Questioning Consciousness

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby 82_28 » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:18 am

When your attention shifts, your brain blinks

When your attention shifts from one place to another, your brain blinks. The blinks are momentary unconscious gaps in visual perception and came as a surprise to the team of Vanderbilt psychologists who discovered the phenomenon while studying the benefits of attention.

“Attention is beneficial because it increases our ability to detect visual signals even when we are looking in a different direction,” said Assistant Professor of Psychology Alex Maier, who directed the study. “The ‘mind’s eye blinks’ that occur every time your attention shifts are the sensory processing costs that we pay for this capability.”

Details of their study are described in a paper titled “Spiking suppression precedes cued attentional enhancement of neural responses in primary visual cortex” published Nov. 23 in the journal Cerebral Cortex.

“There have been several behavior studies in the past that have suggested there is a cost to paying attention. But our study is the first to demonstrate a sensory brain mechanism underlying this phenomenon,” said first author Michele Cox, who is a psychology doctoral student at Vanderbilt.

The research was conducted with macaque monkeys that were trained to shift their attention among different objects on a display screen while the researchers monitored the pattern of neuron activity taking place in their brains. Primates are particularly suited for the study because they can shift their attention without moving their eyes. Most animals do not have this ability.

“We trained macaques to play a video game that rewarded them with apple juice when they paid attention to certain visual objects. Once they became expert at the game, we measured the activity in their visual cortex when they played,” said Maier.

By combining advanced recording techniques that simultaneously track large numbers of neurons with sophisticated computational analyses, the researchers discovered that the activity of the neurons in the visual cortex were momentarily disrupted when the game required the animals to shift their attention. They also traced the source of the disruptions to parts of the brain involved in guiding attention, not back to the eyes.

Mind’s eye blink is closely related to “attentional blink” that has been studied by Cornelius Vanderbilt Professor of Psychology David Zald and Professor of Psychology René Marois. Attentional blink is a phenomenon that occurs when a person is presented with a rapid series of images. If the spacing between two images is too short, the observer doesn’t detect the second image. In 2005, Zald determined that the time of temporary blindness following violent or erotic images was significantly longer than it is for emotionally neutral images.


https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2017/11/21/ ... eye-blink/
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby chump » Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:58 am

^^Yeah...

How often will we step away, smoke a bowl, "sleep on it", or be simply distracted, to find we experience a fresh perspective when we revisit the subject with a new point of view?





In 1999, Jim Carrey portrayed his idol Andy Kaufman in “Man on the Moon.” For twenty years, the behind-the-scenes footage has been withheld…until now. Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond - With a Very Special, Contractually Obligated Mention of Tony Clifton is now streaming on Netflix...
User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby Burnt Hill » Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:45 pm

Universe shouldn’t exist, CERN physicists conclude
A super-precise measurement shows proton and antiproton have identical magnetic properties, writes Cathal O’Connell.

One of the great mysteries of modern physics is why antimatter did not destroy the universe at the beginning of time.

To explain it, physicists suppose there must be some difference between matter and antimatter – apart from electric charge. Whatever that difference is, it’s not in their magnetism, it seems.

Physicists at CERN in Switzerland have made the most precise measurement ever of the magnetic moment of an anti-proton – a number that measures how a particle reacts to magnetic force – and found it to be exactly the same as that of the proton but with opposite sign. The work is described in Nature.

“All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist,” says Christian Smorra, a physicist at CERN’s Baryon–Antibaryon Symmetry Experiment (BASE) collaboration. “An asymmetry must exist here somewhere but we simply do not understand where the difference is.”

Antimatter is notoriously unstable – any contact with regular matter and it annihilates in a burst of pure energy that is the most efficient reaction known to physics. That’s why it was chosen as the fuel to power the starship Enterprise in Star Trek.

The standard model predicts the Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter – but that’s a combustive mixture that would have annihilated itself, leaving nothing behind to make galaxies or planets or people.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/universe-shouldn-t-exist-cern-physicists-conclude
User avatar
Burnt Hill
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: down down
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:36 pm

.


