• Sir Philo Sophia
    189
    re "you might as well call it 'quantum collapse',"
    maybe some concepts I'm working with relate to that on macro system scale.

    re "'magnetic field density distribution', "
    not thinking of that.

    re "'holographic diffraction interaction', "
    have considered that one and see some potential.

    re 'self-looping attractor constraints',
    chaotic attractors are likely involved, and are best when not programmatic.

    re "'integrated information',"
    I don't think much of IIT.

    but it can only make sense if you call it by its true name: “program”,Zelebg
    Not necessarily, at its core. No doubt programs and comms will control flow and a program might simulate it (not sure about that); however, resonant wave conditions like what I generally have in mind may be best implemented in asynchronous FPGA or optical parallel (interference) pattern processing. programs and normal von neuman architectures are simply not suitable for holistic modes of beholding systems.
  • BrianW
    974


    I think your perspective of consciousness is really good especially since it's primarily wrt to experience, which means there's bound to be an underlying truth to it. And, I think my idea might be in close relation to yours in a way. So, for me, consciousness and intelligence interrelate in every activity. Intelligence is like the grooves of a vinyl record and consciousness (the one we usually refer to) is the sound produced when it is played. However, for me, there is another level/degree of consciousness which is in play before the intelligence is applied. That is, there is a consciousness which determines the intelligence to be used. This former/prior consciousness is analogous to the music pattern which determines how the grooves in a vinyl record will be organised. And, that initial music pattern is not yet sound but, through the use of an instrument, sound can be produced.

    Another analogy would be that I have a musical pattern in my mind. Before I express it or play it on an instrument, it cannot be said to be sound even though it is musical. However, through an instrument (which organisation of strings, chords, membranes, etc, represents intelligence), sound, which is kinda like an emergent property, is generated. Also, that initial music pattern has to be intelligently organised for it to have the potential of sound. Therefore, to me, it seems consciousness and intelligence are always interacting and there can never be one without the other. From such a perspective, I see consciousness as the cause to (source of) intelligence, and the environment in which intelligence manifests/acts, as well as, the emergent property which comes through the action of that intelligence. It's like consciousness is the soul manifesting through a human body (intelligent configuration) and emerging as personality or character (an outer expression of the initial consciousness).
  • Sir Philo Sophia
    189
    I see consciousness as the environment in which intelligence manifests/acts, as well as, the emergent property which comes through the action of that intelligenceBrianW
    there is a consciousness which determines the intelligence to be used.BrianW

    I can see why your intuition links the two, esp. in a human/mammal model, but are you saying you believe only consciousness things can have or exhibit intelligence?

    How about my a virus counter example, which exhibits a high degree of expressed intelligence yet in no way would we say it has consciousness? Virus are not even considered to be alive.
  • Zelebg
    599


    I was making fun of your phrases that sound like they mean something, but ultimately they can only refer to QM or attraction and repulsion of EM fields - distance, mass, velocity, stuff like that. There is nowhere to go from there, that is the bottom. Naming things is not explaining, it’s not even describing.


    resonant wave conditions like what I generally have in mind

    Resonant wave conditions? You can call it “ghost”, or “black box condition”, it does not explain anything. Look, qualia either exists actually or virtually, and we know it does not exist actually. Ok?
  • Sir Philo Sophia
    189
    but ultimately they can only refer to QM or attraction and repulsion of EM fields - distance, mass, velocity, stuff like thatZelebg

    nope. Nothing to do with stuff like that.

    Naming things is not explaining, it’s not even describingZelebg

    Resonant wave conditions? You can call it “ghost”, or “black box condition”, it does not explain anything.Zelebg
    I've laid out a basic framework model for it, but apparently on your deaf ears, which has you making fun by missing the point.

    Look, qualia either exists actually or virtually, and we know it does not exist actually. Ok?Zelebg
    As I've mentioned before, that is a meaningless statement. everything is virtual, even our matter. everything mental is virtual. so, obvious qualia is virtual, like our consciousness. virtual does not mean something is not real, at least to someone, somewhere...
  • Zelebg
    599
    I've laid out a basic framework model for it, but apparently on your deaf ears, which has you making fun by missing the point.

