They don’t have the slightest idea of what they are talking about. From a scientific point of view, there is nothing to explain, everything is already explained the moment you say that consciousness is a product of the brain. All the rest is scientific details that have nothing to do with philosophy. It is like explaining how it is possible that our body moves. Once you understood that your muscles make the movement, all other thousands of books are just details that add nothing to the basic idea that you already have.
So, there is a basic first mistake in all these discussions: pretending that we don’t know the basics of the scientific point of view.
The other mistake is that whatever science explains is the shareable aspect. Science is completely unable to deal with things that are impossible to share. Consciousness is a word that works tremendously well to create this ambiguity. It can be even referred to plants, the moment we see that plants are able to react to something. So, consciousness is a tremendously good topic, because of its greatly confused ambiguity, to create endless and sterile discussions.
The most essential aspect of consciousness, if we really want to avoid ambiguity and confusion, is the one that is impossible to talk about: it is your own experience about yourself, your perceptions, your emotions, whatever you perceive inside you. The moment we talk about it, we aren’t talking anymore about it, because we have immediately automatically selected, isolated, those aspects that we can talk about, leaving apart what is impossible to communicate, that is, the real experience of consciousness.
Of course, I know that this applies now to me as well: what am I talking about? I am talking about what I can’t describe by words, because I cannot make you enter inside myself, inside my way of perceiving myself, my feelings. Do you feel that such an incommunicable experience happens to you? Well, that is consciousness. If you don’t realize anything incommunicable inside the experience of yourself, then you will never be able to understand anything about consciousness: in this case, what you will talk and think about will always be what is expressible by words, not the real experience of consciousness.

I think the Penrose-Hameroff Orch-Or theory as initially proposed was regarded as implausible because the brain is too hot and wet for molecular superpositions exceeding more than a dozen or so atoms, even in microtubules. But recent research into interactions between light and molecules suggests that a coherent energy field can be generated between them, perhaps spanning macroscopic distances somehow. I think Hameroff is in full support of the photonics research and intends to integrate that info into his quantum consciousness theorizing once we have solid experimental evidence. I speculated on the role that light fields might have as a binding mechanism for percepts in a couple papers I've published. I used this site for editing and to solicit critiques, so you can find these papers in near final form as the multipost OPs of my threads: A Physical Explanation for Consciousness and A Physical Explanation for Consciousness, the Reality Possibly.

I doubt quantum processes are fundamentally nondeterministic, but this is no barrier to the claim that some degree of real as opposed to illusory volition exists, as I describe in the OP of my thread: A Materialist Proof of Free Will Based on Fundamental Physics of the Brain.

I wrote a long paper that I hope to publish soon which goes into way more depth about fundamental physics of the brain and posted it to this site, but that got deleted. Not a good venue for making a post that long, but this preliminary stuff should give you a good idea of where the science of consciousness is headed post-initial Orch-Or.

@Angelo Cannata has a point that consciousness is to a certain extent subjective and modeling the phenomenon with words or images doesn't do justice to the vivid immediacy. But I think models of psychology and brain function can enhance subjective self-awareness if properly comprehended and assimilated into one's philosophical perspective. I don't think subjectivity is so much a barrier to understanding the mind objectively as the expectation that you lie about consciousness, and these taboos related to describing qualitative experience must be dismantled gradually so upheaval in the stigmas of culture do not throw society into turmoil. This issue is the "hard problem of consciousness" as I understand it: how do we make it possible to seek and find the truth in this matter, wherever you are coming from as a human being?

