Pure Consciousness?

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

volatileworld
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by volatileworld » Sun Jun 22, 2014 8:02 pm

Hegel argued that the world exists as the self-consciousness of the Absolute. That is the Absolute is pure consciousness but it thinks itself and this act He creates the world and moves time forward by gradually getting to know itself.

https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Co ... _Dialectic

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sun Jun 22, 2014 10:02 pm

volatileworld wrote:Hegel argued that the world exists as the self-consciousness of the Absolute. That is the Absolute is pure consciousness but it thinks itself and this act He creates the world and moves time forward by gradually getting to know itself.

https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Co ... _Dialectic
Looks to me like a philosophically esoteric rendition of the time-worn Christian explanation: The almighty God did it. And how exactly does that explain human consciousness?

What motivates the god?

Greylorn

Ginkgo
Posts: 2525
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Ginkgo » Sun Jun 22, 2014 10:30 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote:
volatileworld wrote:Hegel argued that the world exists as the self-consciousness of the Absolute. That is the Absolute is pure consciousness but it thinks itself and this act He creates the world and moves time forward by gradually getting to know itself.

https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Co ... _Dialectic
Looks to me like a philosophically esoteric rendition of the time-worn Christian explanation: The almighty God did it. And how exactly does that explain human consciousness?

What motivates the god?

Greylorn

Could be Penrose's Orchestrated Objective Reduction. I'll have a good read later.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sun Jun 22, 2014 10:45 pm

Ginkgo wrote: Could be Penrose's Orchestrated Objective Reduction. I'll have a good read later.
Ginkgo,
Kindly distill what you learn from Sir Roger and pass it along.

Greylorn

Ginkgo
Posts: 2525
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Ginkgo » Sun Jun 22, 2014 11:06 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Ginkgo wrote: Could be Penrose's Orchestrated Objective Reduction. I'll have a good read later.
Ginkgo,
Kindly distill what you learn from Sir Roger and pass it along.

Greylorn
I have to leave shortly, so I'll have to be brief. My short response is by no means a definitive explanation. The first thing that jumped out at me was Godel's first incompleteness. For example, the problems associated with the liar paradox. Penrose claims that a logical system cannot prove its own inconsistency. Only the human mind via the some sort of apriori analysis/reasoning can solve such problems.

I need to read volatile world's paper and return at a later date. Probably tomorrow.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sun Jun 22, 2014 11:55 pm

Ginkgo wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Ginkgo wrote: Could be Penrose's Orchestrated Objective Reduction. I'll have a good read later.
Ginkgo,
Kindly distill what you learn from Sir Roger and pass it along.

Greylorn
I have to leave shortly, so I'll have to be brief. My short response is by no means a definitive explanation. The first thing that jumped out at me was Godel's first incompleteness. For example, the problems associated with the liar paradox. Penrose claims that a logical system cannot prove its own inconsistency. Only the human mind via the some sort of apriori analysis/reasoning can solve such problems.

I need to read volatile world's paper and return at a later date. Probably tomorrow.
Ginkgo,
I'm looking forward to your comments. BTW, I like Penrose. Don't agree with all of his ideas, but he seems to have more of them than China has Chinese. Even better, his ideas are divergent from the mainstream, and he encourages ideas in general. Have you read bits of "Consciousness and the Universe?"

Greylorn

volatileworld
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by volatileworld » Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:38 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
volatileworld wrote:Hegel argued that the world exists as the self-consciousness of the Absolute. That is the Absolute is pure consciousness but it thinks itself and this act He creates the world and moves time forward by gradually getting to know itself.

https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Co ... _Dialectic
Looks to me like a philosophically esoteric rendition of the time-worn Christian explanation: The almighty God did it. And how exactly does that explain human consciousness?

What motivates the god?

