                          I think where i.e.involving what neural stuctures,,meaning the hardware (wetware) Enabling certain processes and not others is important. A simple ,unconscious, fast ,reflex action may be tuned around at the spine .No need for slower,more complex processing by the brain.Or the lower levels of the brain only may do most of the processing,,eg. cerebellum still relatively fast and unconscious. Or processing that is slow ,deliberate and conscious imay be n eeded, nvolving the most recently evolved brain region that many animal species lack and therefore can't use.

                                              Georgina Woodward
                                              A fast response may help survival and is useful where the problem is simple or familiar. When it is not simple or familiar , the right answer may be more help than a fast incorrect one,.

                                                Steve Dufourny
                                                So Steve,

                                                Re higher-level consciousness:

                                                I think that knowledge/ consciousness has to start somewhere, and it DOESN’T start at the top, with higher-level knowledge/ consciousness.

                                                Higher-level knowledge/ consciousness has to start at the bottom, i.e. it has to be built out of low-level knowledge/ consciousness of the world. Low-level knowledge/ consciousness is the secure foundation out of which higher-level knowledge/ consciousness can be built.

                                                An example of low-level knowledge/ consciousness would be point-of-view, on-the-spot, direct experience of the light wavelength category, and the current number associated with the light wavelength category. Physicists might represent the category and number with special symbols, but low-level knowledge/ consciousness is the direct experience of that reality.

                                                To represent this low-level knowledge/ consciousness/ experience, one has to use logical connective symbols which in effect say that, at this point in time and space, this particular number applying to this particular category is experienced to be TRUE.

                                                And while low-level knowledge/ consciousness is a secure foundation for higher-level knowledge/ consciousness, higher-level knowledge/ consciousness is clearly a bit of a construction, due to many factors including agency/ free will. I think that one should envisage this construction in terms of logical connective symbols, i.e. NOT in terms of the physical matter involved, but in terms of the logical connections involved.

                                                    Lorraine Ford Hi Lorraine, I see. I consider that consciousness and knowledge are related but different concepts, They are not really the same because the knowledge is mainly about information , the skills, the experience, learning,ediucation, adaptation and so it is a kind of ability to comprehend where we apply these informations to solve problems or take decisions. These knowledges can even be ranked in different types.

                                                    On the other side the consciousness is an awareness where we have feelings,thoughts, it is about cognitions , this consciousness too can be ranked and there are different levels. That is linked with the emotions and experiences.
                                                    For the knowledge we collect informations, facts, skills and they are stored and even shared and it seems outside the consciounsess and it is there the big difference because the consiousness seems internal and subjective and is mainly about experiences , feelings, perceptions, thoughts.....

                                                    This knowledge is acquired with the learnings , observations, or this or that but not the consciousness wich is more intrinsic to us , it is continuous even , we dont learn this consciouness . That said this knowledge can shape this consciousness , that is why they are related , because in encodings informations or knowledges, so we can perceive differently but that does not change the consciousness, that change how we utilise it , this consciousness permits so to reflect the knowledge but this onsciousness does not depend of the fact to possess this knowledge. But they interact in being different concepts.

                                                        Steve Dufourny
                                                        Steve well said. I agree that consciousness is inate. Feelings, the effects on us of various hormones produced according to the biological state of the body allow the non verbal body to communicate its wants, needs and satifaction. The brain can communicate with itself either verbally or by sensation simulation,eg. visualisation. Temple Grandin has said that she and autistuic people like her are likely to use visualization instead of self talk, that is also in her opinion how animals think. I can remember, as a child, narrating my intentions , as a rehersal prior to carrying them out .I think I also remember deciding to use self talk rather than visualisation.. Once I could talk efficiently it was quicker and it is less effort that way but remains an option.
                                                        Remember half of the brain ,the right side is non verbal It has to use sensation simulation, or involuntry control of body parts to have its concerns noticed by conscious awareness., though understanding is not guaranteed. I once lost a necklace and couln't understand why my left arm kept reaching for my neck as if feeling for something. Only realizing the meaning later on . Sensations, products of the senses, communicate mostlty about external conditions.

                                                            Georgina Woodward
                                                            Processing involving lots of different brain regions and invovement of the pre-frontal cortex , the part of the brain thast usually 'handles' executive function, is likelty to be slow, careful and conscious. PERCEPTION, greater awareness of associations, ideas and memories that may be particularly relevant to the situation the organiam finds itself to be in

                                                                Hi Steve,

                                                                I don’t think it is useful to split hairs over knowledge and consciousness. Consciousness is such a controversial topic, that to get in the right ballpark is the aim, not to be entirely precise. Get in the right ballpark first, then split hairs.

