OT: Article on Quantum mechanics and Conciousness

[fa_jing]

http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-05-stapp.html

It's a long read, and it helps to have a background in physics. But it doesn't assume one. Very interesting article, I wonder if any of you have an opinion regarding it. I especially appreciated how he came to the following theoretical conclusions:

1. The act of choice causes consciousness, just as in Sartre's theory

2. Mind is a property of matter, just like in Hinduism

[omegapoint]

For an indepth physics-philosophical view on the self, soul and such check out Dr. Fred A. Wolf's book "The Spiritual Universe". Very enlightening, and esoterically scientific....

[Braden]

If you're interested in that kind of stuff, check here: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online3.html#physics which is David Chalmer's (a prominent philosopher in the area of consciousness) bibliography of online sources, also check here http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/ a research lab at UArizona that does alot of work in the area, and in particular Stuart Hameroff's (an anaesthesiologist in that group) page here http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/ which has alot of online articles with his work with Roger Penrose, who is probably the classical example of the physics of consciousness, and who has written a couple foundational books on the topic.

In general, I think that people are being a little too confident in strict reductionism with this approach, and the various branches of psychology are going to offer the most important advances in the study of consciousness. However, the physics and other work, I think is still important for the way it can contribute 'ways of thinking' to people like psychologists. In particular, you'll find that most physicists in this area are being very general. For instance, they'll describe how they believe quantum phenomenon and consciousness act in similar ways. This is an interesting discussion, but it doesn't actually answer any of the interesting questions about consciousness itself. What it does do is give people working on those questions very useful foundational world-views and analogies.

Regarding that particular article, I didn't like it much. It's obvious taint of eliminativistic materialism sat poorly with me, and I thought the author 'straw man'ed possible classical interpretations (or misunderstood them). Although, at the end, he seemed to make the same argument I made above, asserting the value in theoretical ponderings that his approach might offer.

What interested you regarding his formulation of 'mind is a property of matter?'

Regarding choice and consciousness, don't we seem to be conscious of things unrelated to choice, and make descisions of which we are not conscious?

[fa_jing]

About choices - Depends on your opinion regarding levels of consciousness and whether you find useful the idea of pre-relective choice.


Anyway, I just thought it was an interesting read. If you look at the title, and one of his comments, he didn't state that it was an adequate explaination of consciousness, just that he had found a "place" for consciousness in the theory of quantum mechanics where there was none in classical mechanics. I'm still digesting what he was saying. But it makes sense if you consider that an observing by observing, collapses the wave function. Observing is a function of consciousness. It does tie together somehow.

He made many assumptions in that paper that he did not elaborate upon.

About mind-matter duality, I found interesting that he emphasized the dual nature of matter, a la Hinduism, rather than a seperation between mind and body a la Decartes.

Anyway, looking at that site a little, I've decided to keep reading Sartre for more beneficial philosophical pondering. In my opinon, those writings on the site are purely exploratory. If someone ever figures out what consciousness is, it will be proveable and it'll be all over the papers. I'm sure I won't miss out on it by not reading through the rest of that site. To wit: I once picked up a copy of "Consciouness Explained" at a library. It didn't take long to figure out that the guy didn't really explain consciousness! At least the philosophers that interest me most fully acknowledge the limits of knowledge, where as the authors on that site look like they think they can eventually explain everything.

[Braden]

"About choices..."

To elaborate, I am currently conscious of the feeling of my weight upon a chair, though it's involved in no decision making process; as well as of abstract qualia like that sense of ownership over a personal space, which is a category away from the sorts of things you even ask decision-questions about; and I can also be made to be conscious of things entirely independant of my whole information processing strategy, such as my electrical stimulation of my cortex. Conversely, at the lower level of perception, my information processing system makes all sorts of choices that are entirely unconscious (eg. those which result in the Gestalt laws of organization); in tasks for which I have achieved automaticity, my sensory-motor systems make choices devoid of conscious interaction (eg. when I am playing piano); and unconscious choices also affect the information processing at the highest levels (eg. racial prejudice, false memories).

There are theoretical stances you could take to rationalize all of these with the statement that 'choice creates consciousness', but to account for them all would be utterly absurd, and it's ad hoc nature would also be unscientific, if you're concerned with such things.

