Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

seeds
Posts: 2147
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by seeds »

_______

raiderman, in your discussion with KJM, you stated the following:
raiderman wrote: Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:39 am So now you are falling back to the panpsychist position, though you don't use the word. If you want to assert that an atom is conscious, so be it. But it think it's obvious that only brains produce consciousness.
Panpsychism does not necessarily assert that an atom is “conscious” in any way. It merely implies that inanimate matter could be imbued with the essence of life.

According to Wiki:
Wiki wrote: In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that consciousness, mind or soul (psyche) is a universal and primordial feature of all things. Panpsychists see themselves as minds in a world of mind.
As I suggested in an alternate thread:
seeds wrote: ...if all of reality is “mental” in nature, then the presumption is that all of the features of reality (suns, planets, water, sand, molecules, electrons, etc.) are literally “alive” as is suggested in the concept of Panpsychism...

...(note: not conscious or self-aware, just imbued with a ubiquitous and universal essence of life in the same way that your own dreams are imbued with your own personal life essence).

In that sense, if life (the basis of consciousness) is already present within the fabric of reality, then it is simply a tiny little step in accepting how inanimate (yet living) matter could become animate matter (evolvable micro organisms) in a process that biologists refer to as “abiogenesis.”
_______
seeds
Posts: 2147
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: There is absolutely nothing in that article that makes the Many Worlds Interpretation any less ridiculous.
davidm wrote: Fri Jul 28, 2017 9:03 pm Except that it refutes what you claimed to be your main objection -- that somehow whole new universes come into existence at every quantum junction. This "splitting" is false. As Tegmark writes:

• What Everett does NOT postulate:
At certain magic instances, the the world undergoes
some sort of metaphysical “split” into two branches
that subsequently never interact.
There seems to be some confusion here as to where Max Tegmark stands on the issue.

In a short video where he discusses Hugh Everett’s theory, Tegmark clearly uses the word “splits” in his description of how parallel universes come into existence and how “different versions” of himself experience the circumstances transpiring within those parallel universes.

Start at around the ten minute mark (10:00) in the following link: https://youtu.be/bJpIclDmi2M

If Tegmark can have different versions of himself experiencing completely different situations in parallel universes that he himself suggested come into existence as a result of a “split” off of this universe, then he seems to be supporting what I claimed, not refuting it.

Furthermore, it is not “my” claim. According to Wiki:
Wiki" wrote: MWI's main conclusion is that the universe (or multiverse in this context) is composed of a quantum superposition of very many, possibly even non-denumerably infinitely many, increasingly divergent, non-communicating parallel universes or quantum worlds.
And finally (and to quote something I have posted elsewhere), the recently deceased (2004) theoretical physicist, Bryce Dewitt, who was an early and avid champion of Everett's Many Worlds Theory, stated the following in an article for the magazine, Physics Today:
Bryce Dewitt wrote: "...I still recall vividly the shock I experienced on first encountering this multiworld concept. The idea of 10 to the 100+ slightly imperfect copies of oneself all constantly splitting into further copies, which ultimately become unrecognizable, is not easy to reconcile with common sense..."
There's no need to reconcile it, Bryce.

Because the only “shock” that should be experienced here is that of electrotherapy in an effort to erase this ridiculous concept from the mind of physics.

Image

:P

(Continued in next post)
_______
Last edited by seeds on Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
seeds
Posts: 2147
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by seeds »

_______

(Continued from prior post)
seeds wrote: Fri Jul 28, 2017 8:25 pm davidm, in your push-back of my complaints, are you insinuating that the Many Worlds Interpretation does not imply that a version of you in one world could destroy the earth’s moon while the earth’s moon in the world of another version of you would be unaffected?
davidm wrote: Fri Jul 28, 2017 9:03 pm No idea what the above means. How can I destroy the moon? With billions of nuclear weapons maybe?
Oh come on now davidm, it was merely a “thought experiment” for the purpose of making a point.

I suppose I could have made it a little less dramatic by asking what would happen to you and your house in this universe if another “version” of you in a duplicate universe decided to burn the “same” house down (and die in the process)?

The MWI implies that you and your house in this universe would be unaffected.

And by extension the same applies to absolutely anything else that your doppelganger could do to the contents of his parallel world.