                                                                I’m saying that the ballpark is that consciousness is a separate, necessary aspect of the real-world system; consciousness (and also creativity) is a logical aspect that is necessary for a viable standalone, self-sufficient, mathematical, real-world system. (And in the context of this thread by Robert Kuhn, I’m saying that consciousness and creativity are the basic aspects whose existence can’t be explained.)

                                                                Without going off on a tangent about physical matter like particles and atoms, one can be precise about low-level consciousness: low-level consciousness IS knowledge. Low-level consciousness is point-of-view on-the-spot knowledge of the low-level world. Low-level consciousness is awareness/ experience of the mathematics of the world, i.e. awareness/ experience of what physicists would represent as categories, relationships and numbers.

                                                                Consciousness (and knowledge) is always based on the world, because the foundation of ALL higher-level consciousness (and knowledge) is the above-described low-level consciousness/ knowledge of the low-level, physics-level, interactions in the senses.

                                                                But the content of higher-level consciousness (and knowledge) is clearly a bit of a concoction (that is why we need science). It is only with higher-level consciousness that one can split hairs about all sorts of things, including distinguishing higher-level knowledge from higher-level consciousness, and distinguishing higher-level consciousness from how higher-level consciousness feels.

                                                                  Lorraine Ford
                                                                  Do you find it offensive?. I don't see how it affects you since you have already said you wont look. How does music you won't listen to harm you ? Petty and officiuous behaviour. I have previosly flagged some of your posts as offensive due to their highlty inapproprate language. I COULD HAVE FLAGGED MANY MORE. At least you are consistent in your disagreeableness, So I'm not suprised.

                                                                    Has everyone forgotten that this thread is supposed to be about the size/ units issue in a multiverse, and about “Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?”.

                                                                    In the context of the subject matter of this thread by Robert Kuhn, I’m saying that consciousness and creativity are the basic aspects of the world whose existence can’t be explained. And I'm saying WHY consciousness is a necessary aspect of the world, but a first-principles aspect of the world that therefore can't be explained.

                                                                    However, I think that Georgina's off-the-cuff, completely thoughtless, badly-spelled, bad grammar and punctuation, continual dribble of semi-comments, in every single thread on this website, should ALL be flagged.

                                                                      Lorraine Ford
                                                                      I don't believe in the multiverse, nor superposition, existential wave function and their suposed collapse. Therefore, to me, the size of the multiverse is a pointless exersize. On the Georege Ellis Existence thread, I have written a solution to the measurement problem.
                                                                      Why quantum physics does not describe actual reallity. 1. The measurement problem (WHAT AND WHY) 2. Vulnerabilitry to illusion 3. No object permanence in the theorty 4.Has interpreted evidence of filled voids hosting their disturbance, (which can be split into particle and wave and wave, the two pieces intrerfering). The alternative can explain all experiments descibed using superposition. The theory representing instead superposition of a particle-wave, represented by wave fuction that has no definite singularstate until obseved, at which time it forms one definite state out of the possibilities, at a definitelocation according to that observer.5. no clear differentiation of material particle inputs and observation product outputs. 6.human vision does not get involved but plays a important role in the production of the seen 'reality'.
                                                                      Entanglement was suggested as an explanation of findings, on the understanding that values
                                                                      of material pop into existence, rather than following a sequence of chage from creation of the particle pair. Being a real occurance relies on the underlying theory being correct. The multiverse was proposed to overcome the issue of the measure ment problem. It is not needed as wave functions are a failed hypotheasis. We should expect different observers to give diferent outcomes as observation products or results as this is what SR WRelativity tells us. Different arrangements of measuring apparatuas too, placed by the experimenter, impose a rererence frame.

                                                                          Hi Steve,

                                                                          Re your "I consider philosophically a kind of main function where this pantheism, panpsychism and materialism are considered ... ":

                                                                          If low-level matter is is some way conscious, then presumably it has to be conscious OF something. What do you think that low-level matter would be conscious of? Or do you think that the consciousness of low-level matter would be devoid of content?

                                                                            Lorraine Ford
                                                                            I have shared some music. With permission of the maker. I have not asked for any financial gain. I am not offering any kind of service. No preetty girls harmed. Anyone can listen for fee at alexparry.bandcamp.com I think it is nice,don''t listen if you don'twant to.

                                                                                Georgina Woodward
                                                                                Georgina,

                                                                                I think that the physics of the world can't make sense without considering the bigger picture real-world system. As I see it, the parts can only make sense in the context of the whole, where the whole is presumably a self-contained, self-sufficient, standalone, system.

                                                                                  Georgina Woodward
                                                                                  Georgina,

                                                                                  Anyone in their right mind would know that this is the fifth ADVERTISMENT you have placed on the FQxI website in the last few days.

