Dualism versus (neutral) monism, consciousness, quantum mechanics [Night Shift split]

A little more on the physical foundations of memory and the basic problem of understanding it.

Memories aren't literally "things". It is commonplace in neuroscience (and in ordinary conversation) to think of memories as “things” that are stored in the brain. This is wrong scientifically, in fact it is nonsense.

Memory is “knowledge retained and not forgotten.” Memories are psychological, experiential and subjective, not physical, things. They can no more be stored in the brain than wishes and dreams can be stored in your pocket. Thus, the claim that memories are literally stored — in the brain or anywhere — is nonsense. It is just a handy metaphor.

But at the same time, the subjective experience of having memory knowledge of something experienced in the past absolutely does have a physical basis in neuronal nets formed when the memory originated.

There is no question that proper functioning of the brain is necessary for ordinary memories to exist — that is, for the ordinary acquisition of knowledge and its retention.

While memories, being immaterial subjective mental experiences of knowledge, are not themselves stored in the brain like data files, the brain is necessary for memory formation just as it is necessary for ordinary acquisition of knowledge. To acquire new memories, normal functioning of at least one hippocampus is necessary. The hippocampus is a small region of the brain located in the medial temporal lobe. While loss of one hippocampus of the two present bilaterally does not affect memory, loss of both hippocampi is catastrophic, and is one cause of a complete inability to form new memories called Korsakoff’s syndrome.

It seems very likely that immaterial memories are in some sense "represented" in the brain, in the form of physical neuronal synaptical brain state complexes, called "engrams". This is and has been the subject of much research. While embodied, some level of the neural physical data processing supporting immaterial consciousness (whatever that mysterious consciousness really is) must then scan for, find and then decode this physical information to generate the conscious experience of the corresponding memory. There is much research evidence that the concept of "engrams" is valid.

It is now possible to artificially manipulate memory encoding and retrieval processes to generate false memories, to actually create a memory in mice without any natural sensory experience (implantation of a memory for an experience that did not occur). And “silent” engrams have been discovered in amnesic mice; artificial reactivation of such silent engrams has been found to then induce memory retrieval.

An emerging concept is that any given (immaterial) memory comes about by means of a physical engram complex, composed of functionally connected engram cell ensembles dispersed across multiple brain regions, with each ensemble supporting a component of the overall memory.

But the bottom line is that none of this research and moderate insight into the physical mechanisms of memory information storage and retrieval in the brain addresses the central mystery of how immaterial consciousness interacts with the physical memory engrams to generate immaterial memory experiences. This process is a drastic transduction of information from one fundamental form into another.

There is no straightforward way to reconcile something 'immaterial' with the material matter of the brain. Such a mechanism would violate fundamental physical principles such as the conservation of energy (Quantum Mechanics would fail, e.g Schrödinger's  equation is derived from the conservation of potential and kinectic energy and so on). If immaterial minds exist, how they interact with the brain remains fundamentally unknown.

There is no straightforward way to reconcile something 'immaterial' with the material matter of the brain. Such a mechanism would violate fundamental physical principles such as the conservation of energy (Quantum Mechanics would fail, e.g Schrödinger's  equation is derived from the conservation of potential and kinectic energy and so on). If immaterial minds exist, how they interact with the brain remains fundamentally unknown.

You appear to be skeptical that immaterial minds can possibly exist. Veridical NDE OBEs confirm that that they do, at least the minds or spirits of the NDErs who slip easily out of their bodies and pass through walls and ceilings with no resistance into other places in the physical and spiritual realms. They clearly are no longer tied to the physical. How do you explain these paranormal experiences otherwise?

There is, as far as I can discern, no way for a material configuration to be the cause of certain observed and experienced phenomena. These observed phenomena include firstly (as previously mentioned) the soul or spirit that can leave the physical body and make confirmed observations elsewhere in the physical and spiritual worlds. See The Self Does Not Die, a compilation of these cases. Secondly, there is the certain existence of the qualia of subjective perception and awareness, fundamental aspects or properties of consciousness. The existence of these things is absolutely certain because they are experienced every day. These things are fundamentally immaterial since they have no material properties or aspects. The perception of red has absolutely zero weight yet it definitely exists.

Thus consciousness must be immaterial, and namely what is commonly called the soul or spirit.  At the same time, certain absolutely essential spirit/material interactions must still somehow be enabled in order for embodiment to occur. Physics (if it is even applicable to it) must be adjusted accordingly to accomodate these facts of existence. 