Even if the “duplicate you” could somehow destroy every galaxy in his universe (again, “thought experiment” here), then according to the implications of the MWI, Andromeda, the Milky Way, and every other galaxy in this universe would be unscathed.

(Continued in next post)
_______
seeds
Posts: 2147
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by seeds »

_______

(Continued from prior post)
seeds wrote: Fri Jul 28, 2017 8:26 pm The way I see it, Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is the embodiment of “materialism” to the ultimate degree.

It not only ignores the amazing phenomenon of “life,” but also coldly and systematically reduces an individual human being down to something with no more purpose or relevance than a single electron or a photon of light.

According to Everett, your singularly unique and living consciousness is nothing more than an artifact inherent in the quantum wave that can be replicated in its entirety (in infinite copies), faster than you can duplicate your résumé at Kinkos.

From a purely philosophical analysis of the plausibility of such a blatantly materialistic interpretation of reality, I obviously disagree with Everett's notions.
davidm wrote: Fri Jul 28, 2017 9:10 pm Even assuming that any of the above is right (for example, how does MW ignore "the amazing phenomenon of 'life'"? What in the world does that even mean?)...
Have you ever heard of the mind/body “problem”?

Humans have not yet clearly discerned what life, mind, and consciousness really are. And that’s because living mind and consciousness do not seem to be “measurable” in the same way that physical matter is measurable.

Yet here you have Everett assuming that the unmeasurable “substance/essence” that composes mind and consciousness (along with the vast subjective reality of our thoughts and dreams) can simply be swept-up in the same mathematical formula that describes photons and electrons.

It is a brazen and erroneous assumption that only a hardcore materialist would dare to make.
davidm wrote: Fri Jul 28, 2017 9:10 pm ...the empty and fallacious appeal to consequences is noted.
It is not an “empty” appeal to expect the supporters of a certain theory to examine and fully extrapolate the bizarre and ridiculous implications of their assertions.
_______
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by Noax »

seeds wrote: Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:52 amHi Noax,

It is unfortunate, but in light of your reference to how threads often degenerate on this site, I think it is wishful thinking on your part to assume that Dr. McQueen (or any other contributor to the magazine) is monitoring anything in this discussion forum.
_______
I kind of figured, but the site has notifications, so if he ever logs on, the little reminder is there.
Some other sites don't have that feature and a direct question gets buried after a time. I hold hope.

Feel free to agree with my objection to the article, or to point out where my analysis is faulty or biased.
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by Noax »

seeds wrote: Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:54 amIf Tegmark can have different versions of himself experiencing completely different situations in parallel universes that he himself suggested come into existence as a result of a “split” off of this universe, then he seems to be supporting what I claimed, not refuting it.
The wording may be on occasion from the point of view of one of the branches, but the interpretation is not the creation of a parallel universe that splits off from this, the primary one. It just says there are two states that can no longer interact with each other, but are still superimposed from the point of view outside the causal cone. Schrodinger's box is a hypothetical box that prevents spread of a causal cone. Such boxes have existed for some time, and the referenced experiment broke some sort of lab record for size of thing being contained momentarily in such a box. Don't expect to see one that can hold a cat.
The live cat cannot be aware of its dead version, so in effect, the alternate outcome is a different universe even if the difference is confined to a finite space. So two versions of Tegmark are both looking at the exact same Jupiter, not each his own copy of it, for over an hour at least.

I'm posting this because you seem to be attempting strawman absurdities in discrediting an interpretation with which you want to fail.

Furthermore, it is not “my” claim. According to Wiki:
Wiki" wrote: MWI's main conclusion is that the universe (or multiverse in this context) is composed of a quantum superposition of very many, possibly even non-denumerably infinitely many, increasingly divergent, non-communicating parallel universes or quantum worlds.
Yes, the language of MW theory often labels worlds as separate universes in pop descriptions. That is unfortunate due to the typical way that work is ambiguously defined. It is one universe still, a single structure, but multi-worlds, which delimit causally isolated events. This wording is not new. Distant places are similarly causally isolated and have been referred to as a multiverse, when in fact they are again just different worlds in this one universe. Nobody seems to care to attack that identical wording the way you are doing here.
And finally (and to quote something I have posted elsewhere), the recently deceased (2004) theoretical physicist, Bryce Dewitt, who was an early and avid champion of Everett's Many Worlds Theory, stated the following in an article for the magazine, Physics Today:
Bryce Dewitt wrote: "...I still recall vividly the shock I experienced on first encountering this multiworld concept. The idea of 10 to the 100+ slightly imperfect copies of oneself all constantly splitting into further copies, which ultimately become unrecognizable, is not easy to reconcile with common sense..."
There's no need to reconcile it, Bryce.