The topic is fascinating and I hope we will one day be capable of understanding consciousness materially, from the subatomic to macroscopic to "nonlocal" levels, allowing researchers to come up with medical cures and sociocultural palliatives for stigma that help all kinds of individuals and demographics.

models of psychology and brain function can enhance subjective self-awareness — Enrique

We shouldn’t confuse enhanced perception with the basic phenomenon of subjectivity.
Of course perception can be enhanced by knowledge. For example, if I get the knowledge that certain feeling unwell is caused by chemicals present in the air, I learn to mentally connect these things, I can learn the smell of that polluted air, learn how its presence slowly acts in my feeling, so, I get a completely different interpretation of what initially was just a generic and confused feeling unwell. The same way people can educate their taste, becoming able to recognize shades in the taste of a special wine, or harmonies and styles in music. But all of this doesn’t touch in the least the fact that, whatever my interpretation of my feelings is, it remains unique and impossible to express even to myself: even the memory that I can have of my past feelings will never be able to give me again the experience that is definitely lost in the past. It is a question about being internal: I am internal to myself and I cannot absolutely make anyone else internal to me; I am internal to my present and I cannot absolutely make myself internal again to a moment of mine of the past, even of just one second ago; each part of the space is internal to itself and it cannot be repeated by any other part of the space, for a simple reason: because it is not the same part, it is another one. Two atoms are not the same atom. Two moments are not and will never be able to be the same moment. The hidden ambition of science of consciousness is to defeat the problem of non repeatability. Science is based of repeatability. What cannot be repeated cannot be scientific. Consciousness is feeling the non repeatable. When we make a photo, we have some hidden ambition to make that moment repeatable, but we have to realize that the photo witnesses the opposite: that moment is definitely lost. It is the same dismay we feel when somebody we knew very well dies: how is it possible that the experience of the presence and life of that person is definitely cancelled, definitely lost in the past? So, I would even say that all this science about consciousness and magic quantum physics hides inside it the ancient human desire to defeat death without our own existential involvement.

A consequence of what I said is that it is impossible not only to understand how it is being like a bat, but actually it is impossible to me to understand how it is being like me. The moment I realize something, I am already referring to something belonging to the past. Knowledge of the present is impossible: if I think of the present, what I am thinking is a thinkable aspect of the experience, the experience that I needed to abandon, for a moment, to be able to think of the thinkable part of it. This means that the moment I think of consciousness, I am not experiencing it anymore, because my attention is taken by expressing it to myself. If I stop expressing it to myself, then I am experiencing consciousness. We can combine in our present, probably, thinking and experiencing, but, anyway, what we are thinking can never coincide with what we are experiencing; it is always just a copy of some thinkable part of it.

We can combine in our present, probably, thinking and experiencing, but, anyway, what we are thinking can never coincide with what we are experiencing; it is always just a copy of some thinkable part of it. — Angelo Cannata

That might be true from a certain perspective perhaps. The idea that we can fully assimilate "consciousness" into objective knowledge may be an ideal strictly within the scope of a specific mechanistic framework, to be contextualized and not essentialized. Neither you nor I want materialist fundamentalism, but relativism can be fundamentalist also as can any point of view. The fundamentalist undercurrent in all kinds of mainstream educating, propagandizing, communicating is a major factor in hostilities surrounding science and religion. But in my opinion "fundamentalism" shouldn't be wantonly used as an epithet against those willing to commit strongly to a cause either. It all really depends on how people are educated: if we get society's members to think for themselves with some strategic guidance, contextualization necessarily follows, furthering objectivity while preserving subjectivity. Then both of our perspectives on consciousness have a grain of truth within their respective domains, and we can reach agreement where necessary. This is about the opposite of most cultural approaches lol

I think promoting the sanctity of subjectivity has legitimacy as a value judgement to the extent that this doesn't discourage human beings from coming together and reaching novel consensus. Balance has to be reached between personal and civic commitment, a compromise that respects subjective experience while not detracting from the possibility of objectivity. Rational individualism: enlightenment.

Complicated stuff. Penrose's recent discussion with Jordan Peterson is one of my next things to watch.



Have you read Penrose's Cycles of Time? I really struggled with it.

