Consciousness seems process of evolution that can adapt all kind of forms, like example. My computer is conscious, least it can read code, and perform actions that it is given. So it aint totally random either, also we can use artificial intelligence to produce human-like robots/scripts, that use AI-learning and can develop.

If we knew how to model DNA, brain and human organs, definitely we could replicate them. Like there has been built human ear/lung and other parts off genetic manipulation. When we understand the structure of brain better, we can perhaps even create consciousness. As those other working human parts have showed us what is possible.

It seems very likely that consciousness is actual simulation that we live in. As a "brain in a vat" conditions, where Brain,DNA, brain cells, and atoms control us mind and consciousness.

Stuart Hameroff holds that the brain is a type of quantum computer, therefore his theory contradicts Penrose's theory that consciousness isn't a type of computation (measurement).

http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute

An extract from the above article which I think summarises the Penrose Hameroff collaboration well.
As I understand it the effect of quantum coherence ( see below) is not the same as computability.

"Penrose’s theory promises a deeper level of explanation. He starts with the premise that consciousness is not computational, and it’s beyond anything that neuroscience, biology, or physics can now explain. “We need a major revolution in our understanding of the physical world in order to accommodate consciousness,” Penrose told me in a recent interview. “The most likely place, if we’re not going to go outside physics altogether, is in this big unknown—namely, making sense of quantum mechanics.” He draws on the basic properties of quantum computing, in which bits (qubits) of information can be in multiple states—for instance, in the “on” or “off” position—at the same time. These quantum states exist simultaneously—the “superposition”—before coalescing into a single, almost instantaneous, calculation. Quantum coherence occurs when a huge number of things—say, a whole system of electrons—act together in one quantum state."

He draws on the basic properties of quantum computing, in which bits (qubits) of information can be in multiple states—for instance, in the “on” or “off” position—at the same time. These quantum states exist simultaneously—the “superposition”—before coalescing into a single, almost instantaneous, calculation. Quantum coherence occurs when a huge number of things—say, a whole system of electrons—act together in one quantum state." — Edmund

What does it mean for a quantum state to be both on and off as opposed to saying it is neither on or off? On and off could just be different views/measurements of this state. On and off could be the property of consciousness in how it perceives/views this state, not necessarily a property of the quantum state when not observed.

I agree with him that consciousness is non-computable. Certainly any process in the brain could be considered a candidate for the mediator of consciousness but I am not personally convinced of the view that it must take place on the Quantum level. Penrose is a highly educated man in the area of physics so I would maybe not like to personally argue with him on this point.

I'm not a physicist, but I do believe most other consciousness conspirators call the quantum level explanation as either an equalizers trick based on: quantum mechanics is not comprehensible and consciousness is not comprehensible, so therefore they must have the same source (Damasio), or simply a that consciousness is "fairy dust" (Dennett, I think). Information systems level theorist, neurotheorists, cognitive and meta cognitive theorists, which are the most plentiful, all have in common the rejection of the explanation of consciousness lying at the level of quantum mechanics. This comes from the assumption that representation of information is processed in ensembles of neural patterns. The reason they assume this, is because it's a premise to believe this in order to study how neural activity grossly progresses, and if you're a cognitivist then the premise is the same, as well as that explanatory power comes from connecting different functional capacities, disregarding exactly the physical implementation of it. But the cognitivist does acknowledge the neuron as then smallest information processing unit, just that it's an irrelevant level when it comes to how the brain manages to represent different images, as it can do so in many different ways.

I'd say the main thing that makes me indifferent about Stuart and Hameroff is the lack of predictive studies of different sorts. It's mostly a proposition, and doesn't really contribute that much to empirical study of consciousness. Guilo Tononi's framework is mathematically formulated based on phenomenological considerations, but allows for an ocean of empirical studies to test it. And concurrent with neuropsychological and medical research, physiological markers as e.g. captures by EEG, really brings home predictions of when and how conscious a person is (from coma to depe sleep to wakefulness). The question now is more like, how can the (systems models) predict exactly which qualities of consciousness an organism is having.

Seems like a non-starter until someone comes up with a coherent definition of Consciousness...

Step 1: Am I aware?

Awareness(Sentience): (of) environment,(of) corporeal body, (of) Mind
- What separates environment from the corporeal body ?
- What separates the corporeal body from the mind ?
- Are the above distinctions valid ?
- Are any of the above boundaries complete (perceived autonomy) ?

