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. — bert1

Yes, I think that is precisely correct. They use different terms to avoid precisely that confusion and if reading the various posts about consciousness is any indication it is a confusion worth trying to avoid.
I did enjoy your example about atoms, stars and asteroids.

So you're saying Penrose is actually referring to phenomenal consciousness but he calls it proto-consciousness just because most of people conflate consciousness with self-awareness?

I always appreciate your contribution, and I'm interested in improving my understanding of Whitehead and process philosophy, although you're right in saying that we come at these questions from highly divergent perspectives and it's a difficult division to navigate. I've been reading a book on philosophy of physics, Nature Loves to Hide, Shimon Malin, which incorporates many of Whitehead's ideas. Still working through it.

↪prothero So you're saying Penrose is actually referring to phenomenal consciousness but he calls it proto-consciousness just because most of people conflate consciousness with self-awareness? — Eugen

Well, yes, people use different terms to try to avoid the confusion which goes with using "consciousness". I am not sure what you mean by the term "phenomenal consciousness" just as you would not be sure what I mean by panexperientialism or prehension. The general idea is that some form of mind or experience is widespread (if not ubiquitous) in nature and that human consciousness is just one of many forms of mind or experience in nature. As I alluded to before the human brain takes in much more experience of the world than we are "conscious" of.

I would agree with you if it weren't for...well...Chalmers. He's got a paper on proto-consciousness and for him it is non-experiencial, it's not consciousness, but it's not matter either. Because of that, I can't be sure Penrose isn't on the same track.

↪prothero I would agree with you if it weren't for...well...Chalmers. He's got a paper on proto-consciousness and for him it is non-experiencial, it's not consciousness, but it's not matter either. Because of that, I can't be sure Penrose isn't on the same track. — Eugen

A semantic difference in the use of the term experience. Many types of systems take in information about the environment and respond to it. You can call that proto consciousness if you wish but others are calling it awareness or experience.

If you are truly interested try searching for non conscious experience, or Whitehead on “feeling” or “prehension”. Different authors use the terms differently and we all have our favorites but in order to discuss these issues we have to have some common concepts to work with.

Whitehead on Feelings – The Pinocchio Theory

(PDF) From Panexperientialism to Conscious Experience: The Continuum of Experience

↪prothero I always appreciate your contribution, and I'm interested in improving my understanding of Whitehead and process philosophy, although you're right in saying that we come at these questions from highly divergent perspectives and it's a difficult division to navigate. I've been reading a book on philosophy of physics, Nature Loves to Hide, Shimon Malin, which incorporates many of Whitehead's ideas. Still working through it. — Wayfarer

Whitehead is fundamentally a monist although the fundamental unit of nature is an "event" or "occasion" these events have aspects which are temporal, physical and "experiential". What is meant by "experience" here is not the standard implication of the word and whitehead uses "feeling" or "prehension" interchangeably with this conception of non conscious experience. Part of nature is always hidden from empirical measurement and external observation or reductionism.
You fundamentally implied you are not a monist?
You also implied you limit any type of mental aspect to living forms?
So the gap between us is wide but not too wide for dialogue.

I am not implying anything, I just asked things about a guy's use of a word. I have no idea about Whitehead, what's a non conscious experience or how does he gets from "events" to qualia. It doesn't make much sense to me to be honest. That's not related to the topic anyway and I am not against monism either. I am open to adopt any theory that makes logical sense.

The post was not a response to you. Panpsychism in its various forms is pretty directly related to Penrose and his notions of proto consciousness, it just different uses of language.

ps://bigthink.com/mind-brain/the-universe-may-be-conscious-prominent-scientists-state/#:~:text=Penrose%20doesn't%20go%20so,that%20gave%20rise%20to%20it.%E2%80%9D[/url]

https://medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/is-physicist-roger-penrose-a-tacit-panpsychist-5591b4a65fc5

You fundamentally implied you are not a monist?
You also implied you limit any type of mental aspect to living forms? — prothero

I'd best not get into that here, it's completely different from whatever it is that Roger Penrose is describing. But I do agree that his 'proto-consciousness' seems pretty close to panpsychism, and also that it might be compatible with process philosophy.

I'd best not get into that here, it's completely different from whatever it is that Roger Penrose is describing. But I do agree that his 'proto-consciousness' seems pretty close to panpsychism, and also that it might be compatible with process philosophy. — Wayfarer

ok, I will tell you a search for Penrose and monism or Penrose and panpsychism makes for some interesting and relevant reading on the topic.

I like that Penrose is a kind of mathematical Platonist. One of his other Closer to Truth interviews is on that topic. In fact overall I really like Penrose, but there's a lot of what he says that I just can't understand.

BTW the abstract from Penrose and Hameroff paper
Conscious Events as Orchestrated Space Time Selections
What is consciousness? Some philosophers have contended that 'qualia', or an experiential medium from which consciousness is derived, exists as a fundamental component of reality. Whitehead, for example, described the universe as being comprised of 'occasions of experience'. To examine this possibility scientifically, the very nature of physical reality must be re-examined. We must come to terms with the physics of space-time - as is described by Einstein's general theory of relativity - and its relation to the fundamental theory of matter - as described by quantum theory. This leads us to employ a new physics of objective reduction: 'OR' which appeals to a form of 'quantum gravity' to provide a useful description of fundamental processes at the quantum/classical borderline (Penrose, 1994; 1996). Within the OR scheme, we consider that consciousness occurs if an appropriately organized system is able to develop and maintain quantum coherent superposition until a specific 'objective' criterion (a threshold related to quantum gravity) is reached; the coherent system then self-reduces (objective reduction: OR). We contend that this type of objective self-collapse introduces non-computability, an essential feature of consciousness. OR is taken as an instantaneous event - the climax of a self-organizing process in fundamental space-time - and a candidate for a conscious Whitehead-like 'occasion' of experience. How could an OR process occur in the brain, be coupled to neural activities, and account for other features of consciousness? We nominate an OR process with the requisite characteristics to be occurring in cytoskeletal microtubules within the brain's neurons (Penrose and Hameroff, 1995; Hameroff and Penrose, 1995; 1996). In this model, quantum-superposed states develop in microtubule subunit proteins ('tubulins'), remain coherent, and recruit more superposed tubulins until a mass-time-energy threshold (related to quantum gravity) is reached. At that stage, self-collapse, or objective reduction (OR) abruptly occurs. We equate the pre-reduction, coherent superposition ('quantum computing') phase with pre-conscious processes, and each instantaneous (and non-computable) OR, or self-collapse, with a discrete conscious event. Sequences of OR events give rise to a 'stream' of consciousness. Microtubule-associated proteins can 'tune' the quantum oscillations of the coherent superposed states; the OR is thus self-organized, or 'orchestrated' ('Orch OR'). Each Orch OR event selects (non-computably) microtubule subunit states which regulate synaptic/neural functions using classical signalling. The quantum gravity threshold for self-collapse is relevant to consciousness, according to our arguments, because macroscopic superposed quantum states each have their own space-time geometries (Penrose, 1994; 1996). These geometries are also superposed, and in some way 'separated', but when sufficiently separated, the superposition of space-time geometries becomes signifcantly unstable, and reduce to a single universe state. Quantum gravity determines the scale of the instability; we contend that the actual choice of state made by Nature is non-computable. Thus each Orch OR event is a self-selection of space-time geometry, coupled to the brain through microtubules and other biomolecules. If conscious experience is intimately connected with the very physics underlying space-time structure, then Orch OR in microtubules indeed provides us with a completely new and uniquely promising perspective on the hard problem of consciousness.

Good stuff, I agree... Basically Penrose, outside of some very specific physics which he has actually made a valuable contribution to, is just a b**********! And he surrounded by enough of other bullsh***** that they can swap this nonsense and do no better than college dorm room type philosophy...

Science is about creating models to explain reality that have real predictive power

Philosophy is for those places in our knowledge where scientific models cannot be of ultimate use,because The subject matter is simply too complicated and is not easily reducible to scientific knowledge

From a scientific perspective we know what consciousness is in the ordinary usage of the word

But that's the problem because people can throw out fuzzy words that have vague meaning and then run wild with that.... and just create their own system of thought that relies on vague words, with vague meanings...

But ultimately it gets you nowhere and you just end up with a fuzzy bunch of words.

:up: :up: Welcome to PF!

Regarding vagueness, 'consciousness' is considered by a number of philosophers to be one if the few non-vague concepts we have.

I've heard this argument before. It sounded like this: everything is kind of vague. For example, tables are vague. If you remove one leg, would it still be a table? Consciousness is not vague, therefore .... .
Well... at first it sounded good, but then I asked myself: is water vague? I don't think so. Water is H2O. So I don't think vagueness is an argument for consciousness being fundamental or so.

What do you think?

I was saying Penrose like Ken Wilbur like Freud, his whole philosophy is based on just vague words with vague meanings... that basically these dudes are just making stuff up!

Protoconsciousness is a vague word... Often times what people mean by consciousness can be vague because at the end of the day it's an umbrella term that is used to mean different things... Like awareness or experience or feelings or thoughts or any other umbrella word...

It's like the holy Spirit is a vague concept! Chi is a vague concept! It's obvious people are just trying to imbue magic and superstition and supernatural elements into some sort of philosophy of consciousness or existence or whatever...

Life is a complex chemical reaction... Nothing more nothing less... Consciousness is the word we give to certain features of certain organisms...

thanks good to be here!

Consciousness is the word we give to certain features of certain organisms... — Metamorphosis

Which features of which organisms?

Well... at first it sounded good, but then I asked myself: is water vague? I don't think so. Water is H2O. So I don't think vagueness is an argument for consciousness being fundamental or so.

What do you think? — Eugen

I think you've picked an interesting example. Tables are large, and you can make small changes to a table without altering its tableness, so it becomes a vague matter as to when it ceases to be a table.

A water molecule is not like that, it's very small. It's not clear what changes could be made to a water molecule without risking altering its wateriness. I don't know enough chemistry to be able to argue it one way or another. The smaller we go, the more a single alteration affects the nature of the object, and the less vague its defining characteristics are.

Brains are typically said to be important to consciousness. But these are very much macro-objects, and their defining characteristics in terms of structure and function are very much vague.

Consciousness is often observed to not be vague. There are no intermediate stated where it is indeterminate as to whether x is conscious or not. Either there is something it is like to be x, or there is nothing. This presents a problem for the emergence of consciousness from brain structure and function.

Sure if you want to talk mumbo jumbo... If someone gets hit on the head and is in a hospital bed it's not always clear whether they're conscious or not

If you want to just argue the philosopher jargon you've memorized, that is the same as religious jargon then go ahead but...

Consciousness... it's a vague word because ultimately life is transient and fleeting

Of course the normal definition is that someone is conscious if they can say they are and they can back it up with continued dialogue

And we normally think other complex organisms like primates and other mammals are probably conscious because they show similar abilities without being able to use human language... Like being able to pass the mirror test and all that

But seriously consciousness is just vague because it touches on our cultural conceptions which often are shrouded in superstition and a history of magical thinking

For a long time in history we thought life was a substance or an essence that was different than immaterial objects

But now we know that life is evolved complex chemistry. So consciousness is just the ability of certain organisms and that's completely a matter of definition and how we define the term and what we entail it to mean

But again most people are naturally duelists in their thinking and they think in terms of mind and matter as separate...

All organisms are constant flow of nerve impulses a constant metabolic happening. Consciousness is ultimately a human construct like intelligence or awareness or even beauty or health.

Or if someone gets Alzheimer's and slowly loses their personality and ability to communicate then there's not always a clear line dillionating between consciousness and non-consciousness

I mean come on if someone slowly loses their mental faculties does not like a moment where they're no longer conscious but we can kind of see that their organismic abilities are slowly diminishing

It's kind of like there's not a moment of death but we can kind of see it gradually happen and can tell when a person is beginning to turn to dust that they're probably not alive anymore

Sure if you want to talk mumbo jumbo... If someone gets hit on the head and is in a hospital bed it's not always clear whether they're conscious or not — Metamorphosis

Indeed, nevertheless there is a fact of the matter whether they are or not, even if we don't know what that fact is.

f you want to just argue the philosopher jargon you've memorized, — Metamorphosis

It is also my view

Consciousness... it's a vague word because ultimately life is transient and fleeting — Metamorphosis

I can't make sense of that.

Of course the normal definition is that someone is conscious if they can say they are and they can back it up with continued dialogue — Metamorphosis

That is indeed one definition (more or less) but there are several others - check a dictionary. This is not the definition typically used by philosophers of consciousness. Typically philosophers use (roughly) the first definition listed in dictionaries (at least most of the ones I've looked at).

And we normally think other complex organisms like primates and other mammals are probably conscious because they show similar abilities without being able to use human language... Like being able to pass the mirror test and all that — Metamorphosis

Yes, the argument form analogy for other minds.

But seriously consciousness is just vague because it touches on our cultural conceptions which often are shrouded in superstition and a history of magical thinking — Metamorphosis

Maybe some concepts of consciousness are, I don't know. But phenomenal consciousness is not a vague concept. But it's a hot topic, lots disagree.

For a long time in history we thought life was a substance or an essence that was different than immaterial objects — Metamorphosis

Did we? I don't know. But that's irrelevant to the topic of consciousness. I think you mean 'material objects'.

But now we know that life is evolved complex chemistry. So consciousness is just the ability of certain organisms and that's completely a matter of definition and how we define the term and what we entail it to mean — Metamorphosis

The word 'so' is doing an awful lot of hidden work there!

What ability of certain organisms is it? I'm interested in your definition.

But again most people are naturally duelists in their thinking and they think in terms of mind and matter as separate... — Metamorphosis

Are they? How many of them are substance duelists, how many of them are property duelists, and how many are pistols at dawn dualists?

Consciousness is ultimately a human construct like intelligence or awareness or even beauty or health. — Metamorphosis

So consciousness could be destroyed by human consensus?

Or if someone gets Alzheimer's and slowly loses their personality and ability to communicate then there's not always a clear line dillionating between consciousness and non-consciousness — Metamorphosis

From whose point of view?

I mean come on if someone slowly loses their mental faculties does not like a moment where they're no longer conscious but we can kind of see that their organismic abilities are slowly diminishing — Metamorphosis

Certainly what people experience changes, including approaching death. But can you think of a state which is neither conscious nor non-conscious, but indeterminate as to which it is?

He reveals his thinking process and ideas quite well in his exchange with Jordan Peterson. That might help some to understand what he is about.

I know the interview. Towards the end he makes it pretty clear.

look at it this way!

Life is an intricate and more complicated version of fire!

This is what all the evidence says... life is a complex chemical reaction!

The whole biosphere is basically an intricate feedback loop of chemical reactions!

So of course consciousness can be destroyed if the whole earth is destroyed by a giant meteor or whatever!

Again consciousness is just the ability of certain organisms!

Well actually consciousness is just a word but, it's describing certain evolved abilities!

Anyway I have tons of times where I'm between consciousness. I have all sorts of brain farts and mental noise and all that... it's not really consciousness it's just mind poop...

Anyway someone said two heads are better than one! And then someone else said that it's not that two heads are better than one it's that two heads are needed for one! Or we need social interactions to create a socially aware human being...

And really what we mean by consciousness is just the ability to be in harmony with a social project... After all language and perception and communication are largely social...

Anyway you seem to have an abstract vague notion of consciousness as being something more than material... But there is no evidence for that! And there are mountains and mountains of evidence to show that life and consciousness and every other aspect of living experience is simply chemical reactions!

If you have any evidence to the contrary I suggest you go win your Nobel prize but dead men tell no tales and words don't feed starving babies! Without oxygen and glucose none of this conversation would be happening and we are all built on chemicals and there is no evidence that ultimately we are anything more than intricate chemistry

anyway what is your explanation for what is life? And what is consciousness? As I've said I think it's evolved complex chemistry

And I think this is the simplest explanation that fits the evidence

But what is your explanation for both?

But now we know that life is evolved complex chemistry. So consciousness is just the ability of certain organisms and that's completely a matter of definition and how we define the term and what we entail it to mean — Metamorphosis

Before you speak investigate how certain terms are used within given fields. ‘Consciousness’ is not regarded as you define above by anyone with some reasonable scientific background. You maybe mistyped? You mean ‘self-conscious’ above with is not ‘consciousness’.

Conscious states vary. In neuroscience ‘consciousness’ can mean slightly different things depending on what is being discussed. Generally ‘consciousness’ is some form ‘brain state’ of that encapsulates ‘dreaming’ whereas ‘being put under’ may sometimes be referred to as a non-conscious state.

Penrose simply states that the physical ‘mechanisms’ of the brain - as understood superficially - are more than mere computations. The problem then remains how is this can be . Penrose’s view on this is along the lines that Quantum Mechanics is (at its base) wrong.

The Emporer’s New Mind is a very, very old book. It is certainly not the best reference point to understand his current opinions on consciousness now.