Greylorn
Very briefly,
I rely on Hegel. Basically I claim that reason/consciousness is outside computation but it performs computations in the faculty of understanding (intellect). The understanding is the grid of cells where computations are performed by combining cells. Reason in both Kant and Hegel is characterized as providing greatest possible systematic unity to our knowledge. That is, we understand the objects in the Universe through the intellect, but reason allows to view the Universe as a single whole with systematic unity. This makes science possible for humans since for science to be possible we need to view the Universe as a single system. Hegel claims that reason is characterized by ''the Idea''. Kant claimed that reason has 3 ideas: the world as a whole, God, soul (subject). Hegel argued that those 3 are merely an aspect of 1 ''the Idea''. The Idea of the Absolute. The Ideas of reason cannot be given in experience but they are necessary conditions to our make experience possible. Without them we could not see the Universe as a single whole. This is what makes science, philosophy, language, morality etc. possible. Animals can have intellect but they do not have reason.
I claim that reason is dialectic by nature, i.e. contradictory. This is the nature of Godel's incompleteness. That is, the intellect is the framework where reason computes its thoughts by combining cells (logical atoms). We can understand the objects in the Universe (objects of experience) 100% completely. Therefore reason is contradictory [inconsistent], dialectic. Reason forms algorithms through which it computes thoughts in the intellect (grid of cells). So basically the intellect is the framework where reason computes. Axioms are truths about the grid of cells (the intellect). If you have a complete axiomatic system it is inconsistent. This is reason which creates the axioms of the intellect. We understand only those things which can be computed in the intellect by reason, that is objects of our experience. Intellect describes and operates on the pure forms of space and time. If we apply intellect to the ideas of reason we arrive at contradictions. That is, reason thinking itself arrives at contradictions. These contradictions is the nature of Hegelian dialectic. The Universe starts as reason/consciousness thinking itself, arriving at contradictions, solving them (thesis-antithesis-synthesis), getting new contradictions, solving them... until it finally achieves the final synthesis, what Hegel called the Absolute Idea. That is, humans finally understanding the Universe completely. I.e. We arrive at Theory of Everything. This is equivalent to universal consciousness knowing itself completely. Since this Universal Consciousness is the Absolute, the humanity comes to know the Absolute. I.e. The Absolute achieving full self-consciousness. This is the Kingdom of God on earth, the times of rational freedom.
This is indeed similar to religions, but as I said I rely on Hegel not religions. In my paper I claim that all ancient knowledge was created in the first ages of human self-consciousness. Since the most primitive systematic knowledge is also the most fundamental. It is no suprise that modern physics mimics ancient metaphysics. Because the Universe is fundamentally thoughts. Ancients simply had not so much complexity in their knowledge as we do that's why they developed the simplest systems, which is also the most fundamental. Religions evolved from them. I am pan-en-theist.

No human built computer can imitate the faculty of reason, i.e. consciousness. What computers do is imitate the intellect.

I claim that the grid of cells is our intellect. That is, absolutely all our theories rely on this structure and speak about it!


My work is indeed can be seen from the perspective of Orch-OR.
I claim that gravity arises from the rate of information processing. That is, time is reason processing information, while space is the medium where information is processed. The Universe as a whole runs Hegelian dialectic as a program. Dialectic always produces more complexity. That is it always unites the opposites and this synthesis moves time forward. This is the nature of the arrow of time. Information processing (synthesis) can be viewed in thermodynamic terms.

I am not proving God. It is impossible to prove or disprove him. However, the Idea of reason is what makes greatest systematic unity possible and which gives unity to our thoughts about the Universe (to our intellect). The Idea is only the Idea. It is a matter of faith if you believe in an object (God) corresponding to it.
Faith is an act of reason, not the intellect. Authentic faith is ''the Idea'' getting to know itself. Because through the intellect we cannot know God, soul, the Universe (as a whole). Through the intellect we know only what appears in space and time, that is objects IN the Universe.
This is very briefly. For more look at my paper.
I honestly believe that German Idealism (especially Hegel) is the way for modern science to solve problems. In general I think that Hegel is the top of continental philosophy, though his system is further development of Kant.

https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Co ... _Dialectic
Last edited by volatileworld on Mon Jun 23, 2014 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2525
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Ginkgo » Mon Jun 23, 2014 11:29 am

volatileworld wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:
volatileworld wrote:Hegel argued that the world exists as the self-consciousness of the Absolute. That is the Absolute is pure consciousness but it thinks itself and this act He creates the world and moves time forward by gradually getting to know itself.

https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Co ... _Dialectic
Looks to me like a philosophically esoteric rendition of the time-worn Christian explanation: The almighty God did it. And how exactly does that explain human consciousness?

