Luc Turpin

Entirely agree!

Unacceptable to me what just occurred! A voice that was contributing to defending the other side of the story has been nullified. The first part only of my post was taken, not the second which stated clearly that I was setting things up for science. An arbitrary-unilateral decision. Just waiting for the shoe to drop, then pounce. It was unconventional, but not-not science. I presented evidence like no one does on this forum. It was biased, but for reasons that I indicated. How many were not in agreement with my position, but turned up regularly anyways. some to scorn me, but others, maybe, to understand the position that I was defending. There were many very interesting conversations that occurred in this post. That too has been silenced. Even a discussion between amateur and professional science people is a worthwhile conversation to have. I do know that discoveries were made by many forum members, even if grudgingly so. Who can state that the discussions left them indifferent? At the very least, you know more about how the "man on the street" thinks about science. And you know much more about mind through brain than before, even if you disagree with it. Never, ever did I say that I was right. I stuck to the mind thread as required and rarely ventured elsewhere. It was also implied by you that I could present my point of view of mind in this thread, not elsewhere, and I complied. Is there a mechanism for contesting this decision? Or of transferring all of the existing mind posts into the speculations section? I believe in objectivity and plurality of opinions. A sad day indeed it is for me!

Proposing a hypothesis and have it bashed about by others is not part of the scientific process? Where I diverge with science is when I say that more than science (including it) will possibly be required to crack the mind nut. "A combination of top-down causal organization and bottom up chemical evolution appears to be necessary to understand life and consciousness." - Lieff and I. And I add that both objectivity and subjectivity will be required for a fuller understanding of mind as I am not sure that "causal organization" squarely touches upon the latter part (subjectivity) of the requirement. I admit to not always being coherent, but I am not always incoherent. I submit regular summaries to try and establish where we are at with and inject coherence in the discussion.

Good one! 😊 Illogical, I am not though; just trying to set things up for good science to occur. I contend that I might be wrong; does the other side do so as well ? Also, you are the only one on this forum that has provided information on both sides of the debate. So, you are less biased than others and me on this forum.

Relevant information, but I am not doing science. I am unabashedly and “biasly” presenting one facet of the mind-body conundrum. I do so for the following reasons: to present the version of the mind-brain conundrum that is being ignored by the scientific community (it needs attention); to ignore the other version as it is well represented (me against all of you) and purportedly the only game in town (none more attention needed); to ensure that the scientific community abides by the second commandment that "thou shalt always consider the full suite of relevant data when drawing conclusions." It will then be the responsibility of the scientific community to do good science in uncovering what is really going on with mind and brain. 1- With all of the evidence available, what would still make some scientists think that mind is contained to human brains? 2- We are starting to understand the language of the living... The Secret Language of Cells by Jon Lieff......whale communication....'Sperm whales communicate with each other using rhythmic sequences of clicks, called codas. It was previously thought that sperm whales had just 21 coda types. However, after studying almost 9,000 recordings, the Ceti researchers identified 156 distinct codas." We are slowly but surely decoding the languages of other living species as well. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240709-the-sperm-whale-phonetic-alphabet-revealed-by-ai

Humankind, and especially those that consider humankind special.

!- The brain is possibly the centre for consciousness, and yes sometimes there is no point to a centre, but, if there was one it would significantly bolster the mind from brain hypothesis; that is the point. And that is why neuroscientists are still trying to find it. 2- Brain knowledge comes from neuroscientists who are saying that there is no understanding of how the brain produces mind. I am not stating this, they are. 3- No google this time; Why are we still trying to place humankind at the centre of the universe? Why would mind suddenly burst out in the clear as we humans arrive at the scene? If mind is an emergent property, why would it not emerge in other living entities before doing so in humans? Why not the notion of mind evolving from simple organisms to more complex ones as for most other living things in nature? Are there any logical premises opposing the notion that mind could be everywhere in nature? Can all of the complexity found in nature be explained by singular autonomic-instinctual functions alone? Would Occam's razor not apply here? It is like the notion of the beginning of the universe from nothing, give me a miracle and I will explain all the rest of it. Mind emerging for the sole purview of mankind is a bit of a miracle. Stopped reading beyond that point 😊

Key points made so far in this thread: There is apparently no centre in the brain for consciousness. Having found one would have favoured the mind from brain hypothesis. There is no understanding on how the brain produces mind. Again, finding out how it works would have favoured the mind from brain hypothesis. There is a case to be made for mind existing in all living matter, which could possibly favour the mind through brain hypothesis. There are major issues with both panpsychism and materialism. The former suffers from a “combination” problem (how do particles combine to produce a more complex thing with its own conscious experience) while the latter has to contend with the “hard” problem (how does brain create mind). There is little evidence that non-living matter is conscious, but some evidence that prerequisites of mind may be present, which could favour the “emergence” of mind from brain hypothesis. There may be a demarcation line between the living and non-living, which could be mind. It is not known whether there can be life without consciousness or consciousness without life. A combination of top down causal organization and bottom up chemical evolution appears to be necessary to understand life and consciousness. There is no sense of direction in evolution; therefore, no purpose in the living. Not all occurrences are random.

I have been mulling this one ever since you posted it, but honestly, I have no answer to give!

Spend it on more complete knowledge of mind, consciousness, cognition, intelligence and life in general

1- Intention, problem-solving, decision making, modulating one's environment Ants Ingenious Survival Method During Flood | Superswarm | BBC Earth (youtube.com) Ant Colony IQ: Just How Smart is an Ant? (youtube.com) 2- A bottom-up and objective method is needed to explore one side of the coin, and a top-down more subjective approach is required for the other side.

What is life? No one really knows! - "No definition of life has been satisfactory. Most include a cell with compartments, self-copying, metabolism, energy production or capture, adaptation to the environment and evolution. Another criterion is the transmission of information". - Lieff Where does life come from? No one is really sure! The origin of life remains unknown. Can life and consciousness be separated? - "It is not known whether there can be life without consciousness or consciousness without life?" - Lieff "Consciousness and life are qualities of living cells showing unusual complexity, organization and information flows. A combination of top down causal organization and bottom up chemical evolution appears to be necessary to understand life and consciousness." - Lieff For me, they share an inseparable kindship. To advance our discussion on the matter. Absolutely, more is required if we conclude that wax is not intelligent. I gave 'intention' as a possible test for intelligence. Others would be problem-solving, decision making, modulating one's environment. Others contend that intelligence in matter would need to show self-deterministic decisions, patterns and actions, which is closely related to my "intention' test.

1- Indeed it is! The prerequisite claim is mine while the molecular intelligence one is not. 2- I submitted the article for discussion as it was the only one that I could find where the authors were advocating for intelligence at the chemical level. I do not share all of their opinions on the subject matter. If the article asserts that wax is intelligent in the manner that I described it, then this is wrong. "the network’s ability to learn, to capture and integrate information about an environment that ensures the network’s future response to similar conditions" - This would begin to be a sign of intelligence. "A population of simple molecules, storing and copying information to ensure their own survival prebiotically, argues that intelligent behavior is not restricted to complex genomes but is an inherent property of matter." - Storing/copying information would be insufficient in claiming intelligence and then stating "that intelligent behaviour is not restricted to complex genomes but is an inherent property of matter" "The origins of life on Earth, the remarkable result of chemical evolution through emerging self-assembly into ever-increasing hierarchical complexity in structure and function, remains one of the greatest research challenges of our time." - Unrelated to what is needed for intelligence, but the claim is correct. I may be wrong, but possible litmus tests for conscioussness would be "awareness" and for intelligence "intention".

Objectivity dictates investigating before declaring null and void. Yes, science puts the psychological or subjective aside, but, again, our world is comprised of both the objective and subjective. So, only one side of the coin is being explored, which results in an incomplete understanding of our surrounding world. My sincerest condolences Dim. Can intelligent behaviour exist without acquisition, storage and use of information? It is not intelligent behaviour, but probably needed for intelligent behaviour. A prerequisite of intelligence. My understranding is that molecules would have to do more than that to demonstrate intelligent behaviour. Physically pressing a shape on wax is not a sign of wax intelligence, but of a sign of intelligence on the part of the one pressing a shape upon the wax.