Because the only “shock” that should be experienced here is that of electrotherapy in an effort to erase this ridiculous concept from the mind of physics.
Yes, it goes against intuitive notions of identity. Now you've found the difference between MW and distant-place MW. I came to the forums precisely because I found little literature exploring the implications of this.

If you look at what KJM posits, it is full MW interpretation except where human identity is threatened. An interesting interpretation that seems to follow from the humans-are-special assumption, which also seems to be your sole objection to the theory.
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by Noax »

seeds wrote: Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:56 am Yet here you have Everett assuming that the unmeasurable “substance/essence” that composes mind and consciousness (along with the vast subjective reality of our thoughts and dreams) can simply be swept-up in the same mathematical formula that describes photons and electrons.
There it is. The interpretation contradicts your notion of what you are. Yes it does that. I suggest you don't accept the interpretation then, but at least recognize that your rationalized argument hinges on the acceptance of your premise about this essence of mind and consciousness.
It is a brazen and erroneous assumption that only a hardcore materialist would dare to make.
Here is a direct statement that it is erroneous to not accept your premises.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by davidm »

seeds wrote: Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:54 am
seeds wrote: There is absolutely nothing in that article that makes the Many Worlds Interpretation any less ridiculous.
davidm wrote: Fri Jul 28, 2017 9:03 pm Except that it refutes what you claimed to be your main objection -- that somehow whole new universes come into existence at every quantum junction. This "splitting" is false. As Tegmark writes:

• What Everett does NOT postulate:
At certain magic instances, the the world undergoes
some sort of metaphysical “split” into two branches
that subsequently never interact.
There seems to be some confusion here as to where Max Tegmark stands on the issue.
You, obviously, read the mathematician's blog I linked on this, where he clarifies this "split" misconception. The fact that Tegmark himself may use thje word "split" only shows that the "split" vocabulary has become well ingrained, not that he is endorsing it.

As to the cat, of course it was intended as a reductio. Unfortunately, it failed to do what was intended.
Last edited by davidm on Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by davidm »

Thanks to Noax for the two previous posts.

It would be nice to have at least a "thanks" ability in this software so individual posts could be tagged with a thanks notification.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by davidm »

And yes, thanks, [to Seeds] I've heard of the "mind-body problem," more specifically the hard problem of consciousness.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by davidm »

It's one universe comprising many worlds.
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by Noax »

davidm wrote: Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:26 pmI've heard of the "mind-body problem," more specifically the hard problem of consciousness.
Physical monism has always had a different answer to that problem, and MW really doesn't change that part at all. The answer is QM-interpretation independent. The immaterial-mind answer is not QM-interpretation independent, but their problem with that has no bearing on the monist model.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by davidm »

With respect to this mind-body problem, recently a blogging biochemist raised it only to automatically belittle it. When scientists step out of their particular fiefdoms and dip their toes in philosophy the result is usually unfortunate. When I expressed my view that there may indeed be a problem here, he asked me (and another poster who had raised the problem) three questions:
I order to have a productive conversation you need to answer at least three questions.

1. Are mice conscious? How about fruit flies?

2. Can a robot, like Data on Star Trek: The Next Generation be conscious?

3. Do you believe that humans were created by god(s)?
Here was my response:
To answer your questions:

Are mice conscious? How about fruit flies?

I think both are conscious.

2. Can a robot, like Data on Star Trek: The Next Generation be conscious?

I don’t know. In fact, this question goes to the heart of the problem — the explanatory gap of the Hard Problem.

Being only familiar with the Kirk-Spock version of Star Trek, I had to google up Data and discovered he was humanoid robot with a “positronic brain.” What’s a positronic brain? It’s something that Isaac Asimov dreamed up for a short story decades ago and the Stark Trek producers evidently “borrowed” it for Data. So, no, I’m pretty sure Data has no qualia because positronic brains do not exist!