                                                                                    Lorraine Ford I don’t think it is useful to split hairs over knowledge and consciousness. Consciousness is such a controversial topic,

                                                                                    This is why we first need to define what we talk about, otherwise we risk to discuss different topics and we only get confused. This is important.

                                                                                    Your definitions are confusing. I saw it in the Landscape discussion/Kuhn too. It does not give much then.

                                                                                    I think the only reasonable definition of some proto-consciousness is from quantum scenarios, but I still have hard to think of it as a reality, in meaning pure ontological states. I have more to learn.
                                                                                    It would make all conscious to some degree (proto-degree). A slime mold would be conscious in the meaning doing choices, selections, have attention.

                                                                                        Lorraine Ford Hi Lorraine, I must say that I have just ideas and extrapolations that I cannot affrim about this origin of the universe and this consciousness also. I have thought a lot about all this , why we exist, how and from what. I doubt that we come from a kind of energy, infinite not conscious. So I consider like many considered a kind of God of Spinoza, so it is a kind of pantheism. They were Numerous to consider this reasoning,there is nothing of odd and that has nothing to do with the human religions. I am not a religious but I believe in a kind of God, here is a list of some thinkers who considered this pantheism. Einstein, Heisenberg, Pascal,schrodinger,Maxwell, Lorentz, Volta, Platon, Edison,Ampere, Copernicus,Newton,Kepler, Bernouilli, Bohr, Gauss,Born, Pasteur, Galilei, Darwin,Cantor , Godel,MacLaurin, Leibnitz, Planck,Edington and so more .
                                                                                        So why if this infinite eternal consciousness exists , why and and how this thing beyond our understanding creates this universe, philosophically maybe it is a project of evolution simply with the matters and the energy and informations , it is the meaning of my theory of spherisation , the evolution of this universal sphere with quantum and cosmological spheres and with the 3 mains systems, the DE, the DM and the photons , they fuse to create the ordinary matter, but I don t affirm of course. So this consciousness intrigues me , is it a kind of primary essence or is it emergent in the brains and others, I tell me that all is conscious at its level and that the complexification is important. Now what is the mechanism if this is ok, I don t know, have we a field, fiels, or a kind of 0d of consiousness and after synchronisations and mehanisms with the matter, I don t know.Have we an emergent consciousness due to the bodies and in our case these brains , maybe , I have studied several models and papers about this consciousness , Hameroff and Penrose and the microtubules and Objective orchestrated reduction, Hoffman, and others, but nobody has reached or proved this consciousness actually, I have a model but it is not proved of course. It is a hard complex problem I must say and we have deep limitations in physics, maths, philosophy. But if this infinite eternal energy of consciousness is a reality and is omnipotent inside and outside the physicality, there are several interesting roads to extrapolate, regards

                                                                                            Ulla Mattfolk
                                                                                            Ulla,
                                                                                            I have repeatedly, endlessly, described/ defined/ talked about what I mean by low-level and high-level consciousness, and low-level matter, and the mathematical aspects of the real-world system, etc.
                                                                                            I have asked you several times, but you, a conscious person, have not been able to describe what you mean by the word "consciousness", or what use your consciousness is to you.

                                                                                                Steve Dufourny
                                                                                                Steve,

                                                                                                One of the issues that this thread is supposed to be about is “Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?”.

                                                                                                I’m saying that consciousness and creativity are the basic aspects of the world whose existence can’t be explained. The existence of (what we would symbolically represent as) categories, equations and numbers can't be explained: this is the creativity of the universe. Because, not just the existence of the law-of-nature equations/ relationships that we know about, the existence of any equations/ relationships at all can't be explained.

                                                                                                And the assignments of (what we would represent as) numbers to (what we would represent as) categories (like mass or position) can't be explained. This also is creativity/ free will.

                                                                                                But, if low-level matter (e.g. particles, atoms or molecules) is in some way conscious, then presumably it has to be conscious OF something. What do you think that low-level matter would be conscious of? Or do you think that the consciousness of low-level matter would be devoid of content? Will you risk making a guess?

                                                                                                    Georgina Woodward
                                                                                                    I've found out with a quick Google search; The pre-frontal cortex is a mammalian thing. Most developed in the human, small in the cetations, who use two alternative regions having a quite diffferent brain structure. Birds have a different structure that perfoms the same sort of functions as the pre -frontal cortex. Other vertebrates not already mentioned use other structures more dis-similar in function to the pre-frontal cortex.
                                                                                                    From this we can implty that not only are the animals different in lifestylte and environment, providing the inputs. Their subjective consciousnes is also different because of the different processing that occurs.