The Impossibly Hard Problem of Consciousness

Let me ask a simple and straight-forward questions - who here thinks that information sciences are researching a non-material aspect of realty?

IMHO, information sciences are only peripherally relevant to consciousness, and do not touch on the non-materialistic aspects of consciousness.

One founding member openly states the theory that "organisms designed themselves". 

Which one said this - he is sailing especially close to the wind I think.

Non-classical physics (i.e. QM) is probably related to consciousness in exactly the way Stapp describes, but he is still left with no explanation of consciousness itself - just a description of how it connects up with physical matter.

David

Let me ask a simple and straight-forward questions - who here thinks that information sciences are researching a non-material aspect of realty?   Has modern metaphysics - defined information/meaning as epiphenomenal, when compared to matter/energy?  

My own take would be that because of the necessary limitations of science, we have to look at that which is physical in order to understand that which is non physical.  Of course, as laypeople, we can speculate intuitively or use all kinds of experiential information but science needs that which is solid, consensual and repeatable otherwise it leaves the door open to too many vague possibilities when, in fact, we are trying to find the one thing that is so highly probable that we may as well treat it as fact.  The word information has different uses but mind information becomes physical information in a process that is indistinct.  Another thing to think about is that when we analyze and try to quantify things, we punctuate reality creating borders and boundaries that don't actually exist in themselves, but only in human comprehension.

IMHO, information sciences are only peripherally relevant to consciousness, and do not touch on the non-materialistic aspects of consciousness.

Which one said this - he is sailing especially close to the wind I think.

Non-classical physics (i.e. QM) is probably related to consciousness in exactly the way Stapp describes, but he is still left with no explanation of consciousness itself - just a description of how it connects up with physical matter.

David

Raju Pookottil 
https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/p...-pookottil

 The principles of emergence, swarm intelligence and signal networks, which he proposes are available to all living organisms, could in fact be the real forces that cleverly and logically drive the evolution of every species on earth. Our brains work by exploiting these very same principles. It is proposed that the complex signal networks that exist between the millions of protein molecules in a cell, or the billions of cells that make up larger organisms, are also capable of generating intelligent solutions, albeit at a slower pace.

The hypothesis also argues that species are in control of their own genomes and that they are able to engineer their genetic codes where necessary in order to incorporate ‘design modifications’. Thus, species meaningfully assess their environment, create ingenious solutions, and crucially, pass them on to subsequent generations. Using observable examples, BEEM builds up a strong case supporting these arguments.

I am well read on Stapp and know the basis of his thinking is the process model of John von Neumann.  Process 1 is the concept at the root of it.  Wanna talk about von Neumann's role in Information Science and his influence on Stapp?

My own take would be that because of the necessary limitations of science, we have to look at that which is physical in order to understand that which is non physical.  Of course, as laypeople, we can speculate intuitively or use all kinds of experiential information but science needs that which is solid, consensual and repeatable otherwise it leaves the door open to too many vague possibilities when, in fact, we are trying to find the one thing that is so highly probable that we may as well treat it as fact.  The word information has different uses but mind information becomes physical information in a process that is indistinct.  Another thing to think about is that when we analyze and try to quantify things, we punctuate reality creating borders and boundaries that don't actually exist in themselves, but only in human comprehension.

Great post.  All of your cautions are valid and must be reckoned.

There is not much more to my understanding of "informational objects", than their analogical behavior with physical objects.  Each are measurable in their own environments.  How much of language is iconizing physical objects into informational objects?  A bridge vs building a bridge in human relations.  It works the other way, as now understanding a machine is "decoding it".

Rather than defending, let me share what I am trying to grok at the moment.

 Carving  scientific  knowledge  up  into  different disciplines  each  with  its  own preferred  causal  variables  comes  with  severe  challenges.  For  instance, a popular  theme  in the  neurobiological  sciences is the use of information:  specialized  components and  processes  generate  specific  informative  signals, and these signals travel along communicative pathways in the biological  or cognitive  system.  Attempts  to  define  the  concepts  of  “organism”  and “life”  have  notably  invoked  the  capacities  of  determining  to what  information  refers and generating  information-appropriate  actions  as  defining features  of biological  systems.18  In short, according  to  this  view, biological  systems  can  make  use of information, and non-organic physical systems cannot.  This view involves making a loan of intelligence,  that  is, assuming that  the participating entities  are  acting  with  specialized  expertise  that has not otherwise been explained.19  - Kelty-Stephen and Dixon

https://www.dl.begellhouse.com/journals/...e7093.html

Raju Pookottil 
https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/p...-pookottil


I am well read on Stapp and know the basis of his thinking is the process model of John von Neumann.  Process 1 is the concept at the root of it.  Wanna talk about von Neumann's role in Information Science and his influence on Stapp?

Here is a good description of Stapp's ideas:

http://quantum-mind.co.uk/theories/henry-stapp/

Stapp's crucial idea is that if you take a quantum state which is being gently perturbed by the environment, and observe it at short intervals, you can effectively stop it evolving - which it would do if you didn't observe it, or did so infrequently. That description is slightly vague, it is more accurate to say that frequent observation reduces the chance that the state will evolve (to another state). The chance that this happens can be made arbitrarily small by increasing the frequency of observation.

