Penrose always says the Universe is not conscious, but that proto-consciousness is a fundamental property of it. Now I'm a bit confused.
1. What is proto-consciousness?
2. How is proto-consciousness differentiated from matter?
3. What is the difference between consciousness and proto-consciousness? — Eugen

Apparently, Penrose is merely postulating that primitive neural nets were not conscious, but evolved toward the kind of awareness that humans experience*1. Unfortunately, that kind of definition does not answer questions 2 & 3.

In place of that short-sighted theory, I have developed my own notion of the origin of consciousness. I won't go into the details here, but basically I view human-style Consciousness as an evolutionary development from fundamental Information*2. Some physicists & information theorists have concluded that Generic Information is the fundamental element of reality ; both Mind & Matter*3.

Based on that understanding of creative evolving Information, I postulate that everything in the universe is a form of Information, but the scientific & philosophical kind of information is a recent development from a non-conscious (Big Bang) origin. That pre-BB beginning was essentially Mathematical ratios, but not yet Mental meanings. If you are interested, I can provide my Information-centric answers to your questions. :smile:

*1. What is proto consciousness? :
Protoconsciousness theory posits “A primordial state of brain organization that is a building block for consciousness” (Hobson 2009)
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-07296-8_27

*2. Information is :
*** Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
*** For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
*** When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html


*3. Forget Space-Time: Information May Create the Cosmos :
What are the basic building blocks of the cosmos? Atoms, particles, mass energy? Quantum mechanics, forces, fields? Space and time — space-time? Tiny strings with many dimensions?
A new candidate is "information," which some scientists claim is the foundation of reality. The late distinguished physicist John Archibald Wheeler characterized the idea as "It from bit" — "it" referring to all the stuff of the universe and "bit" meaning information.
https://www.space.com/29477-did-information-create-the-cosmos.html

I am familiar with your view, and I don't make sense of it. But thanks anyway!

Penrose always says the Universe is not conscious, but that proto-consciousness is a fundamental property of it. Now I'm a bit confused. — Eugen

I'm just providing a bit more detail from ChatGPT to provide some background:

Roger Penrose, a theoretical physicist and mathematician, has proposed the idea of "proto-consciousness" as a potential explanation for how consciousness arises in the brain.

According to Penrose, proto-consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe that exists independently of the brain. It is a non-computable aspect of the universe that has the potential to influence brain function and give rise to conscious experience.

In Penrose's view, proto-consciousness is a property of the universe that is related to the collapse of the quantum wave function, which is the process by which a quantum system goes from a superposition of states to a definite state when it is observed or measured. Penrose has proposed that the collapse of the wave function is not a purely random process but is influenced by proto-consciousness, which he believes is a fundamental property of the universe.

According to Penrose, proto-consciousness interacts with the brain in a way that enables conscious experience to arise. He suggests that the brain acts as a kind of "receiver" for proto-consciousness, which influences neural activity and gives rise to conscious experience.

It is important to note that the idea of proto-consciousness is still a highly speculative hypothesis and has not been widely accepted within the scientific community. It is an area of ongoing research and debate, and further study is needed to fully understand the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world. — ChatGPT

You can also find an interview with Sir Roger Penrose in which he explains this here.

My view is, based on the interview, that Penrose is saying something very close to: 'Hey, consciousness is a real mystery. And so is the collapse of the probability wave. Maybe they're related!' :razz:

Please sign ChatGPT on as an honorary member of the forum. :cool:

1. From what I understand from this interview, Penrose says consciousness is part of the fundamental reality, but it is not the only fundamental part. ''Consciousness itself is a feature of that physics we need for other reasons". Maybe I'm wrong?

2. I still don't understand what proto-consciousness is in his view. How does he differentiate it from normal consciousness? How does he differentiate it from matter?

They're deep questions, and Penrose is an exceptionally deep thinker. I bought his book The Emperor's New Mind years ago, and it was way over my head. (I notice that he says in this interview that the book actually failed, which is kind of a relief!) I've also seen his collaborator, Stuart Hameroff, present at a conference - you can find his interview here (LINK CORRECTED) - and couldn't make a lot of sense out of what he said, either. I'll leave it for others to comment further.

