artnat

Noting change in the URL for my maya-gaia website.

Actually this thread is called- "[QUESTION MARK] Evidence of a Conscious Universe?" but think some assumed it to mean- "[EXPLANATION POINT] Evidence of a Conscious Universe!" which explains the mainly defensive comments. You may hold that such ideas are unsubstantiated but it is unscientific to claim peer-reviewed scientific papers are "nonsense". Anyone can have a full and rewarding involvement in scientific discourse but the logical consequence of entertaining ONLY ideas that are supported by empirical evidence is that one's inventory of percepts concerning consciousness either as epiphenomenon or NON epiphenomenon must necessarily be null. A criteria demanding empirical evidence means no entertaining concepts involving quantum uncertainty, entanglement or holism- string theory or loop quantum gravity, cosmological constants or pre-big bang, multiverses or superluminal signals, anthropic principles or Schrodinger's cat and a host of really fun thought experiences. Still leaves a vast archive of materialist theory to contemplate a mechanistic universe but some would suspect there's a genetic urge to entertain beyond. Given the numinous qualities of all things conscious, the thread's question suggests an openness to consider EVIDENCE as falsifiable theory about a "Conscious Universe". This is "science" (not nonsense) whether supported directly by reproducible experiment or not. Since all science defining consciousness is theoretical- no particular argument is definitive so cannot cancel the possibility of another- so all survive in the body of hypothetical science. For a concise introduction to some of the science that addresses the question of consciousness see- Quantum Mind For a mix of scientific and philosophical theories about panpsychism and a conscious universe see Cosmic Consciousness Links

In the first place my description of "fan-based scientism community that surrounds Tegmark's world view, much like that which is derived from the work of Richard Dawkins on evolution - that unabashedly warrants his scientific theory as final truth and embraces a quasi-religious dogmatic defense against any and all evidence that might refute his assumptions." did not refer to Tegmark or his work but to his fan community. Secondly, fans in any community based on admiration for the ideas of some individual who they raise to the status of an icon are predisposed to assume a bias that supports their icon in virtually all respects- regardless. To describe those fans as embracing a "quasi-religious dogmatic defense" is a thoroughly justified ad hominem circumstantial comment that involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he/she is disposed to take a particular position. In the Hameroff, et al rebuttel 2000 paper- the authors contend that they examine the decoherence mechanisms likely to dominate in a biological setting and find that Tegmark’s commentary is misapplied in eight major parameters of the existing literature. These considerations bring microtubule decoherence into a regime in which quantum gravity could interact with neurophysiology. There is no science-based justification for your dismissing all the work I cited (you did not even acknowledge the Gao Shan papers) solely on the arbitrary basis that none are supported by experiment. Since some cite experiment-based research it shows on its face your dismissal is unfounded. That's why there is a distinct discipline called theoretical physics. I assume we can acknowledge that when Einstein proposed his theory of relativity or in the current theoretical state of string theory and loop quantum gravity- that these are deemed scientific concepts without any experimental evidence whatsoever. So papers published by scientists on consciousness and quantum effects should not be rejected out-of-hand because their theory isn't supported by experiment. Also- regarding previous complaints- physics may benefit from mathematics but not all science does, so it is particularly weird in a pseudo-science thread about consciousness to insist that here we must embrace the physicalist's motto to- "Shut up and calculate!" A philosopher would call decoherence an enigma and a real physicist like Maximilian Schlosshauer keeps an open mind in his Decoherence, the Measurement Problem, and Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics saying: "Decoherence remains an ongoing field of intense research, in both the theoretical and experimental domain, and we can expect further implications for the foundations of quantum mechanics from such studies in the near future." Spoken like a true scientist who leaves the door open for every tenant to evolve or perish. 1. I easily can ENTERTAIN any and all rational-based explanations of how consciousness MAY arise including that it may be exclusively from classical physical process. 2. I take issue only with any science, metaphysics, philosophy or religion that insists on their proprietary approach or final truth about how something as enigmatic as consciousness arises. I've no training in physics so I depend on Google to find authority online like Schlosshauer's opinion (above) as to how quantum mechanics is likely to reveal greater truths about the consciousness enigma. Also I'm philosophically drawn to quantum mechanical models of consciousness such as the Penrose/Hameroff "Orch OR" Model. I find an intuitive synchronity with my direct experience with the notion that the observer in The Copenhagen Interpretation is a subjective human observer that is necessary for the state vector collapse rather than environmental noise being the cause and that the decoherence issue raised by Tegmark has been addressed in scientific papers with experimental support that finds coherence MAY occur at temperatures in biological structures such as cytoskeletal microtubules and other structures within each of the brain's neurons. Finally, I find a strictly classical mechanical approach has less potential to account for the future knowledge of consciousness as a NON epiphenomena than does a quantum mechanical - or at least a hybrid classical/quantum approach does. Furthermore the limitations of thinking in terms of classical measurements of a quantum system have already become particularly acute in the field of quantum cosmology, where the quantum system is the universe (that may yet turn out to be my favorite paradigm- a conscious cosmic matrix.) See Quantum Theory - from Copenhagen to the present day