But I suppose your real question is whether qualia and subjective experience are substrate independent. I don't know, but speaking for myself, no matter how one answers this question, there is an explanatory gap and that's precisely the Hard Problem in a nutshell.

Do you believe that any of our current crop of high-speed digital computers and other high-end devices experience qualia? Do they have subjective inner lives? I don’t think so, but suppose that they do. Recently a computer beat a champion Go player in China, and famously 20 years ago Deep Blue beat Kasparov at chess.

Suppose we say that the Go computer has some rudimentary consciousness of playing Go, or that Deep Blue had some inner subjective experience of playing chess. If we agree to this, then we have the explanatory gap, the Hard Problem! How can it be the case that inner workings of a computer, no matter how sophisticated, could generate, in the machine, an inner life?

But if we say these machines do not have an inner life (as I believe they do not) the answer is still unsatisfying. Why don’t they? What’s missing? This is the hard problem stated in a different way: If we knew why “intelligent” machines actually have no inner lives, then we would know why we do have such inner lives, and we could set about the task of building a machine that could actually experience qualia. The fact that we have no clue how to build such a machine is a testament to the obduracy of the explanatory gap.

John Searle, of course, has his famous Chinese Room argument that purports to show that no digital (or presumably quantum) computer could ever be conscious. If he’s right this just underscores the problem: What’s the missing spark that lights up the interior of our minds that we have, but a machine lacks even in principle? On the Searle account we could build a computer that perfectly simulates a human brain and yet it would have no interior life at all; as a simulation it would always be to the actual brain as a map is to the territory.

Notice that one doesn’t need to create a binary choice here where none exists: saying that, if naturalism is insufficient to explain the generation of consciousness, then supernaturalism must be true. There are other philosophical accounts on offer: metaphysical idealism, panpsychism, Chalmer's property (not Cartesian) dualism. None of these involve speck of supernaturalism, George Berkeley to the contrary notwithstanding.

You ask the question, “What is consciousness?” What is your answer? The answer I hear most from scientists — that it is an emergent property of lower-level physical processes in the brain — is entirely unsatisfactory, IMO. It’s not because the answer is wrong — it may well be true. It’s unsatisfactory because at the current time, it’s entirely devoid of explanatory power. Contrast this with other forms of emergentism — for example, that water with its wetness is an emergent property of underlying molecular configurations (which themselves are not wet). But we have a perfect stepwise explanation of how we go from molecules to wet water. This is precisely what is lacking in the case of underlying physical brain processes ——> qualia. That arrow is the explanatory gap.

3. Do you believe that humans were created by god(s)?

No.
His response to my response (in part, but this is the substance of it):
Unfortunately, your answers invoke something called "qualia" and that's going to make it impossible to have a serious discussion.
Well that does it I guess! :lol: “Qualia” of course is just fancy word for phenomenal sense experience, but I guess we don’t have these things according to this blogger whose name shall be withheld (Larry Moran, Sandwalk blog) to protect the (very) innocent.

Needless to say I don’t post at or even read this idiot’s blog anymore. :lol:
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by Noax »

davidm wrote: Wed Aug 02, 2017 6:59 pmWith respect to this mind-body problem, recently a blogging biochemist raised it only to automatically belittle it. When scientists step out of their particular fiefdoms and dip their toes in philosophy the result is usually unfortunate.
They all do it, but it only gets unfortunate when it is presented as science. Tegmark for instance has a lot of philosopher in him, writing books while his peers are telling him to shut up and calculate.
I order to have a productive conversation you need to answer at least three questions.
1. Are mice conscious? How about fruit flies?
2. Can a robot, like Data on Star Trek: The Next Generation be conscious?
3. Do you believe that humans were created by god(s)?
The wording of the question is already biased, leaving 'conscious' fairly undefined except for an implication that it is a binary state: You are or you're not; A thing has this fundamental difference or not.

Therefore, thus worded, I would answer that a mouse is not conscious, but neither am I. Given my definition (a level of awareness/interaction with environment), it is a question of how conscious something is. and reaching for the lower limit of this scale, I would find a rock less conscious than a thermostat (my favorite example), but more conscious than a neutrino. If you know a thermostat is not conscious, you must have a definition, so out with it. No, it probably doesn't have a soul, but without a test, I will not accept that fact asserted.
A complex-car painting robot that continues its work even when there is no car or when the paint runs out is less conscious than the thermostat, since it seems to exhibit no environmental awareness.

Sure, by my definition, a robot is on that scale. It lacks life, but I don't equate consciousness to being a life form.
Details concerning positron brain detract from the issue at hand.
Recently a computer beat a champion Go player in China, and famously 20 years ago Deep Blue beat Kasparov at chess.
This is a bad example, one that is not AI. It is a powerful automaton. So are self driving cars. But real AI does exist. More conscious? Not necessarily. Intelligence is not consciousness. Just my opinion mind you.
But if we say these machines do not have an inner life (as I believe they do not) the answer is still unsatisfying. Why don’t they? What’s missing?
I find it an implementation detail. What is an inner life that differs from "how it is implemented"? I build a model of the external world as part of my implementation. In that sense, the chess computer is much more conscious than a fruit fly. Yes, maybe this is a better compromise definition with which both sides might be able to work.
John Searle, of course, has his famous Chinese Room argument that purports to show that no digital (or presumably quantum) computer could ever be conscious. If he’s right this just underscores the problem: What’s the missing spark that lights up the interior of our minds that we have, but a machine lacks even in principle? On the Searle account we could build a computer that perfectly simulates a human brain and yet it would have no interior life at all; as a simulation it would always be to the actual brain as a map is to the territory.
Never understood the power of that argument. He equates brain to a trivial algorithm. Given this input, apply some set of rules to lead to the appropriate response. Still, if it were implemented correctly, it would exactly like that. A computer processor has no knowledge of how to play chess, but the process of a running program nevertheless plays good chess. Searle's guy in the room is playing the role of CPU that known nothing except how to follow instructions. Additionally, our brain is not implemented as a Von Neumann architecture.
The Chinese room model is not consciousness either since it simulates a sensory deprived brain with no access to anything but a text feed. It would not be mistaken for a Chinese speaker unless all its answers were something like "please help me!".

Notice that one doesn’t need to create a binary choice here where none exists: saying that, if naturalism is insufficient to explain the generation of consciousness, then supernaturalism must be true. There are other philosophical accounts on offer: metaphysical idealism, panpsychism, Chalmer's property (not Cartesian) dualism. None of these involve speck of supernaturalism, George Berkeley to the contrary notwithstanding.
You ask the question, “What is consciousness?” What is your answer? The answer I hear most from scientists — that it is an emergent property of lower-level physical processes in the brain — is entirely unsatisfactory, IMO. It’s not because the answer is wrong — it may well be true. It’s unsatisfactory because at the current time, it’s entirely devoid of explanatory power.
Searle's answer is no more explanatory, moving it into an untouchable magic realm. The answer seems designed to prevent investigation. The view suggests empirical tests, all of which are declared invalid when they fail. Science is making better progress than that.
3. Do you believe that humans were created by god(s)?
The immaterial explanation does seem to be motivated by a story compatible with this belief, as evidenced by the inclusion of this question in the series.
His response to my response (in part, but this is the substance of it):
Unfortunately, your answers invoke something called "qualia" and that's going to make it impossible to have a serious discussion.
Well that does it I guess! :lol: “Qualia” of course is just fancy word for phenomenal sense experience, but I guess we don’t have these things according to this blogger whose name shall be withheld (Larry Moran, Sandwalk blog) to protect the (very) innocent.
I have decided to go the p-zombie route. I don't have qualia, but merely echo the wording of those that do. Hence the problem being hard for them, but not for me since I don't have it, but am merely a mindless thing pretending to be conscious.
That story is consistent with the Chalmers view, if not Searle.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by uwot »

seeds wrote: Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:52 amHi Noax,

It is unfortunate, but in light of your reference to how threads often degenerate on this site, I think it is wishful thinking on your part to assume that Dr. McQueen (or any other contributor to the magazine) is monitoring anything in this discussion forum.
_______
Some of us do. https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Ph ... d_Branches
Post Reply