So is that what Penrose says, or what other people say Penrose says? Chat GPT doesn't understand the difference. Chat GPT doesn't understand truth. Using it as an authority is problematic.

It's a bullshit generator.

It's like a Wikipedia entry. (Besides the video link was to Penrose himself, explaining it in his own words.) If you want to read what he says, get Emperor's New Mind. If I can find my copy, I'll mail it to you, I couldn't make head or tail.

I have my own copy, which is quite ancient and well-thumbed. I would not trust ChatGPT's tl;dr of it.

That is, mine is a methodological criticism. ChatGPT is not an authority, because it has been shown to generate bullshit.

Of course it's not a f*ing authority. What it is, is a little more detail than a one-sentence question, for the benefit of others, who are quite welcome to do their own research and make their own contributions. :angry:

What it is, is a little more detail... — Wayfarer

...which is generated without regard for telling the truth.

Of course it's not a f*ing authority. — Wayfarer

Then don't use it as if it where.

The idea that everything that it generates is bullshit is also bullshit. It is a convenient information source for summaries and sketches and I will continue to use it as I see fit, end of argument.

Far be it for me to take issue with a Nobel physicist's pseudo-philosophical confusions (e.g. Roger Penrose's X-of-the-gaps) but ...

1. What is proto-consciousness? — Eugen

A vague placeholder for a conceptual placeholder for a feature of our folk psychology (i.e. subjective intuition).

2. How is proto-consciousness differentiated from matter?

The latter corresponds to bodies and the former corresponds to the (vaguest) idea of bodies.

3. What is the difference between consciousness and proto-consciousness?

The latter is a vague (aka "proto") placeholder for the former conceptual placeholder.

Yeah, I'm pushing sheep shit up hill with a rake. The inappropriate use of this toy will soon be ubiquitous. This will end badly. I'm somewhat surprised to see you, who has such a strong preference for intentional attitudes, so quickly adopting a method that bypasses the most important attitude.

Of course not all of it is bullshit. But some of it is. And it, and the reader, cannot tell which is which. Hence it is not an authoritative source.

The latter is a vague (aka "proto") placeholder for the former conceptual placeholder. — 180 Proof

:up:

Of course not all of it is bullshit. But some of it is. And it, and the reader, cannot tell which is which. Hence it is not an authoritative source. — Banno

You know, I could quite easily have included that entire passage without any attribution whatever. I included the attribution for transparency. I suppose I could have read a bunch more material by and about Penrose so as to write a couple of hundred words of original text, but there are only so many hours in a day. And as I said, it does provide at least some elaboration of what Penrose means by proto-consciousness (which incidentally I am highly dubious of, as it happens.)

Well let us see a little of what Penrose has to say:
“But there is one thing that I do believe in relation to this problem [of consciousness], and that is that it is a scientific question that eventually should become answerable, no matter how far from being about to answer it we may be at present.” — Roger Penrose
“The question is significantly raised, of course, as to whether a paramecium — or, indeed, an individual human liver cell — might actually possess some rudimentary form of consciousness [].” Roger Penrose
“If we are to believe that neurons are the only things that control the sophisticated actions of animals, then the humble paramecium presents us with a profound problem.”
So what is the nature of that problem? Penrose continues:
“For she [a paramecium] swims about her pod with her numerous tiny hairlike legs — the cilia — darting in the direction of bacterial food which she senses using a variety of mechanisms, or retreating at the prospect of danger, ready to swim off in another direction. She can also negotiate obstructions by swimming around them. Moreover, she can apparently even learn from her past experiences [].”
Finally:
“How is all this achieved by an animal without a single neuron or synapse? Indeed, being but a single cell, and not being a neuron herself, she has no place to accommodate such accessories.”
“such (putative) non-computational processes [i.e., in the brain and which Penrose believes are vital for both consciousness and what he calls “understanding”] would also have to be inherent in the action of inanimate matter, since living human brains are ultimately composed of the same material, satisfying the same physical laws, as are the inanimate objects of the universe”.
Penrose also tells us that he doesn’t “perceive any necessity that such a device [one that instantiates or merely simulates consciousness] be biological in nature”. He goes on:
“I perceive no essential dividing line between biology and physics (or between biology, chemistry, and physics).”
Nevertheless [] the behaviour pattern of an ant is enormously complex and subtle. Need we believe that their wonderfully effective control systems are unaided by whatever principle it is that give us our own qualities of understanding?”