Tegmark has been a strong critic of those who would infer a theory of consciousness from quantum effects, such as Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff. There is a fan-based scientism community that surrounds Tegmark's world view, much like that which is derived from the work of Richard Dawkins on evolution and religion- that unabashedly warrants his scientific theory as final truth and embraces a quasi-religious dogmatic defense against any and all evidence that might refute his assumptions. Here is a paper by Hameroff, et al 2002 that directly argues against Tegmark's brain temperature position Then there are the papers of Henry Stapp relating consciousness to quantum effects. and his other papers which are unaffected by the Tegmark percepts. See also Relations between Quantum Theory and new ideas on consciousness and reality that (near the bottom) presents online bibliographic reference from Gao Shan's "Quantum Collapse, Consciousness and Superluminal Communication"

I'd like to point out that you entered this discussion with the following comment: You later cited Tegmark's 1999 paper explicity about neurons not exhibiting quantum mechanical behavior in support of your general position. I then linked to the http://scimednet.blogspot.com/2009/06/quantum-coherence-and-entanglement-in.html]Quantum coherence and entanglement in living matter blog that cited the scientific papers 9 (see below). Aimed to reply to your original comment regarding consciousness and to refer to the issues of decoherence theory, not exclusively to answer the narrow Tegmark position about neurons. Seems you go out of your way to infer that because Scimet is a "blog" rather than what I incorrectly called an "article" it has no scientific merit whereas it is a discussion of science papers shedding light on aspects of understanding consciousness that it cites as follows: 1.) J. Cai et al (2008) - Dynamic entanglement in oscillating molecules - arXiv:0809.4906 2.) G. Engel et al (2007) - Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems - Nature, 446, 782 3.) H. Lee et al (2007) - Coherence dynamics in photosynthesis: protein protection of excitonic coherence - Science, 316, 1462 4.) E. Collini et al (2007) - Coherent intrachain energy migration in a conjugated polymer at room temperature - Science, 323, 369 1.) J. Cai et al (2008) - Dynamic entanglement in oscillating molecules - arXiv:0809.4906 2.) G. Engel et al (2007) - Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems - Nature, 446, 782 3.) H. Lee et al (2007) - Coherence dynamics in photosynthesis: protein protection of excitonic coherence - Science, 316, 1462 4.) E. Collini et al (2007) - Coherent intrachain energy migration in a conjugated polymer at room temperature - Science, 323, 369

I don't see how your reasoning follows from the explicit use of the terms (in bold) in this quote from the Scimednet article? "From the point of view of consciousness studies, this and other papers concerned with quantum features in proteins involved in photosynthesis look to sound the death knell for the recent orthodoxy that quantum features could not persist in biological tissues, thus leaving the road open for the possibility of quantum coherence and entanglement in the brain."

Thanks for the Max Tegmark link. Have included in my Meta New Physics references to pro and con arguments about bridging the consciousness/physics divide. But not surprisingly, new evidence has evoloved the debate since that 1999 paper. See Quantum coherence and entanglement in living matter 2009. References recent scientific papers from consciousness studies concerned with quantum features in proteins involved in photosynthesis that look to sound the death knell for the recent orthodoxy that quantum features could not persist in biological tissues, thus leaving the road open for the possibility of quantum coherence and entanglement in the brain. Of course "death knells" and "open roads" reminds one of the challenge for keeping our skepticism in balance with an open mind when reaching for any final conclusions about reality.