This is a mechanism by which the mind can control the brain, and hence the body. Somewhere I have seen him speculate that the mind may be able to control the quantum probabilities more directly than this - essentially because the mind isn't itself part of the quantum mechanical system.

Stapp does not try to explain consciousness - he shows how it (very probably) couples with the physical universe.

In Stapp's contribution to "Beyond Physicalism" he writes:

The foundation of the von Neumann theory of reality is his proof that the thinking entity (ego) aspect of each of us is ontologically different from the quantum mechanically described physical universe. The latter includes our bodies and brains, which are related to an ego’s brain/ body via top-down probing actions, and nature’s responses to those probing actions.

I know less about von Neumann's ideas, but I think the above quote (from Stapp) would suggest that von Neumann held the same view that mind (consciousness) is distinct from the physical universe!

You have prompted me to re-read Chapter 5 of "Beyond Physicalism" - which is on the top of my reading list!

David

The Impossibly Hard Problem of Consciousness

Prudence Louise



=-=-=

Why Physicalism Is Failing as the Accepted Approach to Science

https://motls.blogspot.com/2021/11/other...ss-is.html

But even before QM, it was rather clear that panpsychism was needed in any scientific world view simply because there can't be any "metaphysically sharp" boundary between objects like humans that we consider conscious; and other objects. So some amount of the "consciousness substance" must be assigned to any object in Nature, otherwise we end up with a clearly scientifically ludicrous anthropocentric or anthropomorphic theory. Complex, organized structures such as human brains or computers may be very reliable in remembering or processing information; but the truly inner type of consciousness works even with amounts of information comparable to one nat which is why it cannot depend on the existence of very large or organized bound states. If you know that you have consciousness, the extrapolation of this insight to "other objects may have consciousness" is totally analogous to the extrapolation of biological properties of our bodies to those of other mammals' bodies: we're qualitatively similar and related by Darwin's evolution. The extrapolation of the "ability to have consciousness" to other objects is more far-reaching because it follows from physics which is more far-reaching in its ability to unify than biology, but otherwise the two cases are analogous.

Here is a good description of Stapp's ideas:

http://quantum-mind.co.uk/theories/henry-stapp/

 Somewhere I have seen him speculate that the mind may be able to control the quantum probabilities more directly than this - essentially because the mind isn't itself part of the quantum mechanical system.

Stapp does not try to explain consciousness - he shows how it (very probably) couples with the physical universe.

Here are are quotes from Stapp I think are on the mark.  https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101118  

 The observed physical world is described rather by a mathematical structure that can best be characterized as representing information and propensities: the information is about certain events that have occurred in the past, and the propensities are objective tendencies pertaining to future events. ...

The Physical World as Information 
Von Neumann quantum theory is designed to yield all the predictions of Copenhagen quantum theory. It must therefore encompass the increments of knowledge that Copenhagen quantum theory makes predictions about. Von Neumann’s theory is, in fact, essentially a theory of the interaction of these subjective realities with an evolving objective physical universe. 

Von Neumann makes clear the fact that he is trying to tie together the subjective perceptual and objective physical aspects of nature: “it is inherently entirely correct that the measurement or related process of subjective perception is a new entity relative to the physical environment and is not reducible to the latter. Indeed, subjective perception leads to the intellectual inner life of the individual...”-- H. Stapp

Stapp is making a major contributions in popularizing von Neumann and in presenting a process model for mind/brain interaction.

Here are are quotes from Stapp I think are on the mark.  https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101118  

OK I am gradually ploughing through that paper. However that that it is dated 2001, whereas his contribution to Beyond Physicalism is dated 2019. Maybe his ideas may have evolved over that time.

David

Stephen,

I tend to think we should look at Stapp's latest thoughts on consciousness. He contributed chapter 5 to "Beyond Physicalism". I think that is an excellent non-mathematical account, but unfortunately the book is rather expensive. If you have the book there is no problem, but if you don't perhaps we can settle on some account on the internet.

His chapter has subheadings such as  "Survival of Bodily Death, Reincarnation, Possession, and Mediumship" - which leaves little doubt that he supports the 'woo' side of the argument

In the conventional physics description of a typical quantum mechanical experiment - say the double-slit experiment - the particles are understood quantum mechanically but the apparatus is treated classically, even though it itself is made of particles. Stapp calls this the "Heisenburg cut" what is above the cut is treated classically, what is below is treated quantum mechanically. In principle it doesn't matter where you put this cut provided it is outside of the actual interacting particles - which must be treated quantum mechanically, but in practice it is easiest to place it in the traditional position. Stapp credits Von Neumann with the realisation that the cut can be made anywhere all the way back to the brain, and that the best place to put this cut is beyond even the brain, at what VN called the ego (I think he meant the mind, not a reference to Freud). In other words, he sees abstract minds (not part of space-time, I think) controlling the brain by sending in questions (process 1).

The brain then evolves (process 2) until it returns an answer (process 3).

Thus QM explains the mind-brain connection, but not consciousness itself.

David

I would love to see a bit of discussion about Stapp - particularly with StephenW - because I think I have shown that Stapp isn't really supporting the argument that creatures can evolve in some complex organic way from non-conscious matter.

Stapp and VN seem to see a role for a mind which is outside space-time.

To me this makes woo explanations far more real!