    I'm listening, but you are not saying anything except meaningless assertions and empty phrases. Go ahead, define "resonant wave condition".


    nope. Nothing to do with stuff like that.

    No? Then it has to do with, what? God? Is this a guessing game, you refuse to say?


    obvious qualia is virtual, like our consciousness. virtual does not mean something is not real, at least to someone, somewhere...

    I never said virtual is not real. Virtual is not actual, like simulated alligator is virtual and actual alligator is actual, but both are real, both are physical, both are material. The difference is only in morphology and dynamics of constituting elements. So yes, virtual does not mean ‘not real’, but more importantly, it implies ‘computation’. Got it?
  • BrianW
    974
    How about my a virus counter example, which exhibits a high degree of expressed intelligence yet in no way would we say it has consciousness? Virus are not even considered to be alive.Sir Philo Sophia

    Non-living and even inorganic configurations can have consciousness in the sense that they have preset states of conditioning which primarily define their identity and the activity of intelligence aligned with that identity. It's why we talk of intelligent design - because intelligence is an activity generated and propagated by certain predetermined states/configuration. Therefore, in a comprehensive sort of view, consciousness is that state which determines and compels an intelligent activity. It's like consciousness is the identity (in its totality), and intelligence is its activity.


    Concerning viruses, they have consciousness in the sense of a state of conditioning which defines their identity and degree of intelligent activity. So, for me, it's not that viruses don't have consciousness, but that their level of activity is intermediate between that of configurations which self-propagate biologically and those which do not.


    Sometimes, I simplify consciousness as the awareness-response (interactive) mechanism existent in everything.
  • Sir Philo Sophia
    189
    No? Then it has to do with, what? God? Is this a guessing game, you refuse to say?Zelebg


    I have said. You could have asked clarifying questions or critiques as I have of you, but until now, even if flippantly, you have not.

    In short, as I've said before, I’m hypothesizing that qualia/experience consciousness is like the resonant sound you hear when you thump a container, which resonant sound (e.g., holographic phased standing wave patterns) richly characterizes not only the shape of the container but its material parameters, this resonant sound waves is effectively coherently ‘aware’ of its whole system in a way that you never could be if you separately analyzed all the causal molecules and connections that form the container and the propagation medium the way that Integrated Information Theory suggests is consciousness; thus, at least one reason why (IMHO) their model is devoid of the qualia/experience.

    I am avoiding any direct quantum mechanics as being part of my consciousness simulation model. In that way I’m thinking differently than main mainstream ideas (including Penrose, et. al). However, I do find the need to use macro-quantum mechanic like systems theories to help establish a framework enabling the kind of flowing resonant conditions I’m looking for. As of now, the ingredients of my first order consciousness simulation model include the following:
    • Holographic phase space as the main cognitive fabric
    • Meaningfully manipulating confinement Boundary conditions to perform calculations and selective state phase changes.
    • Employing pilot-wave theory to achieve the macroscopic wave-particle duality I need to achieve a sort of global “I” (particle) state resonating with the global phase-space milieu capturing the whole at a point and the path taken (maybe like a quantum knot) being like a unique qualia experience.
    • I’m initially avoiding entanglement concepts in my model. Instead, thinking to use soliton wave theory to transmit unique wave packet signatures within this phase space to bridge distal parts of the system (possibly unifying a multiplicity of sub-module pilot waves) with a common, unified “I” ‘experience’.
    • Thinking to model each cognitive sub-module, of the multiplicity, as Bose-Einstein condensate types of phase change particle systems where they can only achieve quantum-like abilities (e.g., cognitive resonance, cognitive interference, cognitive tunneling, particle/wave duality, etc.) when they have been trained/cooled to a ground state truth (e.g., maybe like Boltzmann kind of thermal annealing learning, etc.) . As the sub-modules phase change to the Bose-Einstein condensate state they may interfere and tunnel with/to each other to form a global Bose-Einstein condensate state comprised of a resonating subset of the cognitive sub-modules with a global pilot wave path (quantum knot) which may simulate the unified “I” access and qualia consciousness ‘experience’.
    • A parallel linguistic framework.
    • A parallel statistical framework.
    • A parallel reasoning framework.
    • A parallel emotive framework.
    • A parallel sensory-motor framework.
    • A parallel imagination framework.
    • And much more…

    In this way, I’m looking at macro-scale quantum mechanics analogues as the most fruitful way I can build a consciousness system. I have no doubt that actual quantum mechanical effects (as many ponder) would naturally work with, and or enhance the macroscopic version I’m thinking of.
  • Sir Philo Sophia
    189
    I'm listening, but you are not saying anything except meaningless assertions and empty phrases. Go ahead, define "resonant wave condition".Zelebg

    see above for general framework. I am making it up as I go. Have not gone to implementation mechanics yet, just establishing the basic tools and methods conceptually at this point. At a top level, I'm modeling the conscious "I" in an internal "imagination" sandbox which is a central resonant space that is formed primarily via a sophisticated non-verbal linguistic mechanics and a holographic phase space. I think the non-verbal linguistic mechanics is more like ‘access’ consciousness based on my limited reading on the subject. A connectionist implementation model might be best for that in my system. For the qualia/experience consciousness I expect to rely on a holographic phase space where all the linguistic & sensory/motor objects are transformed into waves which interfere with each other and boundary conditions in meaningful ways. I am modeling the qualia/experience consciousness as a resonant condition that does not actually exist on its own but only emerges as the waves in the container sense the boundary conditions and propagation media landscape to form something you can think of like a standing wave which represents the wave states of the whole system. You can think of the boundary conditions as an internal cognitive boundary/shapes on one side and sensory/motor boundary/shapes on the other side and when tuned to a particular ‘meaning’ waves that pulse the system a resonance condition may form that captures the character of the system as whole in one standing wave, which could be read out with connectionist networks recognizing the various interference patterns. In short, I’m hypothesizing that qualia/experience consciousness is the resonant sound you hear when you thump a container, which resonant sound (e.g., holographic phased standing wave patterns) richly characterizes not only the shape of the container but its material parameters, this resonant sound waves is effectively coherently ‘aware’ of its whole system in a way that you never could be if you separately analyzed all the causal molecules and connections that form the container and the propagation medium the way that Integrated Information Theory suggests is consciousness; thus, at least one reason why (IMHO) their model is devoid of the qualia/experience.
  • Sir Philo Sophia
    189
    Virtual is not actual, like simulated alligator is virtual and actual alligator is actual, but both are real, both are physical, both are material.Zelebg

    how is a program in your simulation real, physical, and material?

    you are talking about simulating the physical alligator behavior. However, I say the actual mental alligator, simulated or not, will always be virtual (there, but not really there). You seem to think linearly that mental states are like executing objective state-machines (e.g., programs), I say they cannot be as such.
  • Sir Philo Sophia
    189
    Sometimes, I simplify consciousness as the awareness-response (interactive) mechanism existent in everything.BrianW

    if everything is conscious then how does that help us define it, and why are our computers or electronics not conscious, not even the way a mouse is? Modern AI computers seem to at least as, if not more intelligent than a mouse, so why not at least as conscious under your definition/approach to modeling (levels of) consciousness?
  • Sir Philo Sophia
    189
    Concerning viruses, they have consciousness in the sense of a state of conditioning which defines their identity and degree of intelligent activity. So, for me, it's not that viruses don't have consciousness, but that their level of activity is intermediate between that of configurations which self-propagate biologically and those which do not.BrianW

    why would biologically self-propagating be related to consciousness. Maybe you did not mean to say it that way.

    why would degree of intelligent activity be determined and limited by the degree of 'consciousness'? I think it would be more productive if you increased the sophistication of your 'consciousness' model with at least one additional variable/factor that discriminates between, say the 'consciousness' of a rock, a virus, a bacteria, an AI computer, a worm, and a human. Clearly, "degree of intelligent activity" is not sufficient. e.g., a rock has zero "intelligent activity" which would mean by you it has zero 'consciousness', but then you say ' consciousness as the awareness-response (interactive) mechanism existent in everything', an apparent contradiction.
  • BrianW
    974
    if everything is conscious then how does that help us define itSir Philo Sophia

    All our definitions are a 'work-in-progress' because our understanding is still far from absolute.

    and why are our computers or electronics not conscious, not even the way a mouse is?Sir Philo Sophia

    Because human application of intelligence is vastly inferior to that manifest by nature (or reality).

    why would biologically self-propagating be related to consciousness. Maybe you did not mean to say it that way.Sir Philo Sophia

    Because biology is just a dimension of activity and configuration of energies; and consciousness (interactive mechanism of energy) also manifests that paradigm.

    why would degree of intelligent activity be determined and limited by the degree of 'consciousness'?Sir Philo Sophia

    I mean intelligence cannot surpass the level of consciousness which it is manifest in.

    Clearly, "degree of intelligent activity" is not sufficient. e.g., a rock has zero "intelligent activity" which would mean by you it has zero 'consciousness', but then you say ' consciousness as the awareness-response (interactive) mechanism existent in everything', an apparent contradiction.Sir Philo Sophia

    There is a great deal of intelligence manifest through the configuration we call a rock, e.g. as conceived in the activity of its atoms and molecules.



    However, the truth is that there is a fundamental flaw in the idea that humans (or anything) can be intelligent. This is because it presumes that humans determine their intelligence whereas the truth is that we work with whatever reality (or nature) has given us. Everything we do and have is as nature determined for us, and that is true of everything both living and non-living, organic and inorganic, etc, etc.

    We are a mystery to ourselves. We are and we do. Any attempt at defining ourselves fails to account for the fact that we are already defined.
  • Sir Philo Sophia
    189
    I mean intelligence cannot surpass the level of consciousness which manifests it.BrianW

    so, according to your views, a mentally retarded human (e.g., exhibiting less intelligent activity) has less consciousness than an average human (e.g., exhibiting much more intelligent activity than a retarded one) ?
  • Sir Philo Sophia
    189
    There is a great deal of intelligence manifest through the configuration we call a rock, e.g. as conceived in the activity of its atoms and molecules.BrianW

    so you are coming from the camp of "God's intelligent design" as explaining our universe and human condition?

    also, you apparently are saying that you don't think that consciousness requires any level of agency. Have I got you right on that??
  • Sir Philo Sophia
    189
    Because human application of intelligence is vastly inferior to that manifest by nature (or reality).BrianW

    what working-in-progress definition of 'intelligence' are you using to make these kinds of statements, in re consciousness?
  • Pop
    252
    ZelebgZelebg

    Thanks for the link. It seems we live in a virtual reality:smile:

    You might be interested in this
    I haven't read him, but from the blurb it seems on the money.However like you I like to think these things through myself - even if I am late on the scene. I can model consciousness fairly well, but not fully explain it - all avenues I've tried lead to Panpsychism, And I have recently realized Buddhism arrived there 5000 years ago, so am looking into secular Buddhism - should keep me busy for a few years. Cheers
  • BrianW
    974
    so, according to your views, a mentally retarded human (e.g., exhibiting less intelligent activity) has less consciousness than an average human (e.g., exhibiting much more intelligent activity than a retarded one) ?Sir Philo Sophia

    No, not less consciousness. Not even less intelligence in the ultimate sense. Just a lesser degree of expression of some attributes which seem to depend on the mental faculty for expression.

    so you are coming from the camp of "God's intelligent design" as explaining our universe and human condition?Sir Philo Sophia

    Just intelligent design. I can't give any validation for God(s) but there seems to be a fundamental principle which acts as a unifying or connecting factor to everything. Intelligent design just means great patterns of activity (cause and effect).

    also, you apparently are saying that you don't think that consciousness requires any level of agency. Have I got you right on that??Sir Philo Sophia

    To me, consciousness is the fundamental principle underlying everything. God, energy, reality, etc, are just different names and perspectives of the same thing. Basically, all is consciousness (or God, energy, reality, etc).

    what working-in-progress definition of 'intelligence' are you using to make these kinds of statements, in re consciousness?Sir Philo Sophia

    What we define as intelligence is just a level of activity of generating causes towards effects in as harmonious, and sometimes unified, a way as possible. In that sense nature (what we understand as nature) is a far superior activity.
  • Sir Philo Sophia
    189
    No, not less consciousness. Not even less intelligence in the ultimate sense. Just a lesser degree of expression of some attributes which seem to depend on the mental faculty for expression.BrianW

    OK, so, in your way of thinking, all humans have about the same level of intelligence (difference only in how much it is expressed) and consciousness which comparable in many ways to the intelligence and consciousness of a rock. I'm not sure how such ideas further science, but they do support a good spiritual feeling philosophy, which seems in synch with many ancient eastern philosophies.
  • BrianW
    974
    OK, so, in your way of thinking, all humans have about the same level of intelligence (difference only in how much it is expressed) and consciousness which comparable in many ways to the intelligence and consciousness of a rock.Sir Philo Sophia

    Not really. Neither a rock nor human is intelligent in themselves and by themselves. The point is that, it is intelligence which manifests the activity and identity we refer to as a human and also a rock.
  • BrianW
    974
    I'm not sure how such ideas further science, but they do support a good spiritual feeling philosophy, which seems in synch with many ancient eastern philosophies.Sir Philo Sophia

    Science has always had a 'mystical' component to it. It doesn't mean it's wrong. Science has always had room for conceptual/theoretical stuff which in some ways is very close to metaphysics. Theories of atoms and dark matter were not developed from proof or experience but from translations of metaphysical ideas about the nature of things and such.
  • Sir Philo Sophia
    189
    Theories of atoms and dark matter were not developed from proof or experience but from translations of metaphysical ideas about the nature of things and such.BrianW

    I don't think that is correct. they always came from experimental observations which needed new theory to explain. mystical stuff rarely translates into a road-map towards much useful science.
  • BrianW
    974
    I don't think that is correct. they always came from experimental observations which needed new theory to explain. mystical stuff rarely translates into a road-map towards much useful science.Sir Philo Sophia

    Isn't metaphysics just another way of explaining our observations?
  • BrianW
    974
    mystical stuff rarely translates into a road-map towards much useful science.Sir Philo Sophia

    Meditation was once mystical. Acupuncture... ?
  • Zelebg
    599
    In short, as I've said before, I’m hypothesizing that qualia/experience consciousness is like the resonant sound you hear when you thump a container, which resonant sound (e.g., holographic phased standing wave patterns) richly characterizes not only the shape of the container but its material parameters, this resonant sound waves is effectively coherently ‘aware’ of its whole system in a way that you never could be if you separately analyzed all the causal molecules and connections that form the container and the propagation medium the way that Integrated Information Theory suggests is consciousness; thus, at least one reason why (IMHO) their model is devoid of the qualia/experience.

    I see, just like in Star Trek.
  • christian2017
    1.4k


    A computer or mechanical switch system is just a series "engine" parts. It can appear to be alive but it is an electrical engine or an engine that acts as something else. Have you ever heard of the term "collective soul" or "collective consciense". Basically some people explain "awareness" through the concept that perhaps the whole universe is alive and we individuals are subsets of the whole set.
  • khaled
    1.3k
    I’m more concerned with how we can tell whether this simulation is conscious or not when we can’t even tell whether the person we’re talking to is conscious or not. Until we get a consciousness-o-meter I don’t think we can answer this question
  • Sir Philo Sophia
    189
    I see, just like in Star Trek.Zelebg

    I know your intent is to, again, be flippant. Yet, between your deaf ears, I bet you are completely unaware that all matter we experience in the universe is very likely a hologram. I'll recommend you start opening your mind with books like "the holographic universe the revolutionary theory of reality" written by michael talbot.
    "Two of the world's most eminent thinkers believe that the universe itself may be a giant hologram, quite literally a kind of image or construct created, at least in part, by the human mind. University of London physicist David Bohm, a protégé of Einstein and one of the world's most respected quantum physicists, and Stanford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram, an architect of our modern understanding of the brain, have developed a remarkable new way of looking at the universe."

    Sci-fi only tries to popularize the science/theories. Good luck with your 'recursive algorithms' approach.... ;-)
  • Zelebg
    599


    Holographic phased standing wave patterns, eh? Your "theory" has no contact point with reality. Instead of any empirical observation it's based on hallucination. So you're insane, but my point was that even if it was true, in whatever sense, it still does not explain anything like "integrated information" or "quantum collapse" does not explain anything even if it was true.
  • Sir Philo Sophia
    189
    even if it was true, in whatever sense, it still does not explain anything like "integrated information" or "quantum collapse" does not explain anything even if it was true.Zelebg

    If I thought you had the mental capacity I'd explain more conceptual layers of details, but you are clearly not fertile ground, so I move on...
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.