What motivates the god?

Greylorn
Very briefly,
I rely on Hegel. Basically I claim that reason/consciousness is outside computation but it performs computations in the faculty of understanding (intellect). The understanding is the grid of cells where computations are performed by combining cells. Reason in both Kant and Hegel is characterized as providing greatest possible systematic unity to our knowledge. That is, we understand the objects in the Universe through the intellect, but reason allows to view the Universe as a single whole with systematic unity. This makes science possible for humans since for science to be possible we need to view the Universe as a single system. Hegel claims that reason is characterized by ''the Idea''. Kant claimed that reason has 3 ideas: the world as a whole, God, soul (subject). Hegel argued that those 3 are merely an aspect of 1 ''the Idea''. The Idea of the Absolute. The Ideas of reason cannot be given in experience but they are necessary conditions to our make experience possible. Without them we could not see the Universe as a single whole. This is what makes science, philosophy, language, morality etc. possible. Animals can have intellect but they do not have reason.
I claim that reason is dialectic by nature, i.e. contradictory. This is the nature of Godel's incompleteness. That is, the intellect is the framework where reason computes its thoughts by combining cells (logical atoms). We can understand the objects in the Universe (objects of experience) 100% completely. Therefore reason is contradictory [inconsistent], dialectic. Reason forms algorithms through which it computes thoughts in the intellect (grid of cells). So basically the intellect is the framework where reason computes. Axioms are truths about the grid of cells (the intellect). If you have a complete axiomatic system it is inconsistent. This is reason which creates the axioms of the intellect. We understand only those things which can be computed in the intellect by reason, that is objects of our experience. Intellect describes and operates on the pure forms of space and time. If we apply intellect to the ideas of reason we arrive at contradictions. That is, reason thinking itself arrives at contradictions. These contradictions is the nature of Hegelian dialectic. The Universe starts as reason/consciousness thinking itself, arriving at contradictions, solving them (thesis-antithesis-synthesis), getting new contradictions, solving them... until it finally achieves the final synthesis, what Hegel called the Absolute Idea. That is, humans finally understanding the Universe completely. I.e. We arrive at Theory of Everything. This is equivalent to universal consciousness knowing itself completely. Since this Universal Consciousness is the Absolute, the humanity comes to know the Absolute. I.e. The Absolute achieving full self-consciousness. This is the Kingdom of God on earth, the times of rational freedom.
This is indeed similar to religions, but as I said I rely on Hegel not religions. In my paper I claim that all ancient knowledge was created in the first ages of human self-consciousness. Since the most primitive systematic knowledge is also the most fundamental. It is no suprise that modern physics mimics ancient metaphysics. Because the Universe is fundamentally thoughts. Ancients simply had not so much complexity in their knowledge as we do that's why they developed the simplest systems, which is also the most fundamental. Religions evolved from them. I am pan-en-theist.

No human built computer can imitate the faculty of reason, i.e. consciousness. What computers do is imitate the intellect.

I claim that the grid of cells is our intellect. That is, absolutely all our theories rely on this structure and speak about it!


My work is indeed can be seen from the perspective of Orch-OR.
I claim that gravity arises from the rate of information processing. That is, time is reason processing information, while space is the medium where information is processed. The Universe as a whole runs Hegelian dialectic as a program. Dialectic always produces more complexity. That is it always unites the opposites and this synthesis moves time forward. This is the nature of the arrow of time. Information processing (synthesis) can be viewed in thermodynamic terms.

I am not proving God. It is impossible to prove or disprove him. However, the Idea of reason is what makes greatest systematic unity possible and which gives unity to our thoughts about the Universe (to our intellect). The Idea is only the Idea. It is a matter of faith if you believe in an object (God) corresponding to it.
Faith is an act of reason, not the intellect. Authentic faith is ''the Idea'' getting to know itself. Because through the intellect we cannot know God, soul, the Universe (as a whole). Through the intellect we know only what appears in space and time, that is objects IN the Universe.
This is very briefly. For more look at my paper.
I honestly believe that German Idealism (especially Hegel) is the way for modern science to solve problems. In general I think that Hegel is the top of continental philosophy, though his system is further development of Kant.