"Anyway, I just thought it was an interesting read."

It, and the topic matter in general, certainly are interesting.

"...where there was none in classical mechanics."

This is where my problem with his straw-manning and/or misunderstanding of the classical understanding come in. For instance, Parallel-Distributed-Processing can be accounted for with the classical understanding, yet defies what he claims is it's limitations.

"But it makes sense if you consider that an observing by observing, collapses the wave function."

Well, this can mean alot of things though. What if the 'reality' of the 'collapsed-wave-function world' is noneother than perceptual reality. If this is the case, the above is actually a meaningless statement (a statement of direct equivalence). Correct nonetheless, and potentially phrased in such a manner as to cause a revelation.

"Observing is a function of consciousness."

Is it? Yet the 'matter' of your information processing system processes stimuli of which you are not aware, which goes on to influence it's output. Does this not count as observing? Do you mean by 'observing', 'percieving consciously'? If so, "'Perceiving consciously' is a function of consciousness" is almost another meaningless statement.

" I found interesting that he emphasized the dual nature of matter, a la Hinduism, rather than a seperation between mind and body a la Decartes."

As he notes, there can be a very significant difference between the statement that matter and mind are two properties of a neutral element (neutral monism), and that mind is a property of matter (property dualism or another sort of materialism, depending on the specifics). It's unclear as to which you're referring to above. It's also unclear which he argues strongest for, although he seems to lean towards property dualism. Don't the hindus describe a neutral monism? It might be more worthwhile to think of Descartes as seperating soul and body, and doing so largely so he could study mind, in the guise of body, without infringing on the authority of the church. Although certainly the soul he excluded had some notable properties (and some pertinent here, such as it's role as 'the observer'); it would be incorrect to create a lineage from Descartes descending through modern science, of strict dualism. Certainly mainstream science has been materialistic for a long time, and exhuberantly so since the dawn of behavioralism.

"If someone ever figures out what consciousness is, it will be proveable and it'll be all over the papers."

I don't think so. Too deep a topic. That's like 'If anyone ever figures out what's up with space, it'll be in the papers.'

"where as the authors on that site look like they think they can eventually explain everything."

I'm not sure what site you're referring to.

[fa_jing]

Originally posted by Braden
"About choices..."

[...]

There are theoretical stances you could take to rationalize all of these with the statement that 'choice creates consciousness', but to account for them all would be utterly absurd, and it's ad hoc nature would also be unscientific, if you're concerned with such things.


OK, that's what the author was saying, it's not exactly what Sartre says, although there is a parallel. I've explained this badly once before and I'm hesitant to try again. According to Sartre, it is through choice that we create our nature, which is a quality of consciousness but not identical to it. Again, if one defines nature by what we choose, then we have a perfectly circular definition that says nothing. Sartre usually avoids bad logic like this. This gets complicated in terms of the "I think therefore I am," which he feels is inadequate. The "I" that thinks is not necessarily the same as the "I" that is. Consciousness is not explained, rather it is revealed to us through doubt that we exist. Various qualities of our being are revealed to us through various types of anguish. Let me get back to you on this one after I finish "Being and Nothingness," I'm not doing a good job of representing this man's theory. I understand some things like the theory of Nihilation, which is completely different from how most people perceive it to be. It has nothing to do with atheism, although Sartre was one.


"Anyway, I just thought it was an interesting read."

It, and the topic matter in general, certainly are interesting.

"...where there was none in classical mechanics."

This is where my problem with his straw-manning and/or misunderstanding of the classical understanding come in. For instance, Parallel-Distributed-Processing can be accounted for with the classical understanding, yet defies what he claims is it's limitations.

"But it makes sense if you consider that an observing by observing, collapses the wave function."

Well, this can mean alot of things though. What if the 'reality' of the 'collapsed-wave-function world' is noneother than perceptual reality. If this is the case, the above is actually a meaningless statement (a statement of direct equivalence). Correct nonetheless, and potentially phrased in such a manner as to cause a revelation.

"Observing is a function of consciousness."