Perhaps consciousness is the absolutely elemental foundational base of existence that is in principle not further reducible and is therefore not analyzable and capable of being integrated into the laws of physics. This looks somewhat like Idealism.

You appear to be skeptical that immaterial minds can possibly exist. Veridical NDE OBEs confirm that that they do, at least the minds or spirits of the NDErs who slip easily out of their bodies and pass through walls and ceilings with no resistance into other places in the physical and spiritual realms. They clearly are no longer tied to the physical. How do you explain these paranormal experiences otherwise?

While various degrees of awareness around the time of cardiac arrest are fairly common, compelling Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs) verified by healthcare professionals (HCPs) are extremely rare. In a thread on the AwareOfAware blog, the author requested the top five reports of Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) (https://awareofaware.co/2023/11/18/top-five-ndes/). Following the thread, it becomes clear that if ten reports had been requested, they would not have been found. How can we draw any conclusions from such elusive phenomena? Although the scientific worldview is not entirely complete and sometimes contradicts itself—suggesting that there is more to the world than what we can see—I am not ready to leap to any extreme conclusions based on such scant evidence.

While various degrees of awareness around the time of cardiac arrest are fairly common, compelling Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs) verified by healthcare professionals (HCPs) are extremely rare. In a thread on the AwareOfAware blog, the author requested the top five reports of Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) (https://awareofaware.co/2023/11/18/top-five-ndes/). Following the thread, it becomes clear that if ten reports had been requested, they would not have been found. How can we draw any conclusions from such elusive phenomena? Although the scientific worldview is not entirely complete and sometimes contradicts itself—suggesting that there is more to the world than what we can see—I am not ready to leap to any extreme conclusions based on such scant evidence.

Scant evidence? In the Self Does Not Die, the investigator/authors investigated and confirmed over 125 cases, with the certainty that many more exist but were unknown to the authors for various reasons. In order for this paranormal phenomenon to really be explainable normally, every single one would have to really have some "normal" explanation, like misperceptions or coincidences or bad memory or outright fabrications of either the experiencers or the investigators. To paraphrase William James, all it takes to prove that white crows exist is to find just one in the entire population.

There are also the certain existence of the qualia of perception, one of the fundamental components of consciousness. This is the essence of consciousness, subjective awareness, for certain existing because of being experienced every day, but totally immaterial, having no material aspects or properties.

Therefore there are at least two prominent "things" that are immaterial and are intimately associated with consciousness. A reasonable inference is that consciousness is immaterial, regardless of the presently formulated laws of physics. The implication is that consciousness may be a fundamentally basic foundational reality that can't further be reduced to parts and analyzed via science.

Isn't Aware of Aware a propaganda site to uphold the materialist faith?

They seem to be unaware of the actual body of evidence...

Scant evidence? In the Self Does Not Die, the investigator/authors investigated and confirmed over 125 cases, with the certainty that many more exist …..

Wait, this isn't correct. The author compiled 125 cases retrospectively, which is different from conducting a prospective investigational study in a hospital setting with access to hospital records, among other resources. While it might be an interesting read, it doesn't offer substantial evidence for any specific hypothesis. I'm not disputing the occurrence of near-death experiences (NDEs), but I don't believe they serve as evidence for the existence of an immaterial mind. We don’t understand consciousness, it doesn’t mean it’s immaterial.

Isn't Aware of Aware a propaganda site to uphold the materialist faith?

They seem to be unaware of the actual body of evidence...

My impression of Aware of Aware is that the blog author is skeptical of Parnia's presented materialistic theory attempting to find something, anything, neurological to account for NDEs. The Aware of Aware blogger selected the very best most evidential 5 cases he could find to go into in detail, but these weren't the only ones he considers evidential. He is a bit ambiguous, but still seems to provisionally accept that NDEs probably are real paranormal phenomena with afterlife implications. sbu seems to think that he was citing the only ones with credible evidence. Not so.

Wait, this isn't correct. The author compiled 125 cases retrospectively, which is different from conducting a prospective investigational study in a hospital setting with access to hospital records, among other resources. While it might be an interesting read, it doesn't offer substantial evidence for any specific hypothesis. I'm not disputing the occurrence of near-death experiences (NDEs), but I don't believe they serve as evidence for the existence of an immaterial mind. We don’t understand consciousness, it doesn’t  mean it’s immaterial.

