I knew your contribution would be an interesting one in this particular area. I enjoyed reading it.
If you get a chance you should watch the Demis Hassabis interview I posted above.
You might find some of the AI future projections interesting.

we're getting to the point where the material basis of consciousness is a robustly empirical issue, even merely in terms of electromagnetism. — Enrique

That wo\uld be just great. But you see, you said it yourself: the material basis of consciousness. I mentioned that in connection with physical perception and the anesthesiologist. This is a very limited view of consciousness. Anyway, it would be great to create a workable scientific model of even that ...
BTW, why do you use the first plural? Are you participating in the project?

The microtubule theory as originally proposed is flawed simply because atoms ... — Enrique

Hold on, hold on! I said that I'm no good in Physics! :grin:

Ha! Didn't expect that coming! :smile: Thanks. I hope you mean it! (re: my contribution etc.) :smile:

I will certainly watch the interview you posted. But it will be for tomorrow ...

BTW, why do you use the first plural? Are you participating in the project? — Alkis Piskas

Humanity is the ideal we from my point of view, but yes, I have published some papers on consciousness.

I am surprised at your surprise. Because we have clashed on occasion does not mean I don't value your opinions. Our viewpoints often differ but if I did not pay attention to viewpoints that differed from mine then I would rarely progress in my own learning.
You have not given any indication that you are ossified in your viewpoints like many do indicate imo.
I know you have a lot of interest in the area of consciousness so I very much value your input.

Maybe. I recall and experiment a few years back where entire photosynthetic bacteria were said to be entangled with one another.

This shouldn't be shocking. It would be shocking if life didn't involve and take advantage of quantum behavior, given that life is made up of quantum scale objects. The fact that any theory of "quantum behavior in living systems," was initially written off simply showcases how people's philosophical/ontological commitments cause them to ignore the data sitting in front of their faces. The hard dividing line between classical and quantum worlds never made any sense to begin with.

That said, I have no idea how quantum behavior in brains is supposed to solve the hard problem or act as some sort of explanatory panacea. It seems to me like identifying more quantum behavior within our bodies will just make explanations of biology even more complicated and harder to parse. There is definitely a "God of the gaps" narrative surrounding QM vis-a-vis the hard problem and I think that is also a misunderstanding of what it means for quantum behavior to be involved in the brain.

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. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thanks. I've been meaning to watch some more of Sean Carroll's Mindscape to get a handle on the subject.

Entanglement in photosynthetic reaction centers has been around a while. Based on neural anatomy, signal transmission in neurons seems likely to be currents of electromagnetic coherence, so a quantum scaled phenomenon is in effect throughout the brain. These currents of electron density along with EM field perturbations probably integrate via phase locking and feedback loops to produce the macroscopic impetus of consciousness insofar as it arises from the brain. EM radiation generated by these coherence currents then might superposition with molecular structures to produce fields of vibrational feel and imagery as additive wavelength. This in addition to more nonlocal forces that transcend electromagnetism etc. hehe, parts of the field not fixed with relationship to atoms. All of this has to be better verified by experiment of course. So cool I'm wearing myself out writing about it and getting sick of it lol

The problem with Penrose's hypothesis is that microtubles aren't restricted to brains, the purported thinking organ. It's a step backwards in that sense - he's chosen a cellular structure that's ubiquitous and for that simple reason he wouldn't be able to home in on a particular organ as the seat of consciousness.

I think you managed to communicate about what consciousness means, in a very broad way. And then there are all sorts of discussions, yes, at an abstract level, dealing with qualia, even specific qualia.

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 — Angelo Cannata

But we know how muscles contract and extend. We can explain the movement of bodies. We don't know why we experience things. Saying that it comes from brains, but isn't associated with anything else implies we know what leads to consciousness and so we can rule out that, for example, plants experience. But we can't, because we don't know what leads to consciousness. We know one place where it is, but until we know why it is there, we can't rule out other places.