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26856&p=315825&hilit=Universe#p315720



Excerpt from God & The New Physics, by Paul Davies [initially published in 1983] --


Although the entropy of a general gravitating system is not known, work by Jacob Bekenstein and Stephen Hawking, in which the quantum theory is applied to black holes, has yielded a formula for the entropy of these objects. As expected, it is enormously greater than the entropy of, for instance, a star of the same mass. Assuming that the relationship between entropy and probability extends to the gravitating case, this result may be expressed in an interesting way. Given a random distribution of (gravitating) matter, it is overwhelmingly more probable that it will form a black hole than a star or a cloud of dispersed gas. These considerations give a new slant, therefore, to the question of whether the universe was created in an ordered or disordered state. If the initial state were chosen at random, it seems exceedingly probable that the big bang would have coughed out black holes rather than dispersed gases. The present arrangement of matter and energy, with matter spread thinly at relatively low density, in the form of stars and gas clouds would, apparently, only result from a very special choice of initial conditions. Roger Penrose has computed the odds against the observed universe appearing by accident, given that a black-hole cosmos is so much more likely on a priori grounds. He estimates a figure of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 30 to one.

The absence (or at least lack of predominance) of black holes is not the only issue. The large scale structure and motion of the universe is equally remarkable. The accumulated gravity of the universe operates to restrain the expansion, causing it to decelerate with time. In the primeval phase the expansion was much faster than it is today.

The universe IS thus the product of a competition between the explosive vigour of the big bang, and the force of gravity which tries to pull the pieces back together again. In recent years, astrophysicists have come to realize just how delicately this competition has been balanced. Had the big bang been weaker, the cosmos would have soon fallen back on itself in a big crunch. On the other hand, had it been stronger, the cosmic material would have dispersed so rapidly that galaxies would not have formed. Either way, the observed structure of the universe seems to depend very sensitively on the precise matching of explosive vigour to gravitating power.

Just how sensitively is revealed by calculation. At the so-called Planck time (10 to the power of -43 seconds, which is the earliest moment at which the concept of space and time has meaning) the matching was accurate to a staggering one part in 10 to the power of 60. That is to say, had the explosion differed in strength at the outset by only one part in 10 to the power of 60, the universe we now perceive would not exist. To give some meaning to these numbers, suppose you wanted to fire a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away. Your aim would have to be accurate to that same part in 10 to the power of 60.

Quite apart from the accuracy of this overall matching, there is the mystery of why the universe is so extraordinarily uniform, both in the distribution of matter, and the rate of expansion. Most explosions are chaotic affairs, and one might expect the big bang to have varied in its degree of vigour from place to place. This was not so. The expansion of the universe in our own cosmic neighbourhood is indistinguishable in rate from that on the far side of the universe.

This coherence of behaviour over the whole cosmos seems all the more remarkable when account is taken of what are known as light horizons. When light spreads out across the universe it has to chase the retreating galaxies which are being swept apart by the expansion. The rate of recession of a galaxy depends on its distance from the observer.

Distant galaxies recede faster. Imagine a flash of light emitted from a particular place at the instant of the creation.. The light will have travelled about twenty billion light years across space by now.


Regions of the universe farther away than this will not yet have
received the light. Observers there would not be able to see the light source. Conversely, observers near the light source would not be able to see those regions. It follows that no observer in the universe can see beyond twenty billion light years at this time. There is a sort of horizon in space, which conceals everything that lies beyond. And because no signal or influence can travel faster than light, it follows that no physical connection at all can exist between regions of the universe that lie beyond each other's horizon.

When telescopes are turned on the outer limits of the observable universe, they probe regions that have apparently never been in causal contact with each other. The reason is that distant regions which lie on opposite sides of the sky as viewed from Earth are so far apart from each other that they are beyond each other's horizon. The situation is closely analogous to ordinary horizons. A lookout on a ship at sea may just be able to discern two other ships - one ahead, one astern - near his horizon, but these other ships will be invisible from each other because of their greater separation. Similarly, the remote galaxies which lie on opposite sides of the sky are located beyond each other's light horizon. Because all physical influences or communications are limited by the speed of light, it is not possible that these galaxies can have coordinated their behaviour.

The mystery is, why are those regions of the universe that are
causally disconnected so similar in structure and behaviour? Why do they contain galaxies of the same average size and form, retreating from each other at the same rate?

The mystery becomes all the more profound when we realize that this behaviour is a remnant of long ago when the galaxies first formed. But in the past light had travelled less far since the creation, so the horizons were closer. At one million years they were a million light years across, at one hundred years a hundred light years, and so on. If we go back to the Planck time again, the horizons were a mere 10 to the power of -33 cm in size. Even allowing for the expansion of the universe, regions as small as this would not, according to the standard theory, have swelled to a visible size by now. It seems that the entire observable universe was, at that time, separated into at least 10 to the power of 80 causally disconnected regions. How is it possible to explain this cooperation without communication?