Are you familiar with the Hameroff-Penrose thesis? This particular thesis reflects the idea that consciousness is both algorithmic and non-algorithmic at the same time. Hameroff claims it is the microtubules that make up the cells in the brain that carry out the quantum computations and explains the non-algorithmic aspect of consciousness.

At a stretch I can see a parallel with quantum superposition and the Hegelian dialectic. Interesting ideas.
Last edited by Ginkgo on Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2525
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Ginkgo » Mon Jun 23, 2014 11:49 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Ginkgo,
I'm looking forward to your comments. BTW, I like Penrose. Don't agree with all of his ideas, but he seems to have more of them than China has Chinese. Even better, his ideas are divergent from the mainstream, and he encourages ideas in general. Have you read bits of "Consciousness and the Universe?"
No I haven't so I googled it and read the blurb. The last I heard Penrose and Hameroff differed in terms of consciousness being "out there" and in the brain at the same time. Perhaps they have sorted this bit out. I look forward to reading it as soon as I can get a copy.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Greylorn Ell » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:01 am

volatileworld wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:
volatileworld wrote:Hegel argued that the world exists as the self-consciousness of the Absolute. That is the Absolute is pure consciousness but it thinks itself and this act He creates the world and moves time forward by gradually getting to know itself.

https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Co ... _Dialectic
Looks to me like a philosophically esoteric rendition of the time-worn Christian explanation: The almighty God did it. And how exactly does that explain human consciousness?

What motivates the god?

Greylorn
Very briefly,
I rely on Hegel. Basically I claim that reason/consciousness is outside computation but it performs computations in the faculty of understanding (intellect). The understanding is the grid of cells where computations are performed by combining cells. Reason in both Kant and Hegel is characterized as providing greatest possible systematic unity to our knowledge. That is, we understand the objects in the Universe through the intellect, but reason allows to view the Universe as a single whole with systematic unity. This makes science possible for humans since for science to be possible we need to view the Universe as a single system. Hegel claims that reason is characterized by ''the Idea''. Kant claimed that reason has 3 ideas: the world as a whole, God, soul (subject). Hegel argued that those 3 are merely an aspect of 1 ''the Idea''. The Idea of the Absolute. The Ideas of reason cannot be given in experience but they are necessary conditions to our make experience possible. Without them we could not see the Universe as a single whole. This is what makes science, philosophy, language, morality etc. possible. Animals can have intellect but they do not have reason.
I claim that reason is dialectic by nature, i.e. contradictory. This is the nature of Godel's incompleteness. That is, the intellect is the framework where reason computes its thoughts by combining cells (logical atoms). We can understand the objects in the Universe (objects of experience) 100% completely. Therefore reason is contradictory [inconsistent], dialectic. Reason forms algorithms through which it computes thoughts in the intellect (grid of cells). So basically the intellect is the framework where reason computes. Axioms are truths about the grid of cells (the intellect). If you have a complete axiomatic system it is inconsistent. This is reason which creates the axioms of the intellect. We understand only those things which can be computed in the intellect by reason, that is objects of our experience. Intellect describes and operates on the pure forms of space and time. If we apply intellect to the ideas of reason we arrive at contradictions. That is, reason thinking itself arrives at contradictions. These contradictions is the nature of Hegelian dialectic. The Universe starts as reason/consciousness thinking itself, arriving at contradictions, solving them (thesis-antithesis-synthesis), getting new contradictions, solving them... until it finally achieves the final synthesis, what Hegel called the Absolute Idea. That is, humans finally understanding the Universe completely. I.e. We arrive at Theory of Everything. This is equivalent to universal consciousness knowing itself completely. Since this Universal Consciousness is the Absolute, the humanity comes to know the Absolute. I.e. The Absolute achieving full self-consciousness. This is the Kingdom of God on earth, the times of rational freedom.
This is indeed similar to religions, but as I said I rely on Hegel not religions. In my paper I claim that all ancient knowledge was created in the first ages of human self-consciousness. Since the most primitive systematic knowledge is also the most fundamental. It is no suprise that modern physics mimics ancient metaphysics. Because the Universe is fundamentally thoughts. Ancients simply had not so much complexity in their knowledge as we do that's why they developed the simplest systems, which is also the most fundamental. Religions evolved from them. I am pan-en-theist.