Thanks for the links. Appears BlueBrain is more on target than NuPIC but in an analogy: the computing effort to map the human genome resulted in a physical thing that only began the real challenge to understand it. Contrary to the idea that the effort to bridge the mind/consciousness divide is essentially dead...here are a couple of conferences forthcoming: Science and Nonduality Oct 21, 2009 Consciousness Arizona April 13, 2010

Falsifiabilty does not say that things that are not falsifiable have no value. It simply asserts they are not scientific. In our direct exchange, it's obvious you have assumed the role of Scientisms' Rottweiler and are convinced that consciousness is merely a term for that enigma which the matter of our brain creates. Any argument to advance the discourse will cause you to simply move your goal post for contrary evidence further out- ad infinitum. Makes me wonder if you could provide an example of a mathematical description for physical brain function. If this fails, then you'd have to deny even that phenomenality. I won't try to match the tone of hubris, condescension and disparaging remarks you've already brought to our exchange- but wonder why you bring your doggedness about demands for scientific evidence to this "pseudo science and speculation" thread in the first place? Could it be you've jumped the fence from ScienceForums' "science" category to prey on percepts less likely to defend against your math attack? At the risk of mixing metaphors, some might imply the "Big Fish in a small pond syndrome" may be at play here...hm?

You asked for "something" about actual science. I referred you to a list of links to resources relating to the interface of science and consciousness (the topic of this discussion) some of which derive from bona fide scientists who publish peer reviewed articles. I assume you overlooked that I said "SOME" of the resources listed "DERIVE" from scientists who publish peer reviewed articles. One resource listed is a compendium of published works by scientist Henry Stapp at http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html Another resource listed is http://www.kjf.ca/104-update26Jan2008.pdf PROTO-EXPERIENCES AND SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCES: INTEGRATION OF CLASSICAL, QUANTUM, AND SUBQUANTUM CONCEPTS by RAM LAKHAN PANDEY VIMAL who has other peer reviewed papers published in JIN at http://www.worldscinet.com/jin/07/0701/S0219635208001733.html For me to try to comply with your request for mathematical evidence- could you provide a sample of what math about consciousness might look like? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Now you know why they put the "theo" in entheogens. Theology can blow your mind or the other way around!

Here's a mix of resources relating to the interface of physics and consciousness- some of which derive from bona fide scientists who publish peer reviewed articles... http://maya-gaia.angelfire.com/meta_new_physics.html ...enjoy.

Figured one would assume it was any of the other 7 of the 8 definitions that provided the context in which I used the term scientism and not the specific one of Isaac Asimov's fictional religion. Actually I started this thread with the title: Evidence for a Conscious Universe? and ended my first post saying: "I realize the challenge in developing a coherent hypothsis out of such ephemeral evidence but hoped the forum might generate more scientifically sophisticated insights than my uneducated efforts." Obviously the hope was for a dialog rather than a battle but I realize that when the sides become identified as metaphysical versus physicalism passions can rise to the intensity of religious debate. I'm almost at a loss to know where I disrespected any member unless it possibly could be where I used the term "committed skeptic". But I couldn't imagine that anyone who is an integral part of the skeptical community would take this as anything but a compliment. Could you clarify what your charge of my disrespecting members referred to?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Ascientism&btnG=Search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3Aapperception&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

I'm delighted to inform you that I am unaware of any empirical evidence for our consciousness. The point is do YOU have any evidence beyond your subjective experience that can prove your consciousness? If you insist on empirical evidence- there is no way for you to join other scientists in the symposium on the topic (see post above) other than as a committed skeptic.

Scientist Henry Stapp is just one of the presenters at http:// http://scienceandnonduality.com/program.shtml Realize that many in the scientism camp find consciousness a challenging topic and really can't accept anything as scientific unless it can be rendered mathematically. The result is that they have absolutely no evidence that their own consciousness exists other than subjective experience which they must dismiss on principle. Tragic to have to deny all explanation for what we apperceive.