A related problem is the extreme degree of cosmic isotropy: uniformity with orientation. Looking outwards from Earth, the universe presents the same aspect on the large scale in whichever direction we choose to look.

Careful measurements of the relic cosmic background heat radiation show that the incoming flux is accurately matched from all sides to better than one part in a thousand . Had the big bang been a random event, such exceptional uniformity would be almost impossibly unlikely.

User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby smoking since 1879 » Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:30 pm

Crikey, what a load of guff theology.

As far as i can tell it's arguing for some kind of divine intervention, right?
Because the universe can't have been a random event, it was some how *chosen* with perfect initial conditions, right?
From some set of all possible conditions, which existed where exactly, pre-big bang? In the mind of "god"?

If one accepts the big-bang model one is forced to have a smooth CMB; the CMB is smooth *because* all this stuff we see was at one time really really close together and in thermal equilibrium. I don't see how it's smoothness can be used to argue for a non-random event.

The CMB itself is also somewhat problematic.
> Is it really the bb echo or could it be something else? could the source be more local e.g. dark matter galactic halo, molecular water clouds ?
> Is it fixed or does it fluctuate? - we only noticed it 50 years ago and only really measured it once (3 times in 20 years is really once in cosmic timescales ;))

There's also a lot of (intentional?) confusion about black holes. Hawking/Bekenstein only apples to star sized black holes - the little ones, not the monsters that sit in the centres of galaxies recycling (creating?) matter.

Don't get me started on inflation... ;)

me... sitting on mount stoopid, watching youtube videos.

!warning, may lead to an electric universe!

Kerr Conference - Reinhard Genzel: The black hole in center of the Milky Way
(March 2018 chould be intersting)


Kerr Conference - Roger Blandford: Kerr black holes in quasars and the formation of giant jets


The Milky Way - Evidence For Seyfert Activity in the Recent Past


Halton Arp Intrinsic Red Shift
"Now that the assertive, the self-aggrandising, the arrogant and the self-opinionated have allowed their obnoxious foolishness to beggar us all I see no reason in listening to their drivelling nonsense any more." Stanilic
smoking since 1879
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:20 pm
Location: CZ
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby DrEvil » Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:54 pm

Speaking of the CMB:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/12 ... -universe/
Pictures and graph at link.

The mission to learn everything we always wanted to know about the Universe

Reading the Universe using the Cosmic Microwave Background.
John Timmer - 12/5/2017, 7:00 PM

The Cosmic Microwave Background was created as the first atoms formed hundreds of thousands of years after the Big Bang, and it retains information about the formation of the Universe. Discovering it existed confirmed a key prediction of the Big Bang Model and won its discoverers a Nobel Prize. Another Nobel went to the team behind the Cosmic Background Explorer, which gave us our first look at some of the details of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), providing support for the idea that the Universe underwent a period of inflation.

In some ways, these were baby steps on the route to understanding the Universe. The real leap came from lesser-known hardware with an awkward name: the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, or WMAP. By giving us the first detailed look at the CMB, WMAP answered everything: the age of the Universe, what it's made of, its geometry, and more.

Over the weekend, the team behind WMAP was honored with the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics, which gave us the opportunity to talk to one of its lead scientists, Princeton's David Spergel.

Spergel highlighted the role of the Cosmic Background Explorer in setting the stage for WMAP. "Soon after COBE," Spergel told Ars, "it was clear to me that, if we could measure the microwave background on smaller scales than COBE did, we'd be able to infer the geometry of the Universe—whether the Universe was flat or positively or negatively curved—measure its age and determine its composition." What was needed was a higher-resolution map than COBE had provided.

COBE had revealed that the CMB has regions where the microwaves are a tiny bit warmer or cooler than the average. To learn more, we'd have to have precision measurements of the size and magnitude of these differences, a measurement called the power spectrum. Spergel referred to this as "the lumpiness of the Universe as a function of scale."

"If we could make precise measurements of the microwave background," Spergel said, "all these questions that had kind of driven cosmology since I was a student, [questions] about the Universe's size, shape, composition, age, where do galaxies come from... we could answer all those questions with a single experiment." And that post-COBE enthusiasm seemed to be widely shared. When NASA put out a call for an Explorer-class mission in astrophysics, three of the eight proposals that were given serious consideration were on the CMB. WMAP, based in Princeton, ended up getting the nod, and Spergel led the data analysis and theoretical considerations for the team.