How does this differ from some forms of panpsychism? In particular panexperientialism?
I think the use of the term consciousness is confusing and there is no uniform usage or definition.
It does seem like awareness of the enviroment and adpatable response is fairly widespread (perhaps ubiquitous) in nature and so as not to confuse these forms of experience or mind with human like self awareness and reflection perhaps some other term like mind, experience or awareness is appropriate.

How does this differ from some forms of panpsychism? In particular panexperientialism? — prothero

Hey great to hear from you Prothero. He does seem to be reaching for a kind of pan-psychist solution. (Incidentally, where did those passages come from?)

I perceive no essential dividing line between biology and physics (or between biology, chemistry, and physics)....such (putative) non-computational processes would also have to be inherent in the action of inanimate matter, since living human brains are ultimately composed of the same material, satisfying the same physical laws, as are the inanimate objects of the universe”. — Roger Penrose

And this I profoundly differ with. I'm more inclined to accept the basically Aristotelian distinction between the living and non-living, and also between the sentient and non-sentient (e.g. animal and vegetative) and rational and non-rational (human and animal). These signify fundamental differences as far as I'm concerned. Trying to attribute consciousness to matter or work out how it is that matter can be or become conscious seems mistaken to me. And the idea that everything is composed of a single substance is lumpen materialism (which I don't think Penrose actually advocates.)

I'll try and say what I feel is mistaken with Penrose's efforts in this regard. To me, he seems to be attempting to arrive at an objective account of the nature of consciousness (or mind). Whereas the way I see it, is that the mind (or consciousness or awareness) are not known to us as an object of experience (in the way that all material objects are, being spatially located and sense-able). Of course, I can infer all kinds of things about the nature of mind or consciousness through objective analysis within the scope of cognitive science, but what consciousness is, its essential nature, as the ground or basis of experience, is another matter. It seems to me that Step 1 in the investigation is acknowledging that limitation, which is a problem in principle, not simply a matter of acquiring more data.

Everyone on this forum is a bullshit generator. At least chatGPT is comprehensible bullshit written in clear measured prose

I don't know what the difference could be between proto-consciousness and consciousness. There's no conceptual space in between consciousness and non-consciousness for it to exist in.

Everyone on this forum is a bullshit generator. At least chatGPT is comprehensible bullshit written in clear measured prose — bert1

Perhaps we are all bullshit generators, certain slant of light winter afternoons. But maybe it's bad to be too comprehensible. Shouldn't interpretation be frustrating at times ? I mean we should expect that to be the case. Of course sometimes what we are interpreting isn't worth the strain in retrospect (or we just lose patience and shit-talk the grapes.)

Perhaps we are all bullshit generators... — green flag

Perhaps. :sweat:

That we are... literally! :lol:

I don't know what the difference could be between proto-consciousness and consciousness. There's no conceptual space in between consciousness and non-consciousness for it to exist in. — bert1

Then why don't they just call it consciousness?

And this I profoundly differ with. I'm more inclined to accept the basically Aristotelian distinction between the living and non-living, and also between the sentient and non-sentient (e.g. animal and vegetative) and rational and non-rational (human and animal). These signify fundamental differences as far as I'm concerned. Trying to attribute consciousness to matter or work out how it is that matter can be or become conscious seems mistaken to me. And the idea that everything is composed of a single substance is lumpen materialism (which I don't think Penrose actually advocates.) — Wayfarer

As is usual in these types of discussions we would be starting from very different ontologic assumptions. I think the distinction between living and non living is somewhat artificial and any sharp line drawn can be shown to be arbitrary in nature. I also think the way people bandy the term “consciousness” about leads to considerable confusion since they do not agree on a definition or common usage. How can we discuss what “entities” might be “conscious” if we do not agree on a meaning for the term? If we do not know what “counsciousness” is how can we discuss proto-consciousness? Human consciousness is associated with human brains. What term should we use for the seeming mind or intelligence (experience or awareness if you prefer) of an ant colony or a bee hive? Since “consciousness” for most people means that self aware internal dialogue we as humans experience is it really the appropriate term for other types of experience and awareness of other creatures, systems and organizations?

I ascribe to a form of panpsychism which still strikes many as nonsense despite the increase in popularity and consideration of the term and idea among many philosophers of late. Of course the experience of a jellyfish is nothing like the consciousness of a human, but is it a difference in ontologic kind or just a difference in degree and form?

I am also a monist although a discussion of the nature of “matter” or “substance” would be in order since I would object to being categorized as a “lumpen materialist” since I am more of a process philosophy advocate.

I think even most human experience (the taking in of information from the environment, the filtering, organization and presentation of such data) to the human mind does not rise to the level of conscious awareness i.e. most human mental activity is not “conscious” in the sense lay people understand and use the term.

Perhaps — 180 Proof

I like to think that I care about truth, but in the light of the theory of evolution, I speculate (fear? pretend to fear?) that I might only tolerate truth or wave its flag to the degree that it helps my genes leap to next stone.

That we are... literally! — Eugen

These chat bots might be telling us things about ourselves that we don't want to hear. At the moment, I think the real thing is superior in terms of quality over quantity, but we are at the beginning of something revolutionary. Evolution had millions of years with the brain. Humans have only been at it for a few decades, and we are just recently getting serious about it.

I'll try and say what I feel is mistaken with Penrose's efforts in this regard. To me, he seems to be attempting to arrive at an objective account of the nature of consciousness (or mind). Whereas the way I see it, is that the mind (or consciousness or awareness) are not known to us as an object of experience (in the way that all material objects are, being spatially located and sense-able). Of course, I can infer all kinds of things about the nature of mind or consciousness through objective analysis within the scope of cognitive science, but what consciousness is, its essential nature, as the ground or basis of experience, is another matter. It seems to me that Step 1 in the investigation is acknowledging that limitation, which is a problem in principle, not simply a matter of acquiring more data. — Wayfarer

Here again, at a fundamental level I would take issue with your distinction between mind and matter. As Whitehead would say “the jellyfish advances and withdraws” likewise the electron is attracted and repulsed. There is (in my worldview)” no such thing as inert, independent matter with inherent properties. There are no quantum particles with inherent values. Instead there are quantum events occurring in space time with some measurable relationships. The reductionist and empirical approach of science gives a partial view of nature. There are much deeper and hidden connections between processes and events which are somewhat beyond our understanding (quantum entanglement is a good example).

There are always physical correlates to experience but measurement or observation of the physical correlate alone does not give you a complete picture of nature. Activity in certain areas of the human brain is associated with certain mental experiences (emotions, hunger, anger, etc.) but that observation or empirical measurement is not the totality of the “event” or experience. In my view that is true of all empirical reductionist approaches to nature although what is left out of the description in physics is much less than what is left out in biology.

When people have such profound differences in their ontologic worldview it is hard to see how they will ever come to agreement about more derivative matters. So such discussions may allow them to understand each other's point of view but not to agree. It is like two different cultures with two different worldviews colliding. The best we can do is better understand each other. Since so much of these discussions is speculation the best that can be hoped for is to be exposed to some new ideas to consider or new approaches to explore. These are not arguments to be won or minds (no pun intended) to be changed.

Strange. I don't see @I like sushi contributing to this thread.

Then why don't they just call it consciousness? — Eugen

I'm not sure. Maybe they want to avoid potential accusations of anthrpomorphization. They perhaps want to avoid being accused of saying that atoms fondly remember days of their youth in stars and regret they are now stuck in some cold asteroid a zillion miles from anywhere interesting. So instead of this kind of conscious experience we as humans are familiar with, they give the experiences of atoms, whatever they might be, a different name to distance them from us. I don't know. I haven't read much by people who are specifically pan-proto-psychists.