The science and philosophical implications of bioelectric fields

I must admit, I haven't followed this thread in too much detail. However, it does seem to me that it may be that paranormal effects that are fairly reproducible may get misinterpreted as some form of strange physical phenomenon.
This might be a more constructive way to explore this topic.

David

The interest in top-down causal fields is arguably the closest we’ve ever gotten to validate Sheldrake’s ideas.

I don’t think you’re going to suddenly get STEM academia to care about the paranormal until top-down causation + fields + QM play a greater role in varied theories that aren’t about the paranormal.

The growing interest in Panpsychism, and to a lesser extent other immaterial metaphysics, will also play a role. ["Lesser extent" for the others not because of any deep flaw but because from what I'm hearing panpsychism has the most broad popularity at the moment.]

The historical momentum of STEM academia + Physicalism/Materialism means it will take a variety of ideas that are, at least theoretically, paranormal friendly before you see a real shift.

The growing interest in Panpsychism, and to a lesser extent other immaterial metaphysics, will also play a role. ["Lesser extent" for the others not because of any deep flaw but because from what I'm hearing panpsychism has the most broad popularity at the moment.]

Before I would take Panpsychism seriously I'd want to know what the smallest unit of psi looks like.

I mean if (as is often assumed) each elementary particle is somehow conscious, there really is a fundamental problem in that in QM all electrons are IDENTICAL. Protons behave the same way. This comes out in the structure of the wavefunction, in that given two electrons, their common wavefunction, psi(x1,y1,z1,x2,y2,z2) is such that if you swap the two particles around in the wavefunction the result changes sign! A similar result holds if you construct a wavefunction out of more electrons.

Now think about it, if two particles are IDENTICAL, that would mean that if they are proto-conscious (or whatever), every electron must be proto-conscious in the same way! The same concept applies to protons, but in many QM calculations the protons (which are about 1836 times as heavy as electrons) and so can be approximated as being classical particles just to simplify the calculation. Electrons, protons, and neutrons have this property.

I'm sorry to belabour this point, but I think people (including I suppose the scientists that propose Panpsychism) just glaze over this symmetry and say something like, "well maybe the particles are identical except for their consciousness"!

OK, if we don't attach consciousness to fundamental particles what do we attach it to and why? According to quantum field theory (that I don't know in a mathematical sense) fundamental particles are excitations of a fundamental matter field - so I can't really see how you could attach proto-conscious at this most fundamental level.

Can anyone suggest what the smallest unit of consciousness might be (and why)?

David

Before I would take Panpsychism seriously I'd want to know what the smallest unit of psi looks like.

I mean if (as is often assumed) each elementary particle is somehow conscious, there really is a fundamental problem in that in QM all electrons are IDENTICAL. Protons behave the same way. This comes out in the structure of the wavefunction, in that given two electrons, their common wavefunction, psi(x1,y1,z1,x2,y2,z2) is such that if you swap the two particles around in the wavefunction the result changes sign! A similar result holds if you construct a wavefunction out of more electrons.

Now think about it, if two particles are IDENTICAL, that would mean that if they are proto-conscious (or whatever), every electron must be proto-conscious in the same way! The same concept applies to protons, but in many QM calculations the protons (which are about 1836 times as heavy as electrons) and so can be approximated as being classical particles just to simplify the calculation. Electrons, protons, and neutrons have this property.

I'm sorry to belabour this point, but I think people  (including I suppose the scientists that propose Panpsychism) just glaze over this symmetry and say something like, "well maybe the particles are identical except for their consciousness"!

OK, if we don't attach consciousness to fundamental particles what do we attach it to and why? According to quantum field theory (that I don't know in a mathematical sense) fundamental particles are excitations of a fundamental matter field - so I can't really see how you could attach proto-conscious at this most fundamental level.

Can anyone suggest what the smallest unit of consciousness might be (and why)?

David

Panpsychism just means Mind is distributed widely across the forms we experience, though the term as used nowadays is saying there's some kind of mental component in matter. So there's Bottom Up and Top Down Panpsychism, but also just Non-Constitutive Panpsychism. For example Animism that gives some kind of extended body to spirits could be an example of the latter. [Actually even if the Animism was said to ultimately be an Idealism you could still call it a type of Panpsychism].

My understanding is that Sheldrake's Panpsychism is Non-Constitutiv, just that souls encompass "physical" bodies rather than somehow exist inside of biological forms.

Personally I like that Faggin just speaks of conscious fields and doesn't worry if people call it a Dualism, an Idealism, or a Panpsychism. We shouldn't get so bogged down on the correct "-Ism" that we needlessly make conflict. 

[That said I agree that trying to take bits of consciousness and make them into a bigger consciousness is unworkable.]

Panpsychism just means Mind is distributed widely across the forms we experience, though the term as used nowadays is saying there's some kind of mental component in matter. So there's Bottom Up and Top Down Panpsychism, but also just Non-Constitutive Panpsychism. For example Animism that gives some kind of extended body to spirits could be an example of the latter. [Actually even if the Animism was said to ultimately be an Idealism you could still call it a type of Panpsychism].