WMAP slowly scanned the entire sky from a position at Earth's L2 Lagrange point, building up a high-resolution map of the variations in the CMB, allowing researchers to measure the power spectrum. In the power spectrum tail, there are a series of bumps that are sensitive to everything from the geometry of the Universe to the number of neutrinos. Matching these bumps to predictions from various models of the Universe allows us to test out whether different features—the amount of dark matter, to give one example—produce a power spectrum that is consistent with what we measure.

"What we were able to do with WMAP is establish what's now the standard model of cosmology," Spergel said. "It's shown that the Universe is remarkably simple. A model with a handful of parameters—five numbers, basically—can describe not only the patterns we see in the microwave background, but really everything we see in cosmology. And while the Universe is simple, it's also really strange, in that atoms make up only five percent of the Universe, and most of the rest is filled with dark matter and dark energy." It also provided details about the first instants after the Big Bang, providing details about the Universe's period of inflation.

The basic outline of this information was apparent after just a single year of taking data. And, while WMAP was planned as a two-year mission, it released data every other year for nine years of operation. "What was remarkable to me is that, every time we got more data, the basic model fit better and better," Spergel told Ars.

For WMAP, the end wasn't the result of hardware failure; instead, it was moved into a parking orbit around the Sun after the ESA launched its Planck mission, with its more up-to-date hardware. Spergel has moved on to ground-based studies of the CMB, and he is currently working on a telescope that will be built in Chile. While there have been no major changes in our understanding of the CMB since WMAP, he said that hardware has improved to the point where we can get about 10 times the resolution and 30 times the sensitivity with modern instruments, and that opens up some exciting possibilities.

For one, it can give us lower uncertainties in the power spectrum measurements, and with that, better measurements of dark energy, neutrino masses, and limits on the existence of additional particles. The CMB is also imprinted with the gravitational wave background generated by the Big Bang, which could provide tests of fundamental physics if we can ever figure out how to detect it. And there's always the chance that we'll find something that WMAP didn't hint of. "The most interesting result would be that, as our data continues to improve, the model doesn't fit, that it breaks," Spergel said. "That's not absurd, because there are some intriguing tensions between the Planck measurements and measurements of large-scale structure, measurements of the expansion of the Universe."

But when we spoke, he was mostly excited about the chance for the WMAP team to get together for the first time in years and happy to think a bit about past results. "The CMB has been an incredible gift to us," he told Ars. "It's a very clean way of giving us measurements of fundamental properties of the Universe."
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:48 am

smoking since 1879 » Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:30 pm wrote:Crikey, what a load of guff theology.

As far as i can tell it's arguing for some kind of divine intervention, right?
Because the universe can't have been a random event, it was some how *chosen* with perfect initial conditions, right?
From some set of all possible conditions, which existed where exactly, pre-big bang? In the mind of "god"?


Not quite. I can appreciate how one can assume as you have by the excerpt alone, but his book offers an attempt at an objective assessment of the nature/origins of the universe.
The extended quote from the book was included in this thread as it implies a 'conscious' universe, or at least an intent towards its development over time.

Some added context:


[Paul Davies, the author of God & The New Physics] states, "Our conclusion must be that there is no positive scientific evidence for a designer and a creator of cosmic order (in the negative entropy sense). Indeed, there is strong evidence that current physical theories will provide a perfectly satisfactory explanation of these features. There is, however, more to nature than its mathematical laws and its complex order. A third integration requires explanation too: the so-called 'fundamental constants' of nature. It is in that province that we find the most surprising evidence for a grand design." (Pg. 186-187)

He later concludes, "It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe... has been rather carefully thought out. Such a conclusion can, of course, be only subjective. In the end it boils down to a question of belief. Is it easier to believe in a cosmic designer then the multiplicity of universes necessary for the weak anthropic principle to work?... if we cannot visit the other universes or experience them directly, their possible existence must remain just as much a matter of faith as belief God... the seemingly miraculous concurrence of numerical values that nature has assigned to her fundamental constants must remain the most compelling evidence for an element of cosmic design." (Pg. 189)

He speculates, "it is possible to imagine a supermind existing since the creation... This would not be a God who created everything by supernatural means, but a directing, controlling, universal mind pervading the cosmos and operating the laws of nature to achieve some specific purpose... the universe IS a mind: a self-observing as well as self-organizing, system. Our own minds could then be viewed as localized 'islands' of consciousness in a sea of mind, an idea that it reminiscent of the Oriental conception of mysticism, where God is then regarded as the unifying consciousness of all things into which the human mind will be absorbed, losing its individual identity, when it achieves an appropriate level of spiritual advancement." (Pg. 210)

User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby smoking since 1879 » Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:40 am

I think Mr Paul Davis needs to get out more, he's spending far too much time in his mum's basement.