Have you read Penrose's Cycles of Time? I really struggled with it. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Penrose's books are difficult and I don't venture into them much. He's such a math whiz and you always have to do logic gymnastics. I'm more of a spatial thinker than an abstract logic puzzle guy, so not my aptitude. I'm sure Cycles of Time was intellectually brutal lol

Ah so it's not just me! It was like I was reading a book in another language :lol:

I've still got to read Hoffman's The Case Against Reality. I think you said it was so-so?

I've still got to read Hoffman's The Case Against Reality. I think you said it was so-so? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Been recently getting into a bunch of physics history. Wasn't me that said it! Haven't read that book.

Balance has to be reached between personal and civic commitment, a compromise that respects subjective experience while not detracting from the possibility of objectivity. — Enrique

I agree that we cannot get rid of categories and ideas based on objectivity. It is just impossible. The problem is how to make a fruitful relation between these things. I don’t think a good solution is some sort of half subjectivity/half objectivity, like saying that a lot of things are subjective, but a lot are objective as well. This would sound to me like just giving up in finding a real relation between the two things.
I would express the situation in these terms: we see that we exist in a world of subjectivity, but we cannot even think of it without using objective categories and reference points. I think that what makes them really connected is the context of ideas of human experience: we realize that we are subjects who, for some mysterious reason, perceive in their existence a lot of inexorable things that look nothing but undeniable objectivity. It is an existential condition.
I think this is different both from saying that everything is subjective and from saying that objectivity exists for sure. I think that this kind of existentialism is a ground different from both things. In existentialism, subjectivity is not like a soap bubble where we are imprisoned; rather, it is the source of art, expressivity, creativity, perception of freedom. Objectivity is not the level of certainty, reality out there, values valid for everybody and everywhere; rather, it is the human experience of being subject to things that we are unable to master, like death, competition between subjects, materiality, things that actually can be turned into positive experiences if we have some patience to work on them and harmonize them with subjectivity.
In this context, scientific research on consciousness can be helpful if it recognizes its limits. There is no point in establishing in advance what science is unable to reach, but also there is no point in thinking that science, sooner or later, has the potentiality to master absolutely everything. This claim would mean exactly forgetting the existential perspective I suggested.

There is no point in establishing in advance what science is unable to reach, but also there is no point in thinking that science, sooner or later, has the potentiality to master absolutely everything. This claim would mean exactly forgetting the existential perspective I suggested. — Angelo Cannata

Sides of the same coin perhaps: when the objectivist hat is on, rational individualist, when the subjectivist hat is on, existentialist. I think we brought perfect harmony to the cosmos haha

Thanks to everyone who has responded so far. I have enjoyed reading them very much.
I will follow all the links offered by @Enrique

I was familiar with the tiling problem described by Roger and his point that consciousness was not a phenomenon that had a purely computational or algorithmic description/solution.
I don't think electronic computing, based purely on von Neumann architecture, will ever create an AI system, which can pass the Turing test. But I think qubit systems (which can employ entanglement) combined with future advances in biological computing might.
Rogers comparison between the incompatibility of classical physics at the macro size and quantum physics at the sub-atomic and our current inability to explain consciousness as a serial/parallel set of processes sets the scene nicely for me.
I think it is likely that phenomena we are aware of in quantum mechanics such as entanglement, superposition, quantum tunneling etc must be part of the 'mechanisms'/processes involved in consciousness.
Stuart's expertise in anesthetics and the processes of switching consciousness off (at least from the standpoint of 'awareness of time passing' and the ability to be aware enough to memorialise/experience events) is a good in-road to understanding the processes involved.
If we can understand exactly what we are switching off then we should be able to progress in understanding consciousness more. I found Stuart's comment that all creatures from insects to humans and bigger require the same relative amount of anesthesia to render them unconscious a quite astonishing finding.
His comment that entanglement is the most likely candidate for the cumulative effect of firing neurons which 'work in parallel' to produce a 'thought,' was also compelling for me.

I wrote a long paper that I hope to publish soon which goes into way more depth about fundamental physics of the brain — Enrique

Fantastic!

but this preliminary stuff should give you a good idea of where the science of consciousness is headed post-initial Orch-Or. — Enrique

When both Penrose and Hameroff chose terms like 'ORCHestrate' and 'like an orchestra tuning up' and 'musical composition/arrangement,' I was immediately reminded of string theory. I wonder if interdimensional vibrating strings could be the fundamental at work within microtubules and dendrites?

The most essential aspect of consciousness, if we really want to avoid ambiguity and confusion, is the one that is impossible to talk about: it is your own experience about yourself, your perceptions, your emotions, whatever you perceive inside you. The moment we talk about it, we aren’t talking anymore about it, because we have immediately automatically selected, isolated, those aspects that we can talk about, leaving apart what is impossible to communicate, that is, the real experience of consciousness — Angelo Cannata

It's interesting that I find the above description akin to the 'measurement problem,' described in quantum physics.

The topic is fascinating and I hope we will one day be capable of understanding consciousness materially, from the subatomic to macroscopic to "nonlocal" levels, allowing researchers to come up with medical cures and sociocultural palliatives for stigma that help all kinds of individuals and demographics. — Enrique

I second this position strongly. I think it's very life-affirming and a celebration of humanism for humans to think about such issues. For me, it shows how insipid viewpoints such as antinatalism are.

Complicated stuff. Penrose's recent discussion with Jordan Peterson is one of my next things to watch. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I cited it and linked to it in my thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12828/the-penrose-bounce

Definitely worth watching! I personally think Jordan was a little out of his depth but I think he got a lot from the exchange.

Been recently getting into a bunch of physics history. Wasn't me that said it! Haven't read that book. — Enrique

Consciousness is something I need to read up on. I am more inclined to the view that consciousness isn't anything special (a la Dennett). Any book recommendations?

I cited it and linked to it in my thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12828/the-penrose-bounce

Definitely worth watching! I personally think Jordan was a little out of his depth but I think he got a lot from the exchange. — universeness

See, I said recent discussion, but I'm well late to the party.

Jordan Peterson gets so much respect that I thought I was missing something, and pushed myself to watch more of his stuff. Still not impressed by him, especially his poetic religious beliefs and right-wing unpleasantness.

Desperate times call for desperate measures!

Microtubules & consciousness! Wild would be an understatement. Clearly, we're in a dark room, blind, wearing shades and looking for a black cat which isn't there.

Still not impressed by him, especially his poetic religious beliefs and right-wing unpleasantness. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I was recently reading reports on his stay in a Russian institute to help him with his 'obfuscated' substance addiction and the, imo, suspicious motivations/actions of his daughter.
There definitely is some brand building going on for financial gain but putting all of that 'true intentions' stuff to one side and Jordan's religious and right-wing tendencies. As a left-wing socialist, atheist, I find him a very intelligent and interesting individual.

Have you watched:


Demis Hassabis and deep mind are doing some fascinating work on AI.
The alpha-fold2 system for protein folding is incredible. He states that before alpha-fold, an entire PHD could be spent on producing an accurate prediction on how a single amino acid genetic sequence forms a 3D ball structure (protein).
Proteins are of course very important in brain function so must be part of any final description of human consciousness.

Desperate times call for desperate measures!

Microtubules & consciousness! Wild would be an understatement. Clearly, we're in a dark room, blind, wearing shades and looking for a black cat which isn't there. — Agent Smith

Oh my, did you hear of a desperate person who wanted to say we revolved around the sun? I mean, its plainly obvious by looking in the sky that it revolves around us. The need to escape God's glory, and our singular importance as human beings in this world is a mental illness for sure!

I think you get the point. The inquisitive and curious mind does not mock attempts at discovery, but always gives it a chance.

Thanks for sharing man. I will watch this sometime in the future and may spiral back for some dicussion. Peace.

Oh my, did you hear of a desperate person who wanted to say we revolved around the sun? I mean, its plainly obvious by looking in the sky that it revolves around us. The need to escape God's glory, and our singular importance as human beings in this world is a mental illness for sure!

I think you get the point. The inquisitive and curious mind does not mock attempts at discovery, but always gives it a chance. — Philosophim

My bad, I dunno what came over me!

I have great respect for Roger Penrose and I'm sure his bad ideas are better than my good ones. Yet, his microtuble theory gives me the impression of a man fast running outta options.

When both Penrose and Hameroff chose terms like 'ORCHestrate' and 'like an orchestra tuning up' and 'musical composition/arrangement,' I was immediately reminded of string theory. I wonder if interdimensional vibrating strings could be the fundamental at work within microtubules and dendrites? — universeness

String theory is an interesting framework that could find applications someday, but I don't consider it to have much realism so its explanatory power might be limited. If the electrical properties of neurons can be explained in terms of vibrating strings I would be surprised, but what's impossible when it comes to the unknowns of physics? As for electromagnetism, I subscribe to the "electron sea" model. What we rudimentarily call electrons are complex density contours induced by nuclear etc. force that shift around at relativistic speeds as coherent states, roughly analogous to a body of water in the case of solutions, an elastic, multimolecular crystal in the case of solids, etc. Coherence is not in my opinion a fundamentally electromagnetic phenomenon: electric field condensation is induced by nuclei acting on the comparatively nonlocal substrate to produce loci of highest density we know as atoms, which interact at the speed of magnetism and light, but parts of the field not knotted up by nuclei can perturb and transmit energy at much faster rates. All of this still needs to be verified by experiment of course. I think technologies that transcend the speed limits of conventional matter could be possible, and we might get our Star Trek future eventually.

Consciousness is something I need to read up on. I am more inclined to the view that consciousness isn't anything special (a la Dennett). Any book recommendations? — Down The Rabbit Hole

My favorite consciousness theorist is Johnjoe McFadden. I'd recommend his book Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology as a good introduction to the topic. He doesn't go into consciousness with much depth in that book, but it's what started me thinking about the nature of ion channels and signal transmission in neurons as a possibly quantum phenomenon. His website has a lot of very accessible information about CEMI (conscious electromagnetic information) theory and additional science. I think he's got volition figured out and I've referenced his ideas in all my consciousness papers.

I suspect that percepts as light/molecular interactions within cells are possessed by all organic life in some form, but the human capacity for reason is certainly extraordinary, though computers might surpass and displace us someday if we don't adequately regulate artificial intelligence technology, the usual scifi discontents.

As for electromagnetism, I subscribe to the "electron sea" model. What we rudimentarily call electrons are complex density contours induced by nuclear etc. force that shift around at relativistic speeds as coherent states, roughly analogous to a body of water in the case of solutions, an elastic, multimolecular crystal in the case of solids, etc. Coherence is not in my opinion a fundamentally electromagnetic phenomenon: electric field condensation is induced by nuclei acting on the comparatively nonlocal substrate to produce loci of highest density we know as atoms, which interact at the speed of magnetism and light, but parts of the field not knotted up by nuclei can perturb and transmit energy at much faster rates. — Enrique

Is this not related to quantum field theory?
Btw you did not answer me about the Demis Hassabis interview I posted above?
Have you watched it? I would be interested in your response to it. No pressure!

Is this not related to quantum field theory? — universeness

Like quantum field theory except the field is not fundamentally quantum as conventionally conceived but has properties such as entanglement which transcend electromagnetism and the speed of light. I may get around to watching the video, have to do some jumping jacks and planks first.

I respect Penrose a lot. But in this case, I think he is looking for and working on a quite "exotic" explanation and description of consciousness, by creating "a new kind of science" as he says. Of course, since conventional Science has failed in that sector, even if most of the scientists believe and claim otherwise.

"The Penrose-Hameroff theory of quantum consciousness argues that microtubules are structured in a fractal pattern which would enable quantum processes to occur." (https://theconversation.com/can-consciousness-be-explained-by-quantum-physics-my-research-takes-us-a-step-closer-to-finding-out-164582).
Really, "What?"