It is a complete nonsense that science is doing all over the world, for the following reasons: a full and complete definition or concept of consciousness does not exist. This means that all scientific researchers all over the world don't know what they are looking for; whenever they think they have found something, it is impossible to know what it has to do with consciousness, because when they say "consciousness" they don't know what they are talking about. If they build some definition of consciousness and they find something related to it, it will still be impossible to know if that conscious being is really experiencing consciousness, because you cannot enter inside other beings and see how they experience their own consciousness.
So, scientists have no idea of
- what they are looking for
- what has to be considered evidence of what they are looking for
- how to get evidence that what they found works as what they are looking for and is what they are looking for.

Nonetheless they are spending so much time and energies and conferences on it!

a full and complete definition or concept of consciousness does not exist. — Angelo Cannata

Why do you feel qualified to make such a statement, other than here is my opinion based on nothing but my own conjecture?

It is a complete nonsense that science is doing all over the world, — Angelo Cannata

What do you mean? Why make such sweeping generalisations that convince no one of anything?

because when they say "consciousness" they don't know what they are talking about. — Angelo Cannata

and you seriously think you do? What is your suggestion? Is it don't ask any questions about consciousness because humans are unable to ever find out what is it and why it is?
I could never be that defeatist. I think I will continue to value the work being done by Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, Steve Pinker, Demis Hassabis, et al, on human consciousness, over the defeatist musings of Angelo Cannata. With all due respect of course.

a full and complete definition or concept of consciousness does not exist.
— Angelo Cannata

Why do you feel qualified to make such a statement, — universeness

The question is very simple:
1) either such a definition does not exist
2) or it does not exist.

If 1) then I am right, if 2) then I would like to know it.

I will continue to value the work being done by Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, Steve Pinker, Demis Hassabis — universeness

Science is not made by respect or value. It doesn't matter how famous or respectable these people are. Science is made by experimental evidence, clarity, strict definitions.

I could never be that defeatist — universeness

As I said, we are talking about science. In science there is not defeatist or non defeatist, optimism or non optimism. Science is made by scientific procedures, hypotheses that must be clear, experiments, repeatability.

What is clear in research on consciousness?

Ok, I recommend you go with 2. but I assume you meant to type
2) or IT DOES exist.

Keep watching the offerings from the people I mentioned earlier as well as continuing with your own personal musings and gathering any actual evidence that backs up your position and then you might get more support for your position.

Science is not made by respect or value. It doesn't matter how famous or respectable these people are. Science is made by experimental evidence, clarity, strict definitions. — Angelo Cannata

I said nothing about any fame or respect associated with the people I mentioned. I refer to their expertise in the area. If you have equivalent expertise or some other reason others should value your opinions highly then do tell us why?

As I said, we are talking about science. In science there is not defeatist or non defeatist, optimism or non optimism. Science is made by scientific procedures, hypotheses that must be clear, experiments, repeatability.

What is clear in research on consciousness? — Angelo Cannata

I agree that the scientific method does not employ emotion but scientists are human and do employ emotion just like you and I do. Your position is defeatist in my opinion. I did not try to conflate your defeatism with the scientific method. I see no relevance to your point.
In the video both Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff mentioned experiments that are in the pipeline which may provide some of the empirical evidence you are asking for. There is also the evidence that photosynthesis most likely employs quantum entanglement and there is also evidence such as:
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/birds-direction-quantum-mechanics-compass-physics#:~:text=Birds%20could%20get%20their%20sense%20of%20direction%20from,by%20their%20innate%20sense%20of%20north%20and%20south.
Birds may get their sense of direction from quantum physics.
examples of how quantum physics is employed by everyday processes may be anecdotal evidence that there is a very good chance that quantum physics is also employed in human consciousness but I agree with you that much more evidence is required. It is defeatist and a unqualified sweeping generalisation to simply handwave away all the efforts currently being made by Roger Penrose and many others based on the musings of Angelo Cannata. I am sure, if you thought about it you would come to the same conclusion.

I refer to their expertise in the area. If you have equivalent expertise or some other reason others should value your opinions highly then do tell us why? — universeness

It looks like you aren’t even so much interested in understanding the problems contained in the topic: for you what is enough is that they have expertise. As a consequence, what they say must be necessary correct, it must be solid.
What’s the point of making discussions here if experts have to be just honoured because of their expertise, and we have to ignore purposedly our perplexity? Isn’t this just the situation of the Emperor’s New Clothes story?