No human built computer can imitate the faculty of reason, i.e. consciousness. What computers do is imitate the intellect.

I claim that the grid of cells is our intellect. That is, absolutely all our theories rely on this structure and speak about it!


My work is indeed can be seen from the perspective of Orch-OR.
I claim that gravity arises from the rate of information processing. That is, time is reason processing information, while space is the medium where information is processed. The Universe as a whole runs Hegelian dialectic as a program. Dialectic always produces more complexity. That is it always unites the opposites and this synthesis moves time forward. This is the nature of the arrow of time. Information processing (synthesis) can be viewed in thermodynamic terms.

I am not proving God. It is impossible to prove or disprove him. However, the Idea of reason is what makes greatest systematic unity possible and which gives unity to our thoughts about the Universe (to our intellect). The Idea is only the Idea. It is a matter of faith if you believe in an object (God) corresponding to it.
Faith is an act of reason, not the intellect. Authentic faith is ''the Idea'' getting to know itself. Because through the intellect we cannot know God, soul, the Universe (as a whole). Through the intellect we know only what appears in space and time, that is objects IN the Universe.
This is very briefly. For more look at my paper.
I honestly believe that German Idealism (especially Hegel) is the way for modern science to solve problems. In general I think that Hegel is the top of continental philosophy, though his system is further development of Kant.

https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Co ... _Dialectic
VW,
I checked out Hegel's stuff about 4 decades ago and rejected it, but this material is a good reminder as to why. (BTW you might want to consider using paragraphs. They make long sections of text more readable.)

You can do better than Hegel as a source of ideas. His work does not explain what has been discovered about the universe and human consciousness since his day. I'm inviting you to rely upon your own mind, not Hegel's, and to augment the knowledge your mind has to work with by perusing other ideas.

Most important to any philosopher seeking to understand the universe is a study of physics. This is not easy, but it is a requirement. I don't think that detailed physics knowledge is necessary; i.e. you do not need to know how to develop Maxwell's equations or derive Relativity Theory from scratch-- but you do need to know what these mathematically expressed ideas represent. It is easy to do this from within the context of physics, but most philosophers who try to put physics into English (or any other common language) get it wrong more often than right.

However you go about it, understanding the basic principles of thermodynamics is critical, because (IMO) they are related to consciousness.

Gingko has also commented on this, so my reply to him will apply to your thoughts as well.

Greylorn

P.S. Your impressive review of Hegelian theory did not address the simple question that I put to you: What motivated God, the "absolute," or whatever you choose to call him, to create a universe? Running that question a litttle deeper in your context, why create the human soul? Particularly, why create the glut of relatively mindless such entities? And, how do you define "soul" in the context of physical reality?

P.P.S. You wrote, "What computers do is imitate the intellect." I recommend never making such an incompetent statement again. I've made a living for a half century programming digital computers in their native machine language, which amounts to arranging useful patterns of ones and zeroes. There is no respect whatsoever in which our finest computers imitate the human intellect.

G

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Greylorn Ell » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:52 am

Ginkgo wrote: Are you familiar with the Hameroff-Penrose thesis? This particular thesis reflects the idea that consciousness is bomake up the cells in the brain that carry out the quantum computations and explains the non-algorith algorithmic and non-algorithmic at the same time. Hameroff claims it is the microtubules that thmic aspect of consciousness.

At a stretch I can see a parallel with quantum superposition and the Hegelian dialectic. Interesting ideas.
Ginkgo, and VW;

Yes re: the thesis. The Penrose-edited boat-anchor of a book, "Consciousness and the Universe," leads with Stuart Hameroff's presentation. Moreover, I've discussed his ideas with a mathematician friend who has studied the same source. Our conclusion is that the Hameroff-Penrose model of consciousness does not work.

I've thought of sending each of them a copy of "Digital Universe -- Analog Soul" but have not done so because I lack the credibility needed to get their attention. This would not be relevant if Beon Theory was a divergent form of their model. But alas, Beon Theory declares their model to be D.O.A. My experience with professors who've taken a position as strongly as H-P have done is that they will defend their position, and not peruse alternative ideas that would, if accepted, refute years of their dedicated work.

A good theory requires two properties:

1. It must explain ALL CURRENTLY AVAILABLE DATA.

2. It must predict the discovery of data/information yet to be discovered, by showing where or how to seek it.

Any theory that confines consciousness to the human brain is incorrect, because there are plenty of well documented instances of OOB (Out of Body) experiences. (e.g: Pam Reynolds' surgery.) "Ghosts" are real. I once owned a house occupied by one, a child who had found his only release from pain, and who had died there. He was a friendly spook who had prevented intrusions into my home on several occasions, but when I learned of his reality I was compelled to help him leave and get on with his pursuit of consciousness in another body.

Of course that is an easily dismissible personal anecdote, so dismiss it. Nonetheless if you are curious about reality, peruse other books on the subject of OOBs. There are several.

May I also recommend extended data-gathering in the area of parapsychology? Telepathy works. So does telekinesis. The "dog whisperer" manages unruly beasts with the power of mind, while distracting viewers with words that dogs do not understand.

Lest I forget, a neurological experiment performed by Charles Gray et.al. a few decades back showed clear evidence that data within the brain could be transmitted from one part of the brain to another without neural connections. The H-P model does not account for that.

Then move on to the extensive evidence for reincarnation. It will show you that there is an essential component of mind, memory included, that cannot be accounted for by any theory that declares the human brain to be the entire mechanism of mind.

I am certain that both Penrose and Hameroff know this, so am puzzled by their development of a theory that fails to account for it.

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Greylorn Ell » Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:10 am

Ginkgo wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Ginkgo,
I'm looking forward to your comments. BTW, I like Penrose. Don't agree with all of his ideas, but he seems to have more of them than China has Chinese. Even better, his ideas are divergent from the mainstream, and he encourages ideas in general. Have you read bits of "Consciousness and the Universe?"
No I haven't so I googled it and read the blurb. The last I heard Penrose and Hameroff differed in terms of consciousness being "out there" and in the brain at the same time. Perhaps they have sorted this bit out. I look forward to reading it as soon as I can get a copy.
Ginkgo,
I don't actually recommend the book. It costs about 4x the price of mine, and is mostly filled with disparate theories that IMO pretty much suck. You can get a more cost-effective doorstop (e.g: a cast-iron brake drum) from any junkyard. My ideas on the subject are different from those of H-P, and unlike their ideas, mine actually explain the observed data.

I hope that H & P do differ. I'd guess that Penrose has personal experience of an extended mind, but suspect that Hameroff, given the many surgery patients he has balanced between conscious awareness and merciful oblivion, their lives in his hands, must be suppressing a few interesting stories for the sake of his opinions. In time, he'll figure it out.

BTW, somewhere on one of the PNow threads I recommended Rupert Sheldrake's youtube video, the one banned by TED. Perhaps you and VW will both appreciate his insights. They are pertinent to this conversation. Watch once, then again a week later. Perhaps then again, in a month. New information every time.

Even better, invite a philosophically-minded friend over for dinner, split a bottle of wine, and watch Sheldrake together. You'll not find better entertainment on TV.

Greylorn

Ginkgo
Posts: 2525
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Ginkgo » Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:58 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Yes re: the thesis. The Penrose-edited boat-anchor of a book, "Consciousness and the Universe," leads with Stuart Hameroff's presentation. Moreover, I've discussed his ideas with a mathematician friend who has studied the same source. Our conclusion is that the Hameroff-Penrose model of consciousness does not work.
You are probably referring to the "too warm. too noisy and too wet" criticism leveled at Hameroff. This was a criticism lead by a group of Australian scientists that were particularly critical of Hameroff idea that microtubules could carry out a a quantum function in such an environment. So, yes one of the criticism was with the maths.