Is it? Yet the 'matter' of your information processing system processes stimuli of which you are not aware, which goes on to influence it's output. Does this not count as observing? Do you mean by 'observing', 'percieving consciously'? If so, "'Perceiving consciously' is a function of consciousness" is almost another meaningless statement.


Good point. Again, a possible distinction between perception, consciousness, being, and existing.


" I found interesting that he emphasized the dual nature of matter, a la Hinduism, rather than a seperation between mind and body a la Decartes."

As he notes, there can be a very significant difference between the statement that matter and mind are two properties of a neutral element (neutral monism), and that mind is a property of matter (property dualism or another sort of materialism, depending on the specifics). It's unclear as to which you're referring to above. It's also unclear which he argues strongest for, although he seems to lean towards property dualism. Don't the hindus describe a neutral monism?

I was not aware of that distinction, and I'm not sure whether or not it is a real distinction. From what I know of Hinduism, your assessment is correct in terms of how it is phrased.


It might be more worthwhile to think of Descartes as seperating soul and body, and doing so largely so he could study mind, in the guise of body, without infringing on the authority of the church. Although certainly the soul he excluded had some notable properties (and some pertinent here, such as it's role as 'the observer'); it would be incorrect to create a lineage from Descartes descending through modern science, of strict dualism. Certainly mainstream science has been materialistic for a long time, and exhuberantly so since the dawn of behavioralism.


Behaviorists are the enemies of Exisistentialists. A great book that I actually made it through, is "introduction to Exisitentialism" by Robert Olson. He presents the arguments of 4 major philosophical groups and does a good job of comparing and contrasting. I particularly loved this line, discussing a disagreement between two schools of thought "The Existentialist would say to the Pragmatist that he failed to apprehend the fundamental tragedy of the human condition. The Pragmatist would would retort that the Existentialist had failed to distinguish between tragedy and melodrama." Priceless, I'm still laughing over that one.


"If someone ever figures out what consciousness is, it will be proveable and it'll be all over the papers."

I don't think so. Too deep a topic. That's like 'If anyone ever figures out what's up with space, it'll be in the papers.'


My comment was facetious. I think it is far more likely that someone will prove that we'll never really know.


"where as the authors on that site look like they think they can eventually explain everything."

I'm not sure what site you're referring to.

Click the tabs at the bottom of the page. There tons of articles on the subject.

cheers

[Braden]

"According to Sartre, it is through choice that we create our nature..."

I'm afraid my Sartre is nowhere near as salient as I wish it was. Mostly, Homer Simpsons quotes come to mind... :p Wouldn't he say that it is through actions that we create our nature, though?

"I was not aware of that distinction, and I'm not sure whether or not it is a real distinction."

From the article: "The main objection to the thesis that mind is matter --- as contrasted to the view that mind and matter are different aspects of a single neutral reality..."

http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/dictindex.html Online dictionary of philosophy of mind has entries for neutral monism, materialism, and property dualism in case anyone is interested.

If mind is a property of matter, if we knew everything about matter, we'd know everything about mind. If mind and matter are properties of a neutral element, this is not the case. (As an example of an important difference between the positions)

"Behaviorists are the enemies of Exisistentialists."

Yeah, but behaviourism has been the overwhelmingly prominent theory in both science and philosophy in general for generations.

I'm with you though. One of the things that helps me rationalize the seemingly contrasting positions is to remember that science's stated task is not to expound upon the fundamental nature of reality, but rather to follow a specific method of inquiry for developing useful models thereof. With this in mind, it can be quite rational (pun intended) for it to follow a theory which cannot account for the fundamental nature of reality.

"I think it is far more likely that someone will prove that we'll never really know."

I know. I was trying to argue passively against your dismissal of the science. ;) I think your criticism (pessimism?) is well founded, but nonetheless there is something to be gained in taking whatever actions we can to come to terms with the matter, even in limited and arbitrary concepts. Wouldn't Sartre agree? :D

"Click the tabs at the bottom of the page. There tons of articles on the subject."

Ah, the rest of the online stuff with Psyche journal. It's a mixed bunch, I think some of it is interesting. Check out 'the journal of consciousness studies' some time if you're unfamiliar with it. It may be more to your liking. I'm sure there's at least something online from it somewhere...

:)