That's your personal skeptical interpretation, ignoring the multiple accounts of experiences that are by their very nature spontaneous, rare, unpredictable, uncontrollable, and typically with no reason for fabrication, then you ask for some sort of "gold standard" prospective study that would subject the phenomenon to laboratory analysis. This ignores the essential nature of the phenomenon.  And the authors of The Self Does Not Die required, utilized and cited thorough confirmations carried out by previous original investigators. I wonder how you would explain the 5 cases gone into in detail by the Aware of Aware blogger, especially considering William James' observation of the one white crow effect.

Also, you don't address my point about the certain existence of absolutely immaterial qualia and other inherent aspects and properties of consciousness.

Also, you don't address my point about the certain existence of absolutely immaterial qualia and other inherent aspects and properties of consciousness.

To assert the existence of "immaterial qualia" based on our current definitions and understandings of "qualia" and "immaterial" would be to oversimplify the profound complexity of consciousness. The term "immaterial" carries the connotation of being "spiritual, rather than physical," yet on the quantum level the boundary between physical and non-physical is not as clear-cut as classical thinking suggests. Thus, when we speak of the qualities or properties as perceived or experienced by a person, we step into a realm where the very tools and concepts at our disposal—rooted in physical science—may not fully capture the essence of these experiences.

Acknowledging the complexities of quantum physics, where even the fundamental nature of light as a particle or wave eludes definitive understanding, casts a profound shadow on our capacity to grasp the nature of the mind. If our comprehension of the physical, illustrated by the quantum realm, is marked by such foundational ambiguities and complexities, how can we confidently assert the nature of the mind as strictly physical or immaterial?

To assert the existence of "immaterial qualia" based on our current definitions and understandings of "qualia" and "immaterial" would be to oversimplify the profound complexity of consciousness. The term "immaterial" carries the connotation of being "spiritual, rather than physical," yet on the quantum level the boundary between physical and non-physical is not as clear-cut as classical thinking suggests. Thus, when we speak of the qualities or properties as perceived or experienced by a person, we step into a realm where the very tools and concepts at our disposal—rooted in physical science—may not fully capture the essence of these experiences.

Acknowledging the complexities of quantum physics, where even the fundamental nature of light as a particle or wave eludes definitive understanding, casts a profound shadow on our capacity to grasp the nature of the mind. If our comprehension of the physical, illustrated by the quantum realm, is marked by such foundational ambiguities and complexities, how can we confidently assert the nature of the mind as strictly physical or immaterial?

The Penrose/Hameroff OrchOR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction) theory is the only one I am aware of that attempts to address consciousness quantum mechanically.

From https://evolutionnews.org/2024/01/brain-...-traction/ :

OrchOR theory says that consciousness arises when gravitational instabilities in the fundamental structure of space-time collapse quantum wave functions in tiny structures called microtubules that are found inside neurons — and, in fact, in all complex cells.

In quantum theory, a particle does not really exist as a tiny bit of matter located somewhere but rather as a cloud of probabilities. If observed, it collapses into the state in which it was observed. Penrose has postulated that “each time a quantum wave function collapses in this way in the brain, it gives rise to a moment of conscious experience.”

Hameroff has been studying proteins known as tubulins inside the microtubules of neurons. He postulates that “microtubules inside neurons could be exploiting quantum effects, somehow translating gravitationally induced wave function collapse into consciousness, as Penrose had suggested.”"

This amounts to little more than claiming the existence of a magical process - one fundamental existential kind of "stuff" spontaneously transforming into another fundamentally existentially different kind of "stuff. Penrose and Hameroff are claiming that consciousness is somehow magically created out of quantum mechanical wave function collapse within neurons, a theory which is akin to and not any better than materialist neuroscience simply claiming that consciousness is one and the same as the interactions of billions of neurons in the brain. 

This clearly invokes the Hard Problem of consciousness, an apparently unsolvable problem for materialist mind-matter theories. This can be summarized as follows: conscious subjective awareness is a fundamentally different level of reality than matter and energy and their interactions, so how can matter and energy and their interactions create or be one and the same as consciousness, a fundamentally different "stuff"? Example: The essence of the subjective perception of the color red is not material since it has no material properties like weight or mass or energy or physical extension in space. This is due to subjective perception and awareness being in an entirely different existential realm than light rays of the required wavelength or the physical molecular properties of the object that reflects or radiates light of this wavelength, etc.