My understanding is that Sheldrake's Panpsychism is Non-Constitutiv, just that souls encompass "physical" bodies rather than somehow exist inside of biological forms.

Personally I like that Faggin just speaks of conscious fields and doesn't worry if people call it a Dualism, an Idealism, or a Panpsychism. We shouldn't get so bogged down on the correct "-Ism" that we needlessly make conflict. 

[That said I agree that trying to take bits of consciousness and make them into a bigger consciousness is unworkable.]

The problem is that Panpsychism distributes consciousness right down to fundamental particles, and as I have shown that doesn't make sense. These ideas are probably meant in a vaguer sense, but that basic point is that electrons don't really have individuality. You can't talk about this electron 'thinks' this and that electron 'thinks' something else.

BTW, I do agree very strongly with your last sentence.

David

The problem is that Panpsychism distributes consciousness right down to fundamental particles, and as I have shown that doesn't make sense. These ideas are probably meant in a vaguer sense, but that basic point is that electrons don't really have individuality. You can't talk about this electron 'thinks' this and that electron 'thinks' something else.

BTW, I do agree very strongly with your last sentence.

David

Most of the more modern conceptions I've seen place the consciousness in the fields from which electrons themselves would arguably arise.

I trust your physics knowledge over my own now vague memories but I don't think this is as fatal a problem as you see it.

Most of the more modern conceptions I've seen place the consciousness in the fields from which electrons themselves would arguably arise.

I trust your physics knowledge over my own now vague memories but I don't think this is as fatal a problem as you see it.

Well as I have said I don't know the maths for QFT, but as I understand it, particles consist of excitations in the corresponding field (for all electrons in the universe!). The electrons arent individual things, but more akin to vibrations of an organ pipe! I don't see where you can park some consciousness in that lot.

However, don't trust my physics knowledge too far!

David

Well as I have said I don't know the maths for QFT, but as I understand it, particles consist of excitations in the corresponding field (for all electrons in the universe!). The electrons arent individual things, but more akin to vibrations of an organ pipe! I don't see where you can park some consciousness in that lot.

However, don't trust my physics knowledge too far!

David

Ultimately I do think Panpsychism where Mind is somehow injected into Matter is wrong.

But I also think Dualism, Idealism, Information Realism, Dual Aspect Monism....really all the "-Isms" are failing to properly capture some aspect of our reality.

My guess is the way we think about Mind & Matter, among a host of other aspects (God, Causation, etc) need to be reworked....

Evolution News put out an article discussing this paper - Ingressing Minds: Causal Patterns Beyond Genetics and Environment in Natural, Synthetic, and Hybrid Embodiments - that is currently a preprint authored [by] Levin:

Biologist Michael Levin: A Farewell to Physicalism

 Daniel Witt

...As my first organic chemistry professor told us, “Science isn’t about what’s true. It’s about what works.” This mindset favors a materialist paradigm, since most of what science “works” for is manipulating the material world. (And if you start manipulating the immaterial world, you are classified as a mathematician or a philosopher, not a scientist.) But Levin makes a strong case that even on the basis of sheer pragmaticism, Platonic ideals have a lot going for them. Scientists use them all the time, even if they don’t think about it. And Levin contends that there are worlds of biological discoveries ahead if we stop treating the incursions of the metaphysical world as an embarrassment, and instead study the physical and the non-physical together in an integrated way....

According to Levin, the remarkable complex structures that exist in biology are not merely the inevitable result of natural selection. They are not even the inevitable results of physics. Instead, they are based on logical and mathematical realities that can only be described as non-physical: “All of these are specific facts about a world which do not depend on facts from physics — they can be linked to other aspects of mathematics but they form a set of findings that do not reduce to any facts of physics.” Even if you changed all the constants and initial conditions of the Big Bang, Levin points out, these Platonic structures would be untouched: “There is nothing in the physical world that can be used as a control knob to alter them.”

“Is there a ‘force’, beyond the ‘if you build it, they will come’ model of physical objects pulling patterns from the space?” he asks. “Are the contents of the Platonic space under ‘positive pressure’, somehow encouraging their appearance in the world as intrusive thoughts, archetypes, works of art? Is there a symmetrical dynamic through which they push outward — inherently driven to ‘haunt’ matter as much as matter calls to the patterns that animate it, projecting outward through interfaces made to that space[?]”

Levin doesn’t know. But he thinks that scientists need to get serious about finding out. I can’t say I disagree.

Most of the more modern conceptions I've seen place the consciousness in the fields from which electrons themselves would arguably arise.

I trust your physics knowledge over my own now vague memories but I don't think this is as fatal a problem as you see it.

I'd love to pull in one or two other people in to this discussion @nbtruthman @sbu because if I am making a mistake here I'd like to find out. I mean when electrons are conceived as excitations of a matter field, that surely removes their individuality completely - the field simply contains N excitations!

David