This would not be a God who created everything by supernatural means, but a directing, controlling, universal mind pervading the cosmos and operating the laws of nature to achieve some specific purpose...


I'm not sure what sunday school he went to, but i was under the impression that god === "a directing, controlling, universal mind" I guess he wants his own personal jesus to worship, are we invited?

Theorists Without a Theory
"As for people who claim that they’re furthering the cause of naturalism by promoting an untestable scientific theory based on a failed research program, justified by appeals to authority, I think they’re making a really huge mistake. If you make this an argument about which untestable idea one should believe, most people are going to quite sensibly chose the church of their ancestors over Lenny Susskind."
"Now that the assertive, the self-aggrandising, the arrogant and the self-opinionated have allowed their obnoxious foolishness to beggar us all I see no reason in listening to their drivelling nonsense any more." Stanilic
smoking since 1879
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:20 pm
Location: CZ
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby 0_0 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:23 pm

playmobil of the gods
0_0
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:13 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby BenDhyan » Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:37 am

What and who is it that has questions about consciousness? If the questioner is conscious, then one need not look any further than oneself to observe our mind in action to learn about consciousness. It is not an easy assignment, but it is a most rewarding one.

Here a mere 35 minutes out of your day which I hope for some eventually leads to the nonverbal apprehension of the underlying 'ground' of consciousness.



Of course there is much more to it than this, but this is a beginning type exercise...
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning My Consciousness........

Postby Cordelia » Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:51 am

...........I thought the board vanished for two days. :shrug:
The greatest sin is to be unconscious. ~ Carl Jung

We may not choose the parameters of our destiny. But we give it its content. ~ Dag Hammarskjold 'Waymarks'
User avatar
Cordelia
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:07 pm
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby Sounder » Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:29 am

minime from the Iraq thread…
I used to think if anyone was going to get out of here, it would be Sounder. Now it's looking mighty grim


One thing I like about life is how experiences can illustrate ones issues.

Recently as a client and I were going over final items to be taken care of in a sizable remodel job, she commented; you’re so agreeable, to which I laughed and said; well, I’m not really, so it is a good practice for me. Then over the holidays my daughter commented that a chief characteristic of my lineage is orneriness.

Now, being that my wife is a most kind and loving person, it is usually not appropriate for me to be ornery. IMO, it is good to practice things one is not so good at, so I practice music, tonal shape in the speaking voice and being less ornery.

As to getting ‘out of here’, for me, the deal is this; anywhere one may go, the existing dominant narrative runs the show. Schismatic groups are no good because their insular nature causes them to over rely on narrow classes of events for sources of causality. So I prefer a big mess of disagreements to artificial agreements of people trying to cover over their insecurities. Also the music vids that get posted are much appreciated. And given how poorly many people treat my input here, surly this is an ideal place to practice being less ornery.

The watchword given to me by my better self many years ago was patience. Necessary, considering that my obsession involves the reorganization of basic expressions of consciousness for all of humanity.

Hubris, I know, right? No, but this is where the philosophers and gurus step away.

They still prefer the split model that kills to analyze.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby minime » Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:48 pm

Sounder » Sun Jan 07, 2018 7:29 am wrote:minime from the Iraq thread…
I used to think if anyone was going to get out of here, it would be Sounder. Now it's looking mighty grim


They still prefer the split model that kills to analyze.


Always and never, Sounder. Always and never.

There's even a comment of the nature of consciousness in there somewhere.
User avatar
minime
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 2:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby dada » Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:31 pm

Some quotes from essays written by the physicist F David Peat. I became aware of him through reading his biography of David Bohm. He passed away last June.

"The prime mover of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, Neils Bohr, took pains to stress the essential wholeness of quantum phenomena. As a direct result of the indivisibility of the quantum of action, each experiment or observation of the quantum domain must be taken as an unanalyzable whole. Bohr's interpretation of the quantum theory had the effect of introducing a radically new idea into science, for up to that time it had been natural to define material bodies in terms of their properties and, in particular, their locations in space. Their behavior was then described in terms of the various forces operating between them which caused them to move or change their states. But now Bohr was denying the validity of this whole approach for, at the quantum mechanical level, he argued, bodies in interaction form a single, indissoluble whole.