Step 2: Now that I think I am aware...what can I do with it?

Agency(choice/action): (Do I) Process,(Do I) Decide,(Do I) Act
- Can I think about what I am aware of ?
- Can I think about how I feel about what I am aware of ?
- If I "chose" to do something, why did I choose it ?
- When exerting my will(saying "hello") without being perceivably restrained, does "hello" come out of my mouth?

If you, or anyone can complete steps 1&2 while maintaining some level of cogence and present it to me, I would be happy to engage further...

Scemo Villaggio
(first forum comment)
7-27-2020

Seems like a non-starter until someone comes up with a coherent definition of Consciousness.. — Scemo Villaggio

What does it mean to define something? You can define "abstraction", because abstraction is a concept (I hesitate to say an abstract concept). You cannot really "define" a horse. A horse is what it is. You can "describe" a horse. In the same sense, I think you can "describe" consciousness, but you are not in a position to "define" it.....

Would the word "unpack" be a better word for you to avoid this mental block? You see, if you want to be picky, asking for a definition is a common tactic used for two reasons: understanding(obviously, or so I thought) and additionally, in the hopes of discovering that my definition is somehow falsifiable on its face.

So let me know how you would like to "describe" consciousness, and please attempt to restrain picking apart irrelevant parts of my arguments for the sake of flexing muscles or feeling me out( don't know, don't care).

Every definition I can find for consciousness is referring to self. This is to say "internal" awareness. Computability is the ability to process information from an 'external' source. Even with AI, adding sensors only expands external sources. Unless you can develop a program that creates it's own data, then it cannot have an internal subject of reference. And even if you could write such a program, it would have to create it's own algorithms designed to produce 'awareness'.
A reasoned argument does not rely on names or definitions unless you contradict the meaning as it is used. 'Horse' is a name provided for reference so it can be can be used to communicate to others. The definition can be altered by anyone. But if you are going to define everything yourself, you will not be able to communicate and therefore you'll provide no information to anyone and thus you can't answer any questions.

I would like to see whether we all agree on to what objects we consider conscious.(here "is conscious" is a true or false variable instead of consciousness.)

Here is a hopefully controversial list :

• a human
• a dog
• a bee
• a unicellular organism
• a tree
• a forest (as one living unit )
• a beehive ( as one living unit )
• Earth's ecosystem ( as one living unit containing plants and animals and environmental activities )
• a city
• humanity ( as one abstract living unit containing human created knowledge and art )

Comments:

1. The "is conscious" term is applied onto the set of objects. So we would have to first agree on that set. I think the fact that trees appear seperated is not a reason to not consider a forest an object (for example there is evidence that trees far apart can communicate through underground pathways.. so there is evidence that trees are physically connected). The same applies for the ecosystem, the city, the beehive and even for everything because atoms as is commonly known are seperated. So hopefully I made my point here that visual compactness is not a good measure for "objectness".

2. Maybe before defining the "is conscious" term on the above list, we should first define the "is living" term. Do you think that "is living" and "is conscious" are the same or different? ( of course everything being conscious is also a living object, so the opposite is of interest)

3.My personal position (in order to touch the actual post made by Edmund in the beginning) is that consciousness arose as a survival mechanism. So, I see consciousness as a biological concept and I am not so open to accept that it goes as far as quantum phenomena. I think that consciousness is as shallow as the combination of our senses, our recognition of importance to that data (creation of meaning) and then memory. All these create the sensation of one connected self that changes or not through time.

4.Maybe quantum phenomena are related to the question of free will. Do you think free will and consciousness are seperated ?

I feel Penrose is way wide of the mark. He cannot even show that consciousness is emergent, Basically he seems to be involved in a last ditch attempt to save materialism. Having said this, he is braver than most on this topic, and he does somewhere speculate that consciousness is at least as basic as energy. .

My view would be that consciousness cannot be understood except by studying it, and this is not what Penrose does. He just thinks about it. . . .

consciousness cannot be understood except by studying it, and this is not what Penrose does. He just thinks about it. . . . — FrancisRay

Can't do one without the other. To study the unknown, some bounds and rules, definitions for discourse, must be hypothesized first then see how it goes. Usually it won't.

If Penrose thinks consciousness is emergent from the physical that isn't saying much. Even if quantum mechanisms and logic are invoked. It's only a fancier version of older suggestions. But he wants say it now to be ahead of the wave, just in case it turns out to be correct.