I have watched part of the video, most of the Penrose talk. I have come to read quite a few of such "exotic" stuff. They are desperate attempts to answer the "hard problem of consciousness", which is and will always be an open problem for science. Why? Because all scientific theories and attempts like the present one, try to tackle the problem on a physical level and more specifically the brain. They talk about conscious and unconscious states of a person, and here is where the anesthesiologist Mr Hameroff come in the scene. As if consciousness were a black or white case or a case with a lot of shades of grey! Of course, perception --which is a central element in consciousness-- needs the brain to work. Only that the brain is a medium, a machine, a communication means for the individual to perceive his environment. But he can also be aware of other things that are not in his environment --thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc. These are rarely talked about.

Well, this is the only way that Science can work. Only that all efforts are in vain. Because consciousness is a subject out of the jurisdiction of Science!

Have you ever hear any of these scientists talking about awareness of awareness, i.e. a person being aware of being aware? A person examining his thoughts? Quantum physics theorists of consciousness, like Penrose, say that from the moment one examines his thoughts they change, which is similar of what is happening with particles in a quantum context. It may be true, there may exist a similarity between the two, but this is specific feature, characteristic. Yet, they try to build scientific models of consciousness based on that kind of stuff.

Listening to Mr Penrose, I hoped that he would give some tangible examples of how his theory-system of consciousness works. Well, he didn't. As no one else who has a scientific theory or explanation does. It's all theory. Not a single example. No application in everyday life. Isn't that strange? :chin:

Listening to Mr Penrose, I hoped that he would give some tangible examples of how his theory-system of consciousness works. Well, he didn't. As no one else who has a scientific theory or explanation does. It's all theory. Not a single example. No application in everyday life. — Alkis Piskas

That's because theory wasn't developed enough to construct a viable experiment. But we're getting to the point where the material basis of consciousness is a robustly empirical issue, even merely in terms of electromagnetism.

The microtubule theory as originally proposed is flawed simply because atoms don't superposition much except when in extremely low entropy states such as temperatures near absolute zero, and even then microscopically. But a light field may superposition with atoms in a biologically functional way at macroscopic scales, which may be part of an explanation for the entirety of consciousness, not just as it relates to electrical transmission within the brain. The microtubule theory might even have some validity once dynamics of EM radiation are included in the picture. Coming up with a model of nonlocality in terms of matter will be key, and I think quantum physics is the conduit to that model, though as you say the road is littered with flawed attempts.

The Great Courses' Mind-Body Philosophy is great. They got Patrick Grim to do it. His "Mind and Consciousness: Five Questions," which has work from Chalmers, Dennett, Putnam, L.R. Baker, Hofstadter, and others could be a nice supplement.

The courses are significantly cheaper through Amazon/Audible than on the Great Courses site BTW.

I think the Penrose-Hameroff Orch-Or theory as initially proposed was regarded as implausible because the brain is too hot and wet for molecular superpositions exceeding more than a dozen or so atoms, even in microtubules.

Indeed, but it has since turned out quantum phenomena do indeed happen in biological systems and that life takes advantage of these phenomena. I think this is a hold over from the old Copenhagen days, where it was hoped that a neat dividing line could be set up between quantum and classical scales. Quantum weirdness could be safely spirited away from most of the problems in science.

This has turned out to be a false hope. Quantum phenomena appear to occur in noisy systems all the time, it's just harder to measure them and figure out how they work.

:lol: You sound much healthier than me!

This has turned out to be a false hope. Quantum phenomena appear to occur in noisy systems all the time, it's just harder to measure them and figure out how they work. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In enzyme active sites, photosynthetic reaction centers, etc., but this is all nanoscale to the extent that it solely involves atoms. EM radiation interacting with atoms boosts superposition to the macroscopic scale, as a field that binds atoms via a range of near-instantaneous spectral dynamics. Photonics could turn out to be a major ingredient of the empirical basis for panprotopsychism as THE correct philosophy of consciousness.