Topic: Economic Devastation - page 28. (Read 504811 times)

It has to be one or the other othwerise, you deny that inside and outside world exists.

If consciousness arises from the brain as a property of matter, then there is no inside world, and everything is deterministic.

If counsciousness is separate from matter and exists in another plane, then there is no outside world, and only what is experienced exists.

So which one is it?

"What you see with your eyes and interpret with your mind, is that the outside world or the inside world?"

My answer:
It is neither the outside world nor the inside world for this is a false dichotomy.

To view consciousness as arising from the brain is an oversimplification stemming from a flawed conceptualization. Instead the brain should be viewed as a medium or functional scaffolding for consciousness to propagate itself. As there is no coherent boundary dividing biology and not-biology all matter can essentially be viewed in this manner.

Orchestrated objective reduction’ (‘Orch OR’) proposes that consciousness consists of a sequence of discrete events, each being a moment of ‘objective reduction’ (OR) of a quantum state. The theory suggests conscious experience is intrinsically connected to the fine-scale structure of space–time geometry, and that consciousness may be deeply related to the operation of the laws of the universe.

There is and it is "computation". in that sense computers are alive only of a different make.
Nah Im more inclined to the software/hardware paradigm.
Orch OR sound like treating conciousness as an iterated function over a State Monad universe, even with the quantum flavor it looks deterministic
the simplest way to break determinism is getting a true random number generator as an input

In conventional views, the experiential qualities of conscious awareness are assumed to have emerged from complex neuronal computation at some point in evolution, whether recently in human brains, or at some earlier, but unspecified level of development. In these views, consciousness is an emergent property of complex computational activity. On the other hand, Orch OR follows the notion that OR events with primitive ‘experiential’ qualities have been occurring in the universe all along, in the reduction R of quantum superpositions to classical reality. Small superpositions lacking isolation would entangle directly with the random environment, rapidly reaching OR threshold by τ≈ħ/EG, resulting in non-orchestrated OR events. Each such event would lack cognition or any non-computational influence, but would be associated with an undifferentiated ‘proto-conscious’ experience, one without information or meaning. Such undifferentiated experiences are taken, in the Orch OR scheme, to be irreducible, fundamental features of ‘Planck scale geometry’, perhaps ultimately having a physical role as important to basic physics as those of mass, spin or charge.
...
What about Orch OR in non-biological systems? After all, τ≈ħ/EG happens everywhere. What kind of role might there be for it in consciousness elsewhere in the universe?

Very large masses can be involved in quantum superpositions, occurring in the universe in quantum-mechanical situations, for example in the cores of neutron stars. One might imagine that τ would then be ridiculously tiny. But EG could still be relatively small if the mass-displacement remains small owing to the uniformity of the material. But generally, by OR, such large-scale superpositions would reduce extremely quickly, and classically unreasonable superpositions would be rapidly eliminated. Whether such quantum systems could be orchestrated to have meaningful, cognitive Orch OR conscious moments is unknown

ORIGINS OF LIFE
An example is the question: What is life? – which is the title of that influential book by Schroedinger (1944). The current answer is, implicitly: that is ‘life’ which reproduces or replicates and is subject to natural selection.

But this answer includes viruses, phages and prions – which hardly seem to be ‘alive’ in that they lack a dynamic metabolism; and also some forms of crystal – which are usually regarded as certainly not-alive (Cairns-Smith, 1990). Furthermore, some economic theories and computational programmes explicitly use the mechanisms of natural selection - and these are not regarded as part of biology.

Strikingly, there has been no success in the attempts over sixty-plus years to create life in the laboratory under plausible ancestral earth conditions – not even the complex bio-molecules such as proteins and nucleic acids. It has, indeed, been well-argued that this is impossible; and that ‘living life’ must therefore have evolved from an intermediate stage (or stages) of non-living but evolvable molecules such as crystals – perhaps clays (Cairns-Smith, 1987). But nobody has succeeded in doing that in the lab either, despite that artificial selection can be orders of magnitude faster than natural selection.

Since there is no acknowledged boundary dividing biology and not-biology, then it would seem that biology as currently understood has zero validity as a subject. What are the implications of our failure to divide the living from the non-living world: the failure to draw a line around the subject? Well, since there is no coherent boundary, then common sense leads us to infer in that case either everything is not-alive or everything is-alive. If nothing is-alive, not even ourselves, there seems to be no coherent possibility of us knowing that we ourselves are not-alive, or indeed of anything knowing anything – which, I take it, means we should reject that possibility as a reductio ad absurdum.

Alternatively, the implication is that if anything is-alive, then everything is-alive, including the mineral world – so we dwell in a wholly animated universe, all that there is being alive but – presumably – alive in very different degrees and with different qualities of life. This inference I intend to regard as valid: it will be my working metaphysical assumption, and is one to which we will return later.

There are many interpretations of quantum theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory

You claim that the pilot wave interpretations of quantum mechanics is the only one that works but this appear to be an unproved assertion. Upthread I highlighted the Orch OR theory of consciousness. This theory does not use the pilot wave interpretation it uses a competing model of objective collapse.

I have a solid background in mathematics and science but this background does not include quantum mechanics. My understanding, however, is that all of the five "approaches to quantum mechanics" fit with the currently available experimental data making them all a possible but competing visions of reality.  

Pilot wave theory is deterministic. Objective collapse theory is indeterministic. I argued upthread that grounding consciousness in objective collapse theory makes consciousness itself indeterministic and provides a mechanism for free will. It does not appears that this argument can be made with a deterministic pilot wave theory. You appear to have rejected objective collapse theory as false. What is your reasoning for this conclusion?

"What you see with your eyes and interpret with your mind, is that the outside world or the inside world?"

My answer:
It is neither the outside world nor the inside world for this is a false dichotomy.

To view consciousness as arising from the brain is an oversimplification stemming from a flawed conceptualization. Instead the brain should be viewed as a medium or functional scaffolding for consciousness to propagate itself. As there is no coherent boundary dividing biology and not-biology all matter can essentially be viewed in this manner.

Individual interaction with the world can thus be understood as consciousness propagating through one medium interacting with consciousness propagating through another medium. This interaction can be reinforcing or destructive. Instead of an inside or an outside world there is simply the propagation of consciousness interacting with itself in increasingly deep and complex ways.

Orchestrated objective reduction’ (‘Orch OR’) proposes that consciousness consists of a sequence of discrete events, each being a moment of ‘objective reduction’ (OR) of a quantum state. The theory suggests conscious experience is intrinsically connected to the fine-scale structure of space–time geometry, and that consciousness may be deeply related to the operation of the laws of the universe.

I have a major endorsement announcement to make tomorrow. Stay tuned...

Yes Twitter, I am just celebrating #AprilFools #endorsingentropy.

Hi can you answer my question, i am curious what your answer is:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14317190

---

Tell me how can consciousness arise from the brain, if the consciousness experiences the outside world, including the brain...

It's circular logic.

---

Ok I have a question for you because I see that you are pretty intelligent, here it goes:

Now I think we must summon Carl Jung to help us break down consciousness.
To cut it short you are not alone in your brain, there are more processes running than the one that has tapped into the sensory information flow and feeds from it and dominates (Ego). Your Brain is an ecosystem.
I think that as energy flows give rise to life processors likewise information flows give rise to cognitive processes, that are to consciousness what cells are to organisms. Yes the brain provides the break from causality simply by providing a true RNG , but is simply a computation platform for yet another emerging phenomenon.

The nature of consciousness, the mechanism by which it occurs in the brain, and its ultimate place in the universe are unknown.

What you see with your eyes and interpret with your mind, is that the outside world or the inside world?
- You can answer outside, because its detached from your body, therefore it seems like it's the outside world, outside from your body 
- You can answer inside, because you experience it with the mind ,therefore everything you experience is filtered through your mind, so what you see outside is actually inside your head
- You can't answer both, because that's illogical, can't be both at the same time

So which one is it? Think about it hard because it's a very tricky question, and if you find the right answer then you will instantly see what i`m talking about...

I have provided metaphysics that define what is necessary for free will Kant's noumenal self outside of time. Such a self is free because it is causally undetermined.

I have provided information on emperic and reproducable scientific experiments. Delayed choice quantum eraser experiments show that quantum phenomona can operate outside of what we traditionally think of as time and causal sequence.

I have provided robust scientific theory (Orch objective reduction) that argues consciousness is grounded in these same quantum phenomona that have been shown to operate outside of traditional time and causality.

Obviously from my stated conclusion I believe the Orch OR theory to be true. However this is not a question of metaphysics but one of science.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188

From this one can conclude that current emperic scientific theory supports the existance of Kant's noumenal self which is required for free will. Free will is thus entirely consistent with modern science and undeniably possible. If Orch OR theory holds up under further and in depth emperic testing I would argue that free will becomes overwhelmingly probable.

Delayed choice quantum eraser experiments tell us that certain quantum phenomena operate outside of what we traditionally think of as time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser


• Orch OR theory posits that conscious arises from quantum computations in brain microtubules.
• As noted by Kant in his model of a noumenal self free will requires a true self that is independent of time.
• Grounding consciousness in quantum mechanics provides this independence.

Therefore we have free will.
 

Every time such a claim is made, someone shows a way to route around the limitation.

Because they only explain the interaction of the projected things on the canvas, but they can never explain the canvas itself.

Combing the above insights leads us to the idea that the world around us indeed the entire universe is simply the projection of a deeper fundamental reality. A universe with consciousness, as its ultimate teleology where consciousness operates upon matter with the proximate goal of sustaining and developing itself via instantiations in matter. A universe where entropy always increases and entropy is understood as information for consciousness to act upon.

This model cannot currently be proven true but neither can you disprove it or reject it as illogical for it for it is logically sound.
Indeed one can even argue that this model better explains our universe for this model allows you to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics a task which traditional models have been unable to accomplish.