At the time Hameroff took the criticism on board and actively worked toward resolving some of the problems. Other researches became interested as well. Hameroff's theory is a scientific theory so it can subjected to the scientific method. Time will tell if the theory can be confirmed or rejected based on the the evidence.
Greylorn Ell wrote: I've thought of sending each of them a copy of "Digital Universe -- Analog Soul" but have not done so because I lack the credibility needed to get their attention. This would not be relevant if Beon Theory was a divergent form of their model. But alas, Beon Theory declares their model to be D.O.A. My experience with professors who've taken a position as strongly as H-P have done is that they will defend their position, and not peruse alternative ideas that would, if accepted, refute years of their dedicated work.

A good theory requires two properties:

1. It must explain ALL CURRENTLY AVAILABLE DATA.

2. It must predict the discovery of data/information yet to be discovered, by showing where or how to seek it.

Any theory that confines consciousness to the human brain is incorrect, because there are plenty of well documented instances of OOB (Out of Body) experiences. (e.g: Pam Reynolds' surgery.) "Ghosts" are real. I once owned a house occupied by one, a child who had found his only release from pain, and who had died there. He was a friendly spook who had prevented intrusions into my home on several occasions, but when I learned of his reality I was compelled to help him leave and get on with his pursuit of consciousness in another body.

Of course that is an easily dismissible personal anecdote, so dismiss it. Nonetheless if you are curious about reality, peruse other books on the subject of OOBs. There are several.

May I also recommend extended data-gathering in the area of parapsychology? Telepathy works. So does telekinesis. The "dog whisperer" manages unruly beasts with the power of mind, while distracting viewers with words that dogs do not understand.
Yes, I am in to that sort of stuff myself.
Greylorn Ell wrote:

Lest I forget, a neurological experiment performed by Charles Gray et.al. a few decades back showed clear evidence that data within the brain could be transmitted from one part of the brain to another without neural connections. The H-P model does not account for that.


That is correct, expect quantum information using microtubules is not transferred via neural connections.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Then move on to the extensive evidence for reincarnation. It will show you that there is an essential component of mind, memory included, that cannot be accounted for by any theory that declares the human brain to be the entire mechanism of mind.

I am certain that both Penrose and Hameroff know this, so am puzzled by their development of a theory that fails to account for it.
This is because it is really two theories in one. Firstly, there is the Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR model and there is the Hameroff metaphysical theory that is an extension of the Orch-OR. Penrose is firstly scientist and a mathematician, so as far as he is concerned consciousness occurs within the brain. Hameroff, being a scientist and a metaphysician takes it a step further and claims the information model of the Och-OR is also applicable to the micro universe as well. So such things as spirits and OBE are part of Hameroff's theory of consciousness. Hameroff often has to explain this point of difference.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Greylorn Ell » Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:58 pm

Ginkgo wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Yes re: the thesis. The Penrose-edited boat-anchor of a book, "Consciousness and the Universe," leads with Stuart Hameroff's presentation. Moreover, I've discussed his ideas with a mathematician friend who has studied the same source. Our conclusion is that the Hameroff-Penrose model of consciousness does not work.
You are probably referring to the "too warm. too noisy and too wet" criticism leveled at Hameroff. This was a criticism lead by a group of Australian scientists that were particularly critical of Hameroff idea that microtubules could carry out a a quantum function in such an environment. So, yes one of the criticism was with the maths.

At the time Hameroff took the criticism on board and actively worked toward resolving some of the problems. Other researches became interested as well. Hameroff's theory is a scientific theory so it can subjected to the scientific method. Time will tell if the theory can be confirmed or rejected based on the the evidence.
I wasn't aware of that criticism, and appreciate the information. It would not be a criticism of mine, since I have a different take on QM than most.