I'm back, with a little more knowledge on the human intelligence existing in our world! And I'm talking of course about Demis Hassabis. What an amazing guy! I take my hat off! And I feel envious of him -- something quite rare for me-- mainly because we share the same passion about programming. So thanks for bringing him up. But better, we must bringing him in TPF! :grin:

As for the video, I watched about 10 minutes in total, and the whole part referring to consciousness. Yet, I got almost nothing from there, except that he too rejects Penrose's "quantum" brain, since, as he said, there has not been any evidence about anything of a quantum nature in the brain. This was of course a more pragmatic rejection than my talking about and "exotic" therory. But see, I am not a scientist or well informed like Hassabis to use more solid arguments ... In this area, mine are mostly intuitional.

I might come back to the video some time to watch more ...

... does not mean I don't value your opinions. — universeness

Thanks again. I didn't think of that. It is was rather a reaction that my views and positions on mind and consciousness are shared by really very few in here.

if I did not pay attention to viewpoints that differed from mine then I would rarely progress in my own learning — universeness

I fully agree. I have told myself a similar thing a few times in here and elsewhere.

You have not given any indication that you are ossified in your viewpoints like many do indicate imo. — universeness

"Ossified in something" ... I got linguistically richer by one expression todαy. Thanks! :grin:

I know you have a lot of interest in the area of consciousness so I very much value your input. — universeness

Indeed. Mainly the mind, and by extension consciousness.
BTW, my preferred term is "awareness". It is more specific and has a more restricted meaning and application than "consiousness", which can refer to various things --both physical and non-physical-- and in genera it is quite misused and "damaged" term not only in everyday life but by the scientific community and even in philosophy, i.e. places like this one.

:up:

What’s the point of making discussions here if experts have to be just honoured because of their expertise, and we have to ignore purposedly our perplexity? Isn’t this just the situation of the Emperor’s New Clothes story? — Angelo Cannata

I have no problem with you airing your viewpoints. My problem is when you handwave away expertise in favour of your own musings using sweeping generalisation. Provide your own empirical evidence before you just keep complaining about the lack of it from those actively involved in researching the area.
Armchair philosophy will not get us very far, entertaining yes, even mildly interesting but nothing more than that.

Yet, I got almost nothing from there, except that he too rejects Penrose's "quantum" brain, since, as he said, there has not been any evidence about anything of a quantum nature in the brain. — Alkis Piskas

Yep, I thought you might appreciate his position. He is as you say a fascinating scientist.
I think his 'Deep Mind' group are leading edge and they seem to have a lot going on in the AI area.
Near the end of the interview, he talks about being able to fully simulate a human cell within the next few years. I don't think he dismisses the work of Penrose and Hameroff, I think he just remains unconvinced of some of the premises behind the work. You should definitely watch the whole interview if you find the time.

BTW, my preferred term is "awareness". — Alkis Piskas

:up: We all have our preferred terms.
Is your 'overall' view of the source of human 'awareness' akin to dualism?

You confirmed what I said: if those who talk are expert people, you are not interested in considering their flaws: it is like you think “They are experts! They must be right! We don’t need evidence!“, and, on the other side, “Angelo Cannata is not an expert, so, it is good to ask for empirical evidence!”.
The funny thing is that these “experts” are not expected to give evidence of something that can be easily verified (which is a clear definition of consciousness), while at the same time you ask me to give evidence of its non existence! So, you put the burden of proof on those who deny the existence of something that is supposed to be easily verified.
According to this criterion, if somebody says that Santa Claus exists, the burden of proof is on those who question its existence!
So, those who say that the Emperor is naked are to be considered “armchair philosophy”, by principle, whithout any need to check, and viceversa.

You confirmed what I said: if those who talk are expert people, you are not interested in considering their flaws: it is like you think “They are experts! They must be right! We don’t need evidence!“, and, on the other side, “Angelo Cannata is not an expert, so, it is good to ask for empirical evidence!”. — Angelo Cannata

Well perhaps I confirmed to you what you need to be confirmed in accordance with your own musings.
I require empirical evidence before I move an idea from idea to hypothesis to theory to fact, no matter who posits it. 'They are experts, they must be right,' is merely your incorrect projection of what I typed as you are trying to defend a very weak position. You handwave away the work of Penrose and Hameroff. That is very unwise in my opinion and you do it based on your own armchair philosophy, again unwise. You should stop doing that, perhaps if you do, this emperor you keep seeing will get its clothes back.
Scientists want to find as much empirical evidence for their posits as they can. They relish the challenge. They do not find that requirement a burden. It's only theists, theosophists and the like that worry about the burden of proofs when they get challenged by non-believers.
Scientists are quite happy when they get proved wrong because it means progress for all.

So, those who say that the Emperor is naked are to be considered “armchair philosophy”, by principle, whithout any need to check, and viceversa. — Angelo Cannata

So go ahead and cite all the sources you have to back up your position and I am sure you will get supportive and dissenting feedback. Do more than type merely your own musings from your armchair.

Here is another offering from Stuart Hameroff with much more detail on the Orch OR Model:



What I like most about this presentation is that Hameroff takes on the papers published so far, which speak against their Orch OR model and he defends the model against these papers.

Yes, I should watch more of the video, esp. about the end of it, which you suggest. But I would prefer having the interview in written form. I would also prefer hearing/reading interviews about each of the subjects of this comprehensive interview, separately. See, by talking a little about everythingin interviews like these, you actually learn nothing (as in the case of consciousness at ~0:32:00 that I mentioned). So I will try to find written material elsewhere ... But thanks again for bringing up this subject.

I don't like to put terms, concepts, thoughts, views, etc. into frameworks like -isms. They always limit the extent of their meaning and application. Moreover, they adulterate their essence or nature by introducing to them foreign elements that these -isms contain. And even worse, they make them ambiguous because these -isms usually come in "brands", variations. Just check how many variations and definitions the term "dualism" has!

So, when I use such terms, I prefer describing them as separate, independent entities, and stating what exactly they mean to me and what exactly I mean by them. For example,

Awareness is an ability and a state. It is the result of perception. It is shaped by perception. In a way, it is perception itself. And by perception I mean whatever I notice, comes to my attention or I observe through my senses (external environment) or stemmed from inside me (thoughts, feelings, etc.)

Awareness is the most simple thing that exists. It’s the basic thing one does: being aware of his environment as well as being aware of oneself, one's thoughts, feelings, etc. The highest form of awareness is "being aware of being aware", an attribute and ability exclusive to humans. It does not exist in any other form of life.

Now, if you mean to ask whether I see the mind and body as separate things (re: dualism), yes I do. But I would like to address the matter in a different more general way: that we consist of two separate parts -- physical and non-physical. Calling this "dualisim" adds nothing but complexity, ambiguity and even confusion. Even just talking about "two parts" of a human being is quite unnecessary. I one defines/explains clearly one's terms, thoughts, views etc. and uses characteritic examples of their existence and/or application in life, one does not need to categorize them, closing them into boxes. They must be free to flow everywhere and permeate everything. They thus become something more than knowledge. They become experience. I don't just know what awareness is. I have the experience of it. I can experience it. This is very basic to my reality of the world.

But thanks again for bringing up this subject. — Alkis Piskas

:up:

The highest form of awareness is "being aware of being aware", — Alkis Piskas

Can that not go on forever? Are you aware that you're aware that you're aware?

It does not exist in any other form of life. — Alkis Piskas

How do know that for sure?

I see the mind and body as separate things (re: dualism), yes I do. — Alkis Piskas

Does any aspect of the mind exist in the body? Is all of what you refer to as mind non-physical? Does any aspect of what you refer to as mind reside/exist in the body in your opinion?

They must be free to flow everywhere and permeate everything. — Alkis Piskas

Do you mean that what you are referring to as 'mind' can travel? or are you suggesting there is an aspect of mind which is omnipresent?