I committed to a search on consciousness-cognition in non living matter. I did so and have not found very much evidence that would support this contention. I did however stumble upon this interesting article on the origins of chemical evolution by David Lynn, Cynthia Burrow, Jay Goodwin and Anil Mehta “A dynamic exchange of network component structures and assemblies, via both covalent and noncovalent associations, is fundamental for the network’s ability to learn, to capture and integrate information about an environment that ensures the network’s future response to similar conditions, as an inherent part of chemical evolution. In considering the origins of chemical evolution or discovering the simplest molecular systems capable of promulgating intelligent behavior, we acknowledge that merely defining the terms learning, intelligence, and evolution at a molecular level remains a significant part of our challenge in this Accounts of Chemical Research issue." "The origins of life on Earth, the remarkable result of chemical evolution through emerging self-assembly into ever-increasing hierarchical complexity in structure and function, remains one of the greatest research challenges of our time." "The Darwinian threshold required for appearance of the biological cell underscores the development of “self” versus “non-self” in these chemical networks. The barriers that define dynamic chemical systems as uniquely self must be physically and kinetically selective to permeability, primarily of nutrient molecules that maintain network viability." "These diverse approaches to deconvolution and reintegration of the origins of the cell, projected in collaboration through the lens of chemical evolution, suggest a remarkable degree of intrinsic molecular intelligence that guide the bottom-up emergence of living matter. However, this idea of molecular intelligence is certainly not new. Charles Darwin imagined a chemically rich “warm pond” from which evolution originated, and his idea was published almost 100 years before the duplex structure of DNA was proposed. A population of simple molecules, storing and copying information to ensure their own survival prebiotically, argues that intelligent behavior is not restricted to complex genomes but is an inherent property of matter. Darwin’s hypothesis further predicts the emergence of new intelligent materials, ones not limited to what can be deduced from biology’s “archeological” remnants but even more diverse and exotic realms of dynamic chemical systems that might never have been explored by extant biochemistry." https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ar300266q

I thought long and hard on this one and agree with your statement. It would change dramatically from a psychological but not a scientific standpoint. What is going on would not change, but why it is going on would.

It is text taken from the general article, not the Xiv paper. “Mathematician and physicist Johannes Kleiner, at the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy in Germany, told author Michael Brooks that a mathematically precise definition of consciousness could mean that the cosmos is suffused with subjective experience. “This could be the beginning of a scientific revolution,” Kleiner said, referring to research he and others have been conducting. “ “Kleiner and his colleagues are focused on the Integrated Information Theory of consciousness, one of the more prominent theories of consciousness today. As Kleiner notes, IIT (as the theory is known) is thoroughly panpsychist because all integrated information has at least one bit of consciousness” Integrated Information Theory (ITT) proposes a mathematical model of consciousness. ITT is panpsychist and panpsychism is the view that all things have a mind or mind like quality. All things in the cosmos having a min or mind like quality would be a scientific revolution. https://nautil.us/electrons-may-very-well-be-conscious-237818/ Quote

There is a lot of intelligent - stupid or insane people in the world. I named a few of them. I do know what your comment brings to the discussion though, not much.

Because only an unconscious person could come up with particles being conscious? or for a more sophisticated reason than this? There is logic in believing that atoms are conscious.- living matter is conscious; life comes from matter; then matter could very well be a more primitive form of consciousness. There is also no appearance of a "break point" between the living and non-living. However, there is no evidence, at least for me, of atoms being conscious. And there is ample evidence that all living matter show some form of cognition that scales up from lower to higher life forms. I remain open to the idea, but based on evidence (lack of), I will camp on the side of non-conscious-non-living matter. In coming days, I will investigate further the notion of atoms being conscious, but remain sceptical that I will find anything convincing. correction: that scale "somewhat" from lower to higher life forms.

I too am sceptical of atoms being conscious after reading the article on the combination problem by David Chalmers. As you indicated, electrons could technically go through one of the two slits by choice while following QM rules, but there is no evidence of this. Also, " if electrons could have thoughts, we’d long have seen this in particle collisions because it would change the number of particles produced in collisions." - Sabine Hosenfelder. I remain a “bi psychist” (only living organisms are conscious) to avoid the notion that atoms are conscious and to steer away from the "combination problem" (how do particles combine to produce a more complex thing with its own conscious experience), but accept that I still have, as materialists, the "hard problem"(how does brain create mind) to contend with.

Another article on panpsychism: Here is a summary: Integrated Information Theory of consciousness, one of the more prominent theories of consciousness today is thoroughly panpsychist because all integrated information has at least one bit of consciousness. A mathematically precise definition of consciousness could mean the cosmos is suffused with subjective experience. “This could be the beginning of a scientific revolution [2002.07655] The Mathematical Structure of Integrated Information Theory (arxiv.org) Constitutive panpsychism – where there is mind there is matter and where there is matter there is mind. Freeman Dyson – “the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind form the processes of choice between quantum states which we call “chance” when made by electrons.” J.B.S. Haldane – “we do not find obvious evidence of life or mind in so-called inert matter…; but if the scientific point of view is correct, we shall ultimately find them, at least rudimentary forms, all through the universe." Bruce Jakosky – “was there a distinct moment when earth went from having no life to having life, as if a switch were flipped? The answer is probably not Sabine Hossenfelder – If you want a particle to be conscious, your minimum expectation should be that the particle can change” “It’s hard to have an inner life with only one thought. But if electrons could have thoughts, we’d long have seen this in particle collisions because it would change the number of particles produced in collisions.” Alfred North Whitehead – electrons, atoms and molecules are “drops of experience” in that they enjoy at least a little bid of experience, a little bit of awareness….particle like electrons as a chain of successive iteration of a sing electron that bear a strong likeness to each other in each iteration, bbut are not identical to each other…..”concrescence”, the oscillating nature of entities like electrons moment to moment. · https://nautil.us/electrons-may-very-well-be-conscious-237818/

I redact myself from stating that consciousness cannot be measured. Measuring consciousness – from the lab to the clinic https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/en/follow-hbp/news/2023/08/30/measuring-consciousness-from-the-lab-to-the-clinic/#:~:text=For%20this%2C%20a%20weak%20magnetic,this%20pulse%20is%20simultaneously%20measured. A Theoretically Based Index of Consciousness Independent of Sensory Processing and Behavior With the following caveat: Theories and measures of consciousness: An extended framework A recent theoretical emphasis on complex interactions within neural systems underlying consciousness has been accompanied by proposals for the quantitative characterization of these interactions. In this article, we distinguish key aspects of consciousness that are amenable to quantitative measurement from those that are not. We carry out a formal analysis of the strengths and limitations of three quantitative measures of dynamical complexity in the neural systems underlying consciousness: neural complexity, information integration, and causal density. We find that no single measure fully captures the multidimensional complexity of these systems, and all of these measures have practical limitations. Our analysis suggests guidelines for the specification of alternative measures which, in combination, may improve the quantitative characterization of conscious neural systems. Given that some aspects of consciousness are likely to resist quantification altogether, we conclude that a satisfactory theory is likely to be one that combines both qualitative and quantitative elements. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0604347103 And the combination problem in panpsychism is indeed a really big problem From “The Combination Problem for Panpsychism by David J. Chalmers “Nevertheless, panpsychism is subject to a major challenge: the combination problem. This is roughly the question: how do the experiences of fundamental physical entities such as quarks and photons combine to yield the familiar sort of human conscious experience that we know and love.” “What, then, are the prospects for solving the combination problem? On my view, the avenues that seem to be perhaps the most worth exploring are phenomenal bonding or quantum holism (to solve the subject combination problem), small qualitative palettes (to address the quality combination problem), principles of informational composition (to address the structure combination problem), and a somewhat deflationary account of awareness of qualities to tie all these aspects together. It is not at all clear whether these ideas can work together in such a way that all of the combination problems are solved at once, however. After a close analysis of the many aspects of the combination problem and the limited resources for solving them, it is easy to be pessimistic about the prospects for a solution. What emerges is that panpsychism and panprotopsychism, at least in their constitutive Russellian form, 34 are subject to extraordinary constraints in finding a theory of consciousness. It is hard enough to find a theory of consciousness that works on dualist terms, where we are allowed to take macrosubjects and macrophenomenal properties as primitive and appeal to numerous contingent psychophysical laws. The Russellian monist is constrained to find a theory whereby macroexperience is constituted by a tiny range of underlying primitive properties and without any further contingent fundamental laws. This is a little like trying to juggle seven balls in the air with both hands tied behind one’s back. It may be that the constraints imposed by the combination problem are so strong that the challenge cannot be answered. Or it may just be that trying to satisfy the constraints will point someone toward the correct form for a fundamental theory of consciousness.” https://consc.net/papers/combination.pdf Missing reference to A Theoretically Based Index of Consciousness Independent of Sensory Processing and Behavior https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/scitranslmed.3006294

I persist in saying that “Cognition (functional abilities we can observe from a third-person perspective); consciousness (what it feels like to be a creature from that creature's own perspective) The former can be explored by science while the latter cannot.”

1- Would a field being projected onto and having an effect upon matter qualify for a non materialistic label? I believe not! So, I am not doing religion. 2- How can you directly and objectively study something that is fundamentally subjective. You can image the brain with scanners, prod it with electrodes, you can see it’s effect, you can circle around it, but can you truly get to the core of what it really is? The question remains, how can you measure empirically what it feels like to be someone from that someone's own perspective? 3- ok ordinary yes, but maybe fundamental 4- Then this is a quagmire for me. Need to read more and think more on this one. 5- I too have no interest whatsoever in creationism.

undisputable! or indisputable? Need a dictionary 😊