More recently this quantum holism has been underscored by the various experimental tests of Bell's Theorem. In essence they indicate that two quantum particles --initially in interaction but now well separated in space-- must be represented by a single inseparable state. This notion of this inherent inseparability has led a number of authors to argue that a basic non-locality is essential to a quantum theoretical description of nature.

Is this non-locality something that can be added to conventional quantum mechanics or is a radically different approach required? Is it possible to develop a description of non-separability within a purely local theory, or does non-locality represent a complementary form of description to that of locality? Could it be that the concept of space is far richer than physics has hitherto supposed, so that it contains a whole series of properties? And would this imply that physics should move to some deeper theory in which both locality and non-locality emerge as limiting forms?"

-

"For well over two hundred years locality has been fundamental to our way of looking at the physical world. Indeed it is so deeply ingrained in scientific thinking that a non-local form of interaction appears, in Einstein's words, as "spooky".

A local description gives central position to the concepts of location and separation in space. Bodies are defined in terms of their spatial position and the trajectories they make. In turn, this description is founded upon the idea of a continuous manifold--a coordinate grid created out of dimensionless space (or space-time) points. Moreover, this manifold is supposed to exist prior to bodies and fields. Indeed it has an important ontological significance for, since the time of Clifford and Einstein there have been theoretical attempts to build fields and matter out of its geometry. A continuous space-time therefore becomes the ground out of which the entire physical world is to be built.

To reject locality would therefore be to throw away the full potential of this underlying manifold. In addition, physicists would be forced to abandon a whole range of rich and powerful mathematics. This latter action would, in itself, involve a major revolution in science. But the idea of locality goes even deeper for it pervades the whole of physics in an almost subliminal way. Indeed even the attempt to discuss non-locality runs into difficulties with the very language we speak. Terms like space, distance, location and separation have all become colored by several hundred years of thinking about space in a particular way. There does not even exist a word to describe the concept we are now exploring--except in terms of the negation of "locality". Locality has become so deeply ingrained in the thinking of physicists that it now seems impossible to abandon it."

(As the physicist Basil Hiley puts it, "physicists come to praise Bohr and decry Einstein, but end up paying only lip service to Bohr and thinking like Einstein." (i.e. their understanding of the full implications of quantum theory is vague and in their everyday science they still cling to classical ways of thinking.))

-

"Despite the authority inherent in the locality of space-time, evidence is accumulating that it is an inappropriate way to describe quantum theory. Neils Bohr has called for a holistic approach to quantum phenomena, while Pauli and others felt that conventional concepts of space and time are inadequate for a quantum description. Current discussions of Bell's Theorem suggest that we may be forced to entertain complementary non-local descriptions-- although it may also be possible to develop purely local theories which forbid separability of certain quantum states.

To this must be added the notion of global quantum states. The wave function for a superconductor, and other condensed states, is defined over macrosopic dimensions. This suggests that a more natural description may involve what could be called a global rather than a local mathematics.

Elsewhere I have argued that quantum theory is characterized by the importance given to the overall form of the wave function, and this form is essentially a property of the whole system. An example of this would be the Pauli Exclusion Principle that demands an overall symmetry for a wave function that extends over all space. It is this global form, or symmetry, that plays a role in deriving Bell's correlations, for it dictates that the wave function cannot be spit into a simple product of independent terms associated with different locations in space. A global form, I have argued, is a general requirement of which the Bell theorem is only one example.

While Schrodinger's wave mechanics and quantum field theory are formulated using local mathematics based on an underlying continuous manifold of space-time points, there are powerful arguments suggesting that such a manifold can not have an actual physical existence. The energy content of small regions approaching the Planck length is so high as to break down space-time structure into regions of extremely high curvature or even into a space-time "foam". Clearly the notion of dimensionless points is incompatible with quantum theory. Does the answer lie in some modification of our current approach, such as replacing space-time points by extended objects like strings-- or is some more radical departure needed?"

-

"The reality described by classical physics, Bohm suggested, a reality of solid, well-defined bodies with definite positions in space and a specific duration in time should be termed the Explicate Order. Much of what we perceive of the world is in the form of this Explicate Order. By contrast, the reality appropriate to quantum theory is one of superpositions, enfoldings, interpenetrations and a space that is non-local. Bohm referred to this as the Implicate Order. For the purposes of illustration Bohm pictured this implicate order in terms of images of a holograph, or a drop of dye being twisted into a fluid until it becomes totally enfolded. (But such metaphors are, in themselves limited and do not exploit the full implications of the Implicate Order.) Thus elementary particles could be thought of not as exclusively solid well-defined objects in space but rather as processes that unfold and enfold out of the entire universe.

Referring to the persistent inability of science to reconcile Einstein's theory of relativity with quantum theory, Bohm suggested that what was required was not so much new theories and ideas but a radical new order within physics. The Implicate Order would be such a new order. According to Bohm physics is still dominated by what he called the Cartesian Order. That is, an explicate notion of space and time which, in turn is expressed using Cartesian co-ordinates - every point in space-time being well defined and corresponding to a set of numbers. The considerable practical success of the Cartesian order lies in the fact that the motion and transformations of objects in space are describable by differential equations. By contrast, an Implicate Order would proceed via some different descriptive scheme, such as an algebra.

-

"It was Bohr who argued that words like position, momentum, spin, space and time refer to classical concepts which have no place within quantum theory. Einstein for his part argued that it should be possible to develop new concepts that are more suited to the quantum domain. However Bohr maintained that, since our language of its very nature is grounded in our day to day commerce with the large scale world, it will not be possible to modify or change it in any significant way. In other words, an unambiguous discussion is only possible at the classical level of things, that is when it is about the results of quantum measurements made with laboratory scale apparatus. But to ask what actually happens at the quantum level of things makes no sense.

The changing meanings of words can also be seen in those terms which have to do with spatial relationships such as space, position, locality, non-locality and even interaction. They have undergone far reaching changes in the developments which led from the Aristotelian to the Newtonian and finally to the general relativistic and quantum mechanical picture of things. Yet because the same word "space" is used in each case it is possible to create the illusion that different scientists are sometimes talking about the same thing. Particular difficulties can also be found in discussions about the significance of Bell's Theorem and the meaning of non-locality in physics. Of course working physicists perfectly understand the difference between quantum theory, relativity and Newtonian mechanics, nevertheless there are many particularly subtle differences in meanings associated with a word such as space and it is often the case that the old and new meanings co-exist side by side. In other words scientists may employ the same word in subtly different ways within the same conversation. It is the actuality of our situation as human beings that we must employ language in order to communicate and, for this reason, we must pay careful attention to both the power and the limitations of language.

-

"It was Neils Bohr who emphasized what he called complementarity in science. While this idea was first introduced with specific reference to the quantum theory, Bohr really felt that the idea of complementary had a universal application and extended to all forms of inquiry and knowledge. As Bohr put it, knowledge and the means of inquiry are inseparable. There is an essential wholeness to our investigations of nature, for the way we investigate things cannot be separated from the results we obtain. The genesis of this idea lies in the quantum theory where experimental results are dominated by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and by the wave/particle duality. Ask a particular experimental question and nature answers in terms of waves, pose the question in another way and the result is in terms of particles. In the world-view of classical mechanics the concept of wave and particle are mutually exclusive and this too is the essence of Bohr's proposal--that the results of experiments on the quantum world are complementary or mutually exclusive.

Bohr believed that complementarity had a universal application and, in particular, it applied to biology and psychology. No matter if the means of inquiry are experimental, theoretical, philosophical or linguistic they are always inseparable from the nature of the answers we obtain. Investigate any system of sufficient subtlety by different routes and one will obtain complementary answers.

Complementary viewpoints will, therefore, be particularly apparent when biologists and theoretical physicists meet together, and if scientists are to have a deep influence on each others ideas then they must be especially sensitive to the complementary nature of their approaches and have the necessary intensity to engage in a truly creative dialogue together.

Another feature of these complementary approaches is that ideas and concepts, which on the surface may sound very similar, are associated with different meanings and are used in quite different contexts by physicists and biologists. The result can be the sort of linguistic confusion that the philosopher Wittgenstein spoke about. There is a danger of engaging in long and fruitless debates of great intensity, in which the parties emerge confused and frustrated because their views do not seem to have been taken seriously [...] Once again physicists and biologists must be especially sensitive in their dialogues together, that they do not become trapped in a maze of their own construction.

How then will it be possible for new concepts, ideas and approaches to evolve through this overlap and union of quantum theory, biology and the philosophy of cognition? In the case of the present meeting, the creativity of the participants presents no problem. What, therefore, seems appropriate is to address those areas of confusion in which notions are being used, by both disciplines in subtly different ways, to unfold the meaning of these complementary viewpoints and to discover those areas in which old and new ideas do not cohere.

In what follows I shall briefly sketch out a number of areas which are of particular interest to me, areas in which particularly difficult questions are posed and in which a new creative approach is needed. It is possible that deeper insights will be gained in these fields, not so much through new ideas, but through a process of clarification and dialogue. The areas I will talk about embrace physics, biology, artificial intelligence and the cognitive sciences and involve questions about order and chaos, language, meaning, mind and information, emergence, novelty and creativity.

https://web.archive.org/web/20040605055331/http://www.fdavidpeat.com:80/bibliography/essays/bermuda.htm
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby dada » Sat Jan 13, 2018 6:30 pm

The term Xin [心] refers to the physical organ of the heart, yet it is usually translated as 'mind' or 'heart-mind.' To me, this suggests that the seat of consciousness is the heart, not the brain. Possession of a brain does not a consciousness make. A brief perusal of your twitter feed will confirm this.

The brain, then, serving as organ of computation, is a tool of the conscious mind. What does this imply for artificial intelligence? Conscious awareness will never emerge as a result of increase in computing power alone. Without a heart-mind, a computer that can learn from itself will never get there. While this doesn't mean the singularity is an impossibility, it will not be possible the way we're currently going about it.

(The question of the heart-mind in relation to AI is not new. Even the writers of the series 'Suits' wrestle with it in a side-plot. The AI secretary 'The Donna' may be clever, but it is lacking qualities like empathy and compassion. Of course, this being a tv show, a bit of tech magic is all it takes to correct this. Still, the writers acknowledge the dilemma; in the frustration of The Donna's programmer, as he despairs over how to give these elusive and seemingly unprogrammable attributes to an AI secretary, and in the Dr. Frankenstein-like excitement of the 'It's alive!' moment when The Donna suddenly learns to care.)

The term Shen [神] is difficult to translate. Depending on which school of philosophy you are drawing from, it can be "mind," "spirit," "consciousness," "vitality," "expression," "soul," "energy," "psychic," "numinous." From a grammatical point of view, it can be a noun, adjective or verb.

In Chinese medicine, Shen is the heart-energy. In diagnosis, the word shen indicates an undefinable and subtle quality of “life”, “flourishing”, "lustre" or “glitter” which can be observed in health. This quality can be observed in the complexion, the eyes, the tongue and the pulse.

Shen is also the higher order, human type of consciousness, as opposed to the primary consciousness possessed by animals. Primary consciousness is aware, higher order consciousness is aware of being aware. Now, we on the internet have seen the elephant that can paint a picture of an elephant. Does that mean the elephant possesses higher order consciousness? I don't know. The jury is still out on the elephant. And I wouldn't trust a crow as far as I can hit it with a baseball bat.

Zhuang Zi said, “I have been guarding my physical form, but forgot my shen-form. I have been observing the turbid water but am oblivious to the clear depths.”

'Observing the clear depths' is another major hurdle for the singularity.

Zhuang Zi often used the term shen as “unfathomable” or “daemonic." (Daemonic as in 'awesome, uncanny supernatural genius.')

A C Graham (in The Book of Lieh-tzu – A Classic of the Tao, Columbia University Press, New York, 1990.) says that, for the authors of the appendices of the Book of Changes, shen is not a personal spirit but a daemonic power or intelligence which is active within the operations of heaven and earth and which emanates from the person of the sage. In the appendices of the Book of Changes the word is less frequent as a noun than as an adjective - for which the least unsatisfactory English word is perhaps "psychic" - applied to the Way, the Changes, the divining stalks, the sage, and the inner power (de). Occasionally, shen may even be used as a transitive verb, "to make one's inner power psychic":

Even when shen is used in the appendices as a noun, it does not refer to any entity distinct from things which are shen. The shen of the divining stalks is not a "psyche" within them, but, so to speak, their "psychicity". Graham therefore says that we cannot afford to use the standard English equivalent "spirit" even when the word is used as a noun, since to do so would disguise the fact that the Neo-Confucians treat it as a state like "integrity," "composure," or "equilibrium."

For this reason, Graham often calls shen "psychicity," adding that he would not wish "to recommend this abominable word as a permanent addition to the English language or even as a regular equivalent of shen."

According to the Great Appendix, then: "Psychicity [shen] is without confines and the Changes are without body."

I'm posting this shen stuff here because I think at some point the word 'consciousness' gets in the way of questioning consciousness.

Some of this discussion is paraphrased and/or lifted word-for-word from here: http://maciociaonline.blogspot.com/2012/11/shen-and-hun-psyche-in-chinese-medicine.html
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests