The link was not by means of an explanation for that (hence "That said..."), it was just in case you were interested. — Kenosha Kid

And I was supposed to somehow mind-read your cryptic intended point? The "its not all about you" snide followed by laughter was not ... um, constructive. C'est la vie.

And I was supposed to somehow mind-read your cryptic intended point? — javra

Sorry, presumed English was okay. Which tbf it often isn't.

No worries. I feel bad about this misunderstanding as well. But I'm glad to see it was much ado about nothing. :up:

:up:

Hi Solarwind

Is there an article you can point me to, to explain this... hopefully in a way that non-specialists can understand?

The only things I have seen to date are findings which suggest that the Bell Test results can be brought back within expected norms if we take entanglement into account - but there is no explanation for entanglement either.

Hi Counterpunch

I don't have any problem with Finipolscie using a pseudonym. He clearly shows where his facts originate, and either his ideas are logical and viable like anyone else's or they are not. They seem logical possibilities to me.

Everyone's ideas are speculative because nobody can prove their case. Finipolscie at least shows us the full range of thinking and doesn't promote any single explanation.

From Goodreads, I gather that the use of a pseudonym was because he wanted people to focus on the evidence and the logic surrounding the issues, rather than the personalities. If he has a career to protect in science, that wouldn't be surprising.

Fair enough, but there's a trade off between adopting a pseudonym - and granting the layman a sense of authority in support of arguments they are not capable of judging on merit. I'm not going to sugar-coat this, but the idea of awareness in molecules seems wackadoodle to me. I'm not taking that as gospel from a Mr Pseudonym. Now, if it were a paper, written by Oxford Professor of Molecular Biology, Professor Belabours the Point - and submitted for peer review, I'd be more inclined to entertain the same thesis, because it's from someone putting his professional reputation on the line.

I think you were talking about physical constants as a framework of existence. Quantum physics has added to the list - and now there are supposed to be 19. It rather complicates things for me, because it's basically impossible to know if these are real physical constants, like the speed of light, plank length, gravitation - intelligible concepts; or mere consequences of the math. I mean, what in Roddenberry's name are:

9 Yukawa couplings for the quarks and leptons
2 parameters of the Higgs field potential,
4 parameters for the quark mixing matrix,
3 coupling constants for the gauge groups SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1)

Align the phase coils and engage the inertial dampeners! Anyhow, I should apologise for giving your previous post short shrift, but I really was just sitting down to dinner - and thank you for entertaining my little theory, but I don't see how we can productively pursue this any further - if you can't give me a definite reason why I'm wrong, we're both kinda batting in the dark!

Is there an article you can point me to, to explain this... hopefully in a way that non-specialists can understand?

The only things I have seen to date are findings which suggest that the Bell Test results can be brought back within expected norms if we take entanglement into account - but there is no explanation for entanglement either. — Gary Enfield

I don't have a link. It's the way I think of it. I assume knowledge of Bohmiam Mechanics and quantum potential, I can't explain that too.

Take two particles with coordinates x1,y1,z1,x2,y2,z2, then the quantum potential is Q = Q(x1,y1,z1,x2,y2,z2,t). We simplify and are only interested in the z-coordinates and also consider Q as constant in time: Q = Q(z1,z2). Then take a landscape with x = z1 and y = z2 and the height z = Q(z1,z2) = Q(x,y).

The two particles are one particle in this representation, where the x-coordinate belongs to particle 1 (z1) and the y-coordinate to particle 2 (z2). If one now moves the "double particle" in the x-direction, the inclination in the y-direction can change. The movement of one particle directly affects the other.

From the point of view of quantum theory, the coordinates z1 and z2 are perpendicular to each other (configuration space), in classical mechanics they are parallel, lying on top of each other.

Hi Counterpunch

I raised the issue of awareness in molecules because it was mentioned in one of his books, along with the scientifically proven evidence that posed the question. The references are there to follow to validate that evidence. If you dispute the evidence then you dispute it from impeachable scientific sources.

If you accept the evidence, then it has to be explained, and Finipolscie's question is quite obvious to anyone who knows the evidence because there is no credible theory to explain it.

I acknowledge that it is bizarre to think about that possibility, and that was my immediate reaction when I read it.... but I wanted to see if I was misssing something, which is why I wanted to see reactions on this site... and in truth, apart from re-stating that it is bizarre nobody has come up with a better suggestion.
(However if you wish to follow through with this part of our discussion, please do so under that topic).

The reason why I defend that here is because the same principles apply to this debate. If the evidence is valid then it is open to logical interpretation and criticism by anyone. If it is logically wrong then fine - point it out. But if the logic is right and there is no evidence to dispute that notion, then it is as valid as any other unproven notion... regardless who raised it.

This is a philosophy forum and therefore we should be exploring the logical validity of any ideas that can provide a firm foundation for any onward analysis, and I feel the mathematical implications of probabiities is one such thing

I don't doubt the facts. I doubt the interpretation of the facts. There's an old adage - Occam's Razor, that suggests, the simplest adequate explanation is the best. Instinct tells me Homologous Recombination has something to do with chemical valances and electron transport. I'd be looking to explanations of that sort, before reading consciousness into molecule scale processes. I don't wish to pursue the question, because - rather like quantum mechanics, I can't and nor can you. We have absolutely no way of knowing what junk DNA Finopsicle is inserting into the script to prop up his thesis. That's the point I'm making regarding Finopsicle as a reference. He writes science books for people with an amateur interest - under a pseudonym. He won't stand by his own work. He completely bypasses any sort of peer review - and you quote him as if those indicators of scientific authority were in place. I have no more reason to consider his scribblings something I need to answer to, than your opinion. And if you said, I think molecules are conscious - I'd be fitting you for a long sleeved jacket with buckles up the back!

Does chaos imply that there are forces in the Universe that are independent and are unaffected by other forces in the Universe?

And if you said, I think molecules are conscious - I'd be fitting you for a long sleeved jacket with buckles up the back! — counterpunch

There was a time when I thought the same as you do. But in researching the topic I have moved on:


By strict definition, a receptor-effector complex represents a fundamental unit of perception. Protein perception units provide the foundation of biological consciousness. Perceptions “control” cell behavior, though in truth, a cell is actually “controlled” by beliefs, since perceptions may not necessarily be accurate. - Bruce H. Lipton, PhD ( 2012)

I haven't researched the topic. I said it seems wackadoodle - and it does.

"Powerful! Elegant! Simple! In a style that is as accessible as it is meaningful, Dr. Bruce Lipton offers nothing less that the long sought-after “missing link” between life and consciousness. In doing so, he answers the oldest questions, and solves the deepest mysteries, of our past. I have no doubt that The Biology of Belief will become a cornerstone for the science of the new millennium."

First I've heard of it, and we're 21 years into the new millenium! One might have imagined someone answering "the deepest mysteries and oldest questions" would be more well known! But okay then, let's do some research. Lipton begins:

"Though a human is comprised of over fifty trillion cells"

Over 50 trillion????

Bing! How many cells are in the human body?

ANSWER FROM 2 SOURCES

Humans are complex organisms made up of trillions of cells, each with their own structure and function. Scientists have come a long way in estimating the number of cells in the average human body. Most recent estimates put the number of cells at around 30 trillion. Written out, that’s 30,000,000,000,000!
How Many Cells Are in the Human Body? Types, Produ…
healthline.com

Scientists are still debating the exact number, which currently remains a conundrum. Cells are the building blocks of the human body. But what is the total number of cells in a typical human? The short answer is that the body of an average man contains around 30 to 40 trillion cells.
How many cells are in the human body?
medicalnewstoday.com

If he opens with a radical over-estimation of the number of cells in the human body, do I need to go on? He's only over-estimated it by 30-40%. As a measure of accuracy, I think there's no point. I'd be wasting my time with something that's over 40% wrong.

First I've heard of it, and we're 21 years into the new millenium! — counterpunch

Perhaps you should look harder. There is a plethora of information in the fields of cellular biology, microbiology, plant neurobiology, and quantum biology. Or at least provide a proof of your assertion that molecules such as cellular proteins have no conscious - not just an opinion based in ancient assumption. What proof do you have that cellular proteins are not conscious? An absence of proof to the contrary, dose not cut it anymore, as there now is actually quite a lot proof to the contrary.

In organic systems, it is determinism with a slight element of randomness. This is the take home from observation of evolving systems such as Covid19. The domino must fall, but can fall with a slight twist to the left or right, thus changing the trajectory slightly.

So determinism with a slight element of randomness causing emergence in its path.

Or at least provide a proof of your assertion that molecules such as cellular proteins have no conscious — Pop

I didn't give an opinion on Homolgous Recombination. I did say my instinct suggests chemical valances and electron transport are at work - rather than consciousness, but that was in the context of admitting I don't know - and suggesting that the idea of molecules with consciousness seems wackadoodle. It does. It's a surprising idea. It's not your run of the mill causal explanation.

All this, in turn, was in the context of suggesting Finopsicle's pseudonym makes it impossible to judge his scientific credentials; on this subject... or his work in quantum mechanics!

Quite the jack of all trades - is his not? A Renaissance man...or possibly a hack writer making money duping the rubes with "I Want to Believe" misinterpretations of the real work of actual scientists.

What proof do you have that cellular proteins are not conscious? — Pop

I just ate a beef sandwich and it didn't run away!

I just ate a beef sandwich and it didn't run away! — counterpunch

I hope the Prion in the beef can not read. :lol: They can survive cooking and they cause mad cow disease. A fuller explanation of prions is available in the molecular awareness thread.

As I said before, I was once of the same opinion as you, and through researching the topic as widely as possible, I have changed my mind. It is not something one can decide upon on the basis of one or two opinions, It requires years of research, as what is at stake is Dualism vs Monism.

It requires years of research, as what is at stake is Dualism vs Monism. — Pop

What's at stake is the existence of the human species. It follows from causality and evolution that the organism cannot be wrong, or it is inevitably rendered extinct. At the physiological level, and at the behavioural level - the organism is crafted in relation to a causal reality by the function or die algorithm of evolution. Just as DNA unzips down the middle and attracts its chemical opposite from the environment to reproduce, organisms ingest energy and excrete waste, and a bird builds a nest before it lays eggs - not because it knows and plans ahead, but because other behaviours were extinguished.

The organism has to be true to reality from the DNA up, and we are no different. We need to be intellectually correct to reality; but we made a mistake. We discovered the means to establish scientific knowledge of reality, and used that knowledge to create technologies - but did not observe a scientific understanding of reality. We applied technologies for military power and industrial profit - not as directed by a scientific understanding of reality. That's why we are facing extinction.

Believing any old thing was fine when we were running around naked in the forest, poking each other with sharp sticks, but we cannot believe the same silly ideas - and have the ability to blow up the world with nuclear weapons, or we will die out.

The Amish have got something right. They believe in God and they don't use technology. Fine. What's the worst they can do? Cut each others beards off? (That actually happened!) But we cannot have primitive pre-scientific religious misconceptions of reality as a basis to apply high tech technologies. We have to be responsible to the level of scientific understanding that allows for the technologies we employ, or we will inevitably become extinct. Cave men with machine guns won't end well.

But we cannot have primitive pre-scientific religious misconceptions of reality as a basis to apply high tech technologies. — counterpunch

:up:

At the physiological level, and at the behavioural level - the organism is crafted in relation to a causal reality by the function or die algorithm of evolution — counterpunch

Yes , I agree, evolution is a form of consciousness itself - causing other forms of emergent consciousness in its path.

Evolution is not a form of consciousness. It's an algorithmic process where organisms that are correct to the causal reality of their environment, struggle to survive to breed, to pass on their genetics to subsequent generations - generally, through sexual reproduction that mixes male and female genetic information, and possibly gives the next generation some slight advantage, that allows it to survive to reproduce, and pass on that slight advantage. That's what I mean by crafted; not crafted by some conscious purpose, but by the blind forces of causality, genetic mutation and reproduction.

It's an algorithmic process — counterpunch

An algorithmic process that has the effect you have described is a form of mind, in my understanding. There is no conscious entity behind it, but it is a form of logic that we find ourselves in and arise out of.
This being the mind of the situation we find ourselves in - figuratively, not literally.

Figuratively, anything that shares a trait or two in common with something else is 'a form of' that thing. A road is kind of an artery, pumping the life blood of commerce into the heart of the city, figuratively speaking. My heating system has sensory inputs, it ingests energy and excretes waste, it has a circulatory system, and it knows what time it is - but it's not alive.

Evolution is not conscious. It's not trying to create anything. It's random genetic mutation - tested by natural selection in relation to a causal environment. If you're not correct to reality, then you're dead - rendered extinct by cause and effect. Human beings are the only intellectually intelligent creature ever to have existed on earth; perhaps, in the entire history of the universe. If we are not intellectually correct to reality we will die out - soon.

Quantum mechanics - not really understood, but used to undermine causality, and thereby truth, homolgous recombination - seeking to locate consciousness in molecules; it all has that same "I Want to Believe" vibe, that muddying the waters looking for a back door to reality vibe. Anything but the "looking reality square in the eye and doing what's right because it's true" vibe!

it all has that same "I Want to Believe" vibe, that muddying the waters looking for a back door to reality vibe. Anything but the "looking reality square in the eye and doing what's right because it's true" vibe! — counterpunch

Donald Hoffman has recently received tenure, and major funding. His thesis is consciousness is fundamental - it is contained in everything. Koch, Tononi, and many others are also of the same opinion. Cellular consciousness is where this will be resolved. Lipton thinks the brain of the cell is in the cellular membrane, Roger Penrose and co, think it is in the microtubules. Its a different way of understanding and it works better then the old assumption. It is a monist understanding. As I said before, it requires personal research. Please do the research, and come back and tell me why motor proteins are not making decisions, and then we will have something to talk about.

Pop / Counterpunch

I have been distracted from the site for a few days, but on returning I have been fascinated by your conversation, and I think we are pursuing 2 lines of debate, which may be worth splitting - so I will establish a new thread to do that,
However to address a few things mentioned in your dialogue....

I didn't give an opinion on Homolgous Recombination. I did say my instinct suggests chemical valances and electron transport are at work - rather than consciousness, but that was in the context of admitting I don't know - and suggesting that the idea of molecules with consciousness seems wackadoodle. It does. It's a surprising idea. It's not your run of the mill causal explanation. — counterpunch

Yes - I think we all agree with that, but as Pop indicated, there are some fundamentals about what we observe which break the principles of chemical, and even Quantum Mechanical operation. We begin by acknowledging the nature of the issue being observed. Then, when you stop and consider what's involved in some of these activities, there's a clear step-change in capability because of the apparent decision-making that is going on, every time these actions are observed.

Neither Pop, nor myself, are commenting on one-off co-incidences. This analytical capability is apparent every time the process is observed.

Individual molecules should not be capable of any analysis. They are generally only capable of preserving the integrity of one chemical reaction - that's it. There is no computer, and there is no deviating from one outcome.

But in the example of Homologous Recombination, and the route planning of Motor Proteins, that is clearly not the case, because there are different ways to achieve one outcome from a multitude of start points.

When you have even a vague theory of how that might be achieved by single molecules then we will all be extremely interested, but clever deterministic minds have been dwelling on this for ages without success. It may be possible that something new will emerge in future, on the philosophical principle of hidden causes/variables - but the reason why this seems unlikely to me is because the things we observe break deterministic principles and would not just require one hidden variable, but many.

We have absolutely no way of knowing what junk DNA Finopsicle is inserting into the script to prop up his thesis. That's the point I'm making regarding Finopsicle as a reference. He writes science books for people with an amateur interest - under a pseudonym. He won't stand by his own work. He completely bypasses any sort of peer review — counterpunch

It is precisely in forums like this that we do exercise peer review. Just 'not liking' the implications of what he says is not a critique. Besides - his argument is simple - here's the evidence, (referenced and undisputed); what does it remind you of; and if we can't explain it in normal ways, could it be pointing us to something new?
I really don't see what's needs a scientific peer review here. At the time of writing to you now, it remains true that no computational model can in any way come close to re-creating the implicit logic of Motor Proteins of Homologous Recombination enzymes, based on a few molecules.

As I said before, I was once of the same opinion as you, and through researching the topic as widely as possible, I have changed my mind. It is not something one can decide upon on the basis of one or two opinions, It requires years of research, as what is at stake is Dualism vs Monism. — Pop

I think that's bang on Pop - and the Dualism/Monism aspect helps to re-focus this topic on the original OP.

Donald Hoffman has recently received tenure, and major funding. His thesis is consciousness is fundamental - it is contained in everything. Koch, Tononi, and many others are also of the same opinion. — Pop

I didn't know that .

Hi Tres Bien

Does chaos imply that there are forces in the Universe that are independent and are unaffected by other forces in the Universe? — Tres Bien

This is an interesting point, which returns us to the theme of this topic - thank you.

The mathematics involved in the Laws of Physics and Chemistry are clearly deterministic and say that everything that occurs should be inevitable. The use of probabilities (before the introduction of Quantum Mechanics), was largely confined to the issue of applied physics in the real world, where the contributing influences to any outcome were assumed to conform to the Laws, and the necessity for probabilities reflected the fact that the activities in the real world were not being scrutinized or controlled sufficiently to explain each outcome precisely.

The step change was when multiple outcomes were regularly observed from a precise start point, for no apparent reason. This rocked the scientific community because for once, in controlled circumstances, the outcomes could not be explained by known factors, and no other factors were perceived to be possible, after extensive research. This launched a new and very different use of probabilities, which we should all be mindful of.

However, your point extends this question even further.

At one level, Chaos Theory simply tries to explain away our inability to predict outcomes beyond a small number of consequential reactions further down the line. This of course may mask a hidden cause/variable.

But more importantly I see that you did not specifically target Chaos Theory, but the idea of chaos itself.

If you believe that before order there was chaos, without any structure, then the implication is that the rules of existence must have been applied after any creation event, or before order was achieved.

I have also wondered about this, and and if we recognise the mathematical element, and the Deterministic view that this must intrinsically come from the 'chemistry' that it represents, then there is a fundamental question about how chaos, without order and therefore without chemistry, was able to do this?

A very good point. Thanks again.

All

Can I ask that from now on, we please confine this topic from now on, to the subjects of
- the use of probabilities, or
- Dualism vs Monism, or
- factors which seem to break the principles of strict cause and effect, that lead to us all acting-out an inevitable script.

Thank you

Dualism vs Monism — Gary Enfield

The whole molecular consciousness thing seems to be a part of panpsychism, a retreat of dualism away from homocentrism where the monists hopefully won't find them.

I have also wondered about this, and and if we recognise the mathematical element, and the Deterministic view that this must intrinsically come from the 'chemistry' that it represents, then there is a fundamental question about how chaos, without order and therefore without chemistry, was able to do this? — Gary Enfield

Chaos theory isn't really about disorder. Chaotic systems are completely deterministic, but extremely sensitive to their initial state and any perturbations. If gravity, for instance, was chaotic, an object of 1 gram might happily rest on the surface of the earth while one of .99999999 gram might be catapulted toward the sun.

Looking back in time, there could be many ways to achieve the result "2" but only one will be correct. — Gary Enfield

Looking back in time, and assuming that known laws of physics are complete and constant in space and time, the current state of our universe can only have a single cause (or single set of causes): Big Bang singularity some 13.8 billion years ago. That's backwards determinism.

Hi Litewave

Looking back in time, and assuming that known laws of physics are constant in space and time, the current state of our universe can only have a single cause (or single set of causes): — litewave

That is effectively the logic on which the philosophy of Determinism was founded - a total belief in the Laws of Physics & Chemistry which apply traditional mathematics without probabilities.

However there is now a century of detailed experimentation which shows that those Laws cannot (yet) be applied to all circumstances to achieve a single outcome. And this is not a factor confined to one narrow aspect of research. It is across the board from Cosmology to Biochemistry.

That is why Quantum Mechanics uses probabilities - because the old Laws were fine for their task, but they don't cover all circumstances. If Determinism doesn't cover all circumstances, then you cannot claim that the Universe has a single set of causes within Matter/Energy alone.

Logic also suggests that without proof to the contrary, it might be that true Randomness and Spontaneity are possible, (as defined above), in which case there could easily be something more than Matter/Energy at work.

Counterpunch, I have been distracted from the site for a few days, but on returning I have been fascinated by your conversation, — Gary Enfield

I however, am not fascinated. I've tried to make myself clear. I do not believe anyone here has the ability to judge arguments about quantum mechanics or molecular biology on merit. I certainly don't, and I am not about to develop such an ability without many years of specialist education. It is therefore rather easy for people like Finopsicle, or Hoffman to make overblown claims they are very well aware - certain people want to believe.

"Is consciousness deepest reality, the ground of being of the cosmos? If the question is "What brought all into existence?" the answer is "Consciousness". Some say this is a 'cosmic consciousness' of which our personal consciousness is a small part. Others, that the ultimate consciousness is God. Others, that consciousness and cosmos are both deep reality."

I prefer to speak in terms of things that I am able to know - than imply what I want to believe from what I am not able to understand. Now let that be an end to the matter.