Scientists have been trying to figure out how photosynthesis works for a long time. The last I read, a few were pursuing QM effects as a way to explain some odd chemical activity that doesn't quite fit classical chemical models. I don't have a reference to that research, but if it turns out that plant-leaves use quantum trickery to drive biochemical processes with photons, objections to biological QM based upon temperature and humidity seem irrelevant.
Ginkgo wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote: Any theory that confines consciousness to the human brain is incorrect, because there are plenty of well documented instances of OOB (Out of Body) experiences. (e.g: Pam Reynolds' surgery.) "Ghosts" are real. I once owned a house occupied by one, a child who had found his only release from pain, and who had died there. He was a friendly spook who had prevented intrusions into my home on several occasions, but when I learned of his reality I was compelled to help him leave and get on with his pursuit of consciousness in another body.

Of course that is an easily dismissible personal anecdote, so dismiss it. Nonetheless if you are curious about reality, peruse other books on the subject of OOBs. There are several.

May I also recommend extended data-gathering in the area of parapsychology? Telepathy works. So does telekinesis. The "dog whisperer" manages unruly beasts with the power of mind, while distracting viewers with words that dogs do not understand.
Yes, I am in to that sort of stuff myself.
I'm delighted to learn that. Several questions, which may be too personal for a reply.

1. Does your curiosity stem from personal experience (as does mine) or theoretical info?

2. Any relationship between paranormal experience and your philosophical curiosity?

3. What are your thoughts about my argument that, given the reality of psychic phenomena, any model of the mind that confines it to the brain is obviously faulty?

Ginkgo wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Lest I forget, a neurological experiment performed by Charles Gray et.al. a few decades back showed clear evidence that data within the brain could be transmitted from one part of the brain to another without neural connections. The H-P model does not account for that.


That is correct, expect quantum information using microtubules is not transferred via neural connections.
I learned about Gray's experiment because I was searching not for quantum effects in the brain, but for wave effects. Beon Theory requires some kind of wave model of information/energy transfer, and it would seem that such a model would also help account for parapsychological effects.
Ginkgo wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote: Then move on to the extensive evidence for reincarnation. It will show you that there is an essential component of mind, memory included, that cannot be accounted for by any theory that declares the human brain to be the entire mechanism of mind.

I am certain that both Penrose and Hameroff know this, so am puzzled by their development of a theory that fails to account for it.
This is because it is really two theories in one. Firstly, there is the Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR model and there is the Hameroff metaphysical theory that is an extension of the Orch-OR. Penrose is firstly scientist and a mathematician, so as far as he is concerned consciousness occurs within the brain. Hameroff, being a scientist and a metaphysician takes it a step further and claims the information model of the Och-OR is also applicable to the micro universe as well. So such things as spirits and OBE are part of Hameroff's theory of consciousness. Hameroff often has to explain this point of difference.
Thank you for the insights. You make sense.

Where did you learn so much about Hameroff?

Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Blaggard » Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:44 pm

He looked it up on the internet mate, or read a book, which is where many have to get their information or most of it, which is not to say that is a bad thing. Everything he said I already knew too, having debated the subject before and read the relavant interweb pages.

I found though their ideas to be as reaching as most scientists do, which is why I don't discuss it further, seems like it will only be a road well travelled. It's a dead end in consciousness studies atm, is all I will say. I don't think it has any legs, but if Penrose or Hammerof could do some actual science, I would genuinely love to be proved wrong.

Ah wait you can't read this, I keep forgetting you are a hopelessly ignorant mushroom in the dark. My bad.

Still at least the real people can read this as opposed to the ignorant frauds, if you who is actually a real person not a self e\ serving book promoter, want a discussion on why Penrose-Hammeroffs microtubuole adventure down the rabbit hole is dismissed by science, feel free to post. The other specious people well pinch of salt, they are not here to do anything but promote their book and ignore anyone who makes good arguments.
ginkgo wrote:Hameroff's theory is a scientific theory
No it is a hypothesis, Hammeroff has never had anything independently tested in experiment let alone done any experiments himself, or approached peer review in like manner. It's still at the hypothesis stage, it's also widely dismissed by anyone in science because of the limitations of quantum coherency, but since I said that before there is no point in waxing lyrical on it.

Now I think the idea has legs don't get me wrong, in fact I actually like it, but let's call a spade a spade.

It's great when you propose it as philosophy, and why not indeed, but when you propose it as a science theory it is erroneous.
Last edited by Blaggard on Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:08 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests