• Jack Cummins
    5.1k
    I have been reading, 'The Holographic Universe,' by Michael Talbot (1991). In this, the author describes a holographic model arising within the new physics. This began from the work of Karl Pribram's discovery of how memories are distributed in the brain, as well as David Bohm's ideas on interconnectedness. Talbot suggested that,
    'Most mind-boggling of all are Bohm's fully developed ideas about wholeness. Because everything in the cosmos is made out
    of the seamless holographic fabric of the implicate order, he believes it is as meaningless to view the universe as composed of parts.'
    Bohm's view is that,
    'space is as real and rich with the process as the matter that moves through it reaches full maturity in his ideas about the implicate sea of energy. Matter does not exist independently from the sea, from so-called empty space.'

    Bohm's ideas have particular implications for the understanding of consciousness. As Talbot argues,
    'Bohm rejects the idea that particles don't exist until they are observed. But he is not in principle against trying to bring consciousness and physics together. He simply feels that most physicists go about it in the wrong way, by trying to fragment reality and saying that one separate thing, consciousness, interacts with another separate thing, a subatomic particle.'
    In addition,
    'Bohm believes that consciousness is a more subtle form of matter, and the basis for any relationship between the two lies not in our own level of reality, but deep in the implicate order. Consciousness is present in degrees of enfoldment and unfolding in matter, which is why plasmas possess alone some of the traits of all living things'.

    I am aware that I have only given a very brief sketch of the ideas. However, I am sure that many of the people on this forum have a far more detailed knowledge of physics than I have. So, I am raising the area of debate, wondering if people are familiar with the ideas of David Bohm, the idea of the implicate order and the holographic model. Are such ideas arising in the new physics useful for considering reality and the nature of consciousness? I am also interested in what other ideas about consciousness are offered within the paradigm of the new physics.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.1k
    I am adding Bohm's evaluation, as expressed by Talbot: 'Bohm does not believe any theory is correct in an absolute sense, including his own. All are approximations of the truth, finite and indivisible.'
  • 180 Proof
    14.1k
    I'd stick with reading Bohm & other serious physicists who publically speculate (stray into metaphysics) like Deutsch, Tegmark, Stenger or Rovelli and ignore pseudo-scientific "cold fusion" "astral projection" "hollow earthers" like Michael Talbot.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.1k

    I am not aware of Michael Talbot straying into questionable areas, such as astral projection. I am wary of these. I have been reading,'The Elegant Universe' by Brian Greene, which looks at the idea of superstrings. I am in favour of looking at the most accurate theories available to us.
    ,
  • 180 Proof
    14.1k
    Okay, well then stick with popular science written this millennium for the most up-to-date science and speculations. :wink:
  • Jack Cummins
    5.1k

    I do believe in following up to date ideas and realise that the theory I wrote about was 1991. The only one thing which I do wonder about is that by focusing on the latest discovery is whether we limit our horizons. I am all in favour of the new, but just try to not be too restricted, because sometimes what is currently popular may be so, with some deeper vision being lost or ignored.
  • Banno
    23.4k
    he believes it is as meaningless to view the universe as composed of parts.'Jack Cummins

    And that doesn't leave you a bit suspicious?

    I'm sure he can differentiate his book from his bank account.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.1k

    I am not sure. We all see parts and wholes, and I not sure where one ends and another begins, because it seems to be about framing and perspectives.
  • 180 Proof
    14.1k
    Mostly I agree except when it comes to the natural sciences and technology. Newer is better because it builds on and incorporates what's come before. For instance in 1991 (re: Talbot) we didn't know IIRC that the expansion of the universe was accelerating, that there were exo-planets, what a black hole looked like, the Higgs Boson was still hypothetical, quantum teleportation or high-temperature superconductivity had not been achieved, string theory was still a mess, 99.9% of the internet had not been invented, almost nobody had cell phones (smart phones & ipods hadn't yet been invented), and on and on.
  • Banno
    23.4k

    Physicalism ought be avoided.

    Physicalism is the view that only the description of the world provided by physicists is true.

    Physicalism is an all-and-some theory, describing a haunted universe.

    It pretends to be part of the body of knowledge called physics, but it is not canon.

    It can be spotted by identifying areas of overreach, such as "it is as meaningless to view the universe as composed of parts".
  • Jack Cummins
    5.1k

    I agree that the world and its possibilities seem to be changing rapidly. The only question is whether we can keep up in our theories and philosophy. We need to have expansive minds.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.1k

    I do agree that physicalism ought to be avoided. I am not a physicist, so may be going into a territory for which I am not fully able to explore. I find the idea of the holographic universe interesting, but I am describing it with a view to weaknesses in it being raised.
  • Banno
    23.4k
    I find the idea of the holographic universe interesting,Jack Cummins

    Sure, it's an amusement. It's not the whole story.

    Consider:
    'Bohm believes that consciousness is a more subtle form of matter...Jack Cummins
    Do you see that this is not physics, but physicalism? Bohm has no physical description of consciousness, but he wants there to be one.

    But why should mind be describable in the terms used by physicist? Why would such a thing be desirable? How could we know such a description was successful?

    Perhaps it's just a case of an old physicist discovering that the descriptions he played with all his life do not suffice to explain the really important stuff - love, belonging, sacrifice - so he indulges in wishful thinking.
  • Tom Storm
    8.4k
    Physicalism ought be avoided.

    Physicalism is the view that only the description of the world provided by physicists is true.

    Physicalism is an all-and-some theory, describing a haunted universe.

    It pretends to be part of the body of knowledge called physics, but it is not canon.

    It can be spotted by identifying areas of overreach, such as "it is as meaningless to view the universe as composed of parts".
    Banno

    What is the alternative?
  • Banno
    23.4k
    Everything.
  • Tom Storm
    8.4k
    Sorry Banno I'm not great on cryptic one word answers. I can't think of much that doesn't have a physical basis to it. Can you be a bit more nuanced? Panpsychism; psychophysical parallelism .. any fancy words... compass points?
  • RogueAI
    2.5k
    Tegmark is pretty out there. He thinks the universe is made of math. That's pretty idealistic.
  • Banno
    23.4k
    So the question is, what more is there than physicalism? Is that what you are asking?

    Literature.
    Poetry.
    Ethics.
    Psychology.
    Anthropology.
    Gardening.
    Cooking.
    Caring.

    It's a long list.

    I can't think of much that doesn't have a physical basis to it.Tom Storm

    Notice that this is not what physicalism claims. Sure, literature uses physical books, or poetry uses sound, or gardening uses spades and rakes. But physicalism claims that all there is to each is to be found in the descriptions used by physicist.
  • Tom Storm
    8.4k
    Thank you. Getting closer, but I still don't quite get your drift. I don't have any philosophical learning and I am not a physicist or even much interested in the minutia of science. My understanding of physicists is they vary in their definitions of physicalism. Here all I see is things which are the product in some way of physical processes. I don't see how behavior or any activities such as those listed could exist without physical events or measurable things.

    Can you possibly take one of these and tease out the details?
  • Banno
    23.4k
    I've been very (indeed, unusually) clear as to the way I am using 'physicalism' here.
    Physicalism is the view that only the description of the world provided by physicists is true.Banno

    Notice that this is not contrary to the view that, say, literature could not exist without physical events or measurable things.
  • Tom Storm
    8.4k
    Ok so you are being very careful with definitions. I'm slow so I am needing more to take this to any kind of practical conclusion.
  • 180 Proof
    14.1k
    Have you read Tegmark's MU conjecture? I'm interested in your objections or, even better, a plausible refutation. The expansion of the universe was also once "pretty out there" ... until Friedmann, Lemaître, Hubble & Eddington showed that it's the case.
  • RogueAI
    2.5k
    I read it a long time ago to win an argument.

    I stumbled across this: "We examine the hypothesis that consciousness can be understood as a state of matter, "perceptronium", with distinctive information processing abilities."
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219

    The existence of a paper like this from a genius like Tegmark says a lot about how little progress science has made on the Hard Problem.

    "Our approach generalizes Giulio Tononi's integrated information framework for neural-network-based consciousness to arbitrary quantum systems"

    There's no evidence for IIT. It's impossible to verify if any external information-integrating system is conscious. And there are other problems with it.
  • Wayfarer
    20.7k
    I’ve noticed Talbott’s book a number of times and it’s been mentioned on various forums, but I never bought it.

    The principle of holism is another matter, though. The point about the hologram is that if you break up a holographic image, you don’t get fragments of the image, you get smaller versions of the same image at a lower resolution. That’s why the analogy makes sense.

    There’s an Hermetic dictum of ‘man as microcosm’. That sounds obviously absurd when you consider the vast expanse of the Universe and how small, and brief, human existence is. But we have the ability to consider that! The comparison is made in our mind’s eye. We bring a perspective apart from which there is no large or small, near or far.
  • Wayfarer
    20.7k
    . I can't think of much that doesn't have a physical basis to it.Tom Storm

    Check out this discussion.
  • 180 Proof
    14.1k
    Well, okay, if that's all you got. Just checking. Full disclosure: I don't much care for Tegmark's "mathematical universe" for philosophical rather than scientific reasons. I recommended him to @Jack Cummins as an example of an excellent, working physicist who nonetheless dares to spectulate in public. Btw, Tegmark is one of main critics (debunkers?) of ITT. Thomas Metzinger's PSM conjecture about "consciousness", by contrast, I've found philosophically compelling and very grounded in contemporary neuroscience.
  • MondoR
    335
    2k
    I have been reading, 'The Holographic Universe,' by Michael Talbot (1991). In this, the author describes a holographic model arising within the new physics.
    Jack Cummins

    For an extremely full and deep inquiry sand treatment of a holographic model of consciousness, I would highly recommend Stephen Robbins's Youtube channel:

    https://www.academia.edu/44469526/The_Psychological_Interpretation_of_Life

    You will not find a more thorough discussion anywhere, including a critique of Bohm and other theories of consciousness.

    Yes,. all forms of the physical and non-physicals are a continuous whole, a lá quantum systems. The conception of the universe as discontinuities of the discrete has been totally discredited, yet it's still being taught as fact in outdated science and philosophy classes. Just image the universe as a hologram, being brought to Light by filtered perception. Consciousness illuminates with light.
  • Tom Storm
    8.4k
    Check out this discussion.Wayfarer

    Yeah, Interesting stuff - I skimmed through it. I simply can't comment as much of the discussion seems theoretical and speculative and none of us here (I suspect) have the qualifications to assess the merits of the arguments at the advanced levels necessary.
  • RogueAI
    2.5k
    Are you an IIT proponent?
  • 180 Proof
    14.1k
    I find it interesting but I'm not a proponent per se. The objections are as compelling as Tononi's approach.
  • Wayfarer
    20.7k
    The point is, it addresses your question of 'what is not grounded in the physical'. It's a question that doesn't have an easy answer, but then, you did ask!

    I noticed Christof Koch's latest book https://g.co/kgs/LZodgj and read an author interview. It looks pretty interesting to me along the lines of the other current neuro-philosophical authors you have mentioned previously.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.