Why science has trouble with consciousness

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes, the behaviour of the world is such that it appears to follow our model of cause and effect, but we would be prideful indeed if we asserted that our model is the reference, and the world does what the model says it must. No, the world is the reference. It does what it does without the need for rules, laws, or models. The latter are for our convenience. The world does not need them, it does not have them, and it does not use them.

Whenever the world does not behave as our models predict, this is because our models are faulty, or at least incomplete. The world is always right; it is the reference, the master, as I say.

There is no cause and effect, in the sense that they are not attributes of the world, but only of our model(s) of the world. See above.

You are just asserting this, and talking about things that more less impossible to talk about in any meaningful way, basically taking the position of extreme skepticism (sorry if I am wrong about this), which is useless if one wants to get somewhere and figure out how the world works. The fact that the idea of cause and effect works means that we can use it to understand the world and make progress, and you have no better idea, obviously. You are also taking the discussion far beyond the OP, into the waters of extreme skepicism which has nothing to do with the question of whether or not consciousness can be part of what we call the "laws of nature". I have proposed how this might work, but you do not address it, just invoke extreme skepticism on things not talkable about. I'd rather hear your thoughts on the OP, if you have some.

Not trying to be rude here, just rather talk about the OP.

Apologies. Please just enjoy your OP.

[Consul]

Natural laws do exist, there is mathematical regularity in nature which we can exploit. As to what exactly they are, I'd like to know that too. Particles go from place to place in a certain way, not another way, hence physical laws. Something is "leading" it in some sense, though not in a god like agent sense. Still there is nothing wrong with saying "leading". The word "leading" does not have to mean an agent doing something. If you have a better word, please share.

There are neurological mechanisms of consciousness whose dynamics in the form of molecular and atomic motions and interactions isn't chaotic but orderly in the sense of being nomologically structured by virtue of non-accidental regularities.
(My neighbour regularly walks his dog, but his doing so is not a law of nature, because there is no necessity or inevitability involved.)

Here's what Tim Maudlin thinks laws are. (He's a primitivist or fundamentalist about the concept of a natural law in the sense that he believes that "the notion of a law cannot be reduced to other more primitive notions.")

"My own proposal is simple: laws of nature ought to be accepted as ontologically primitive. We may use metaphors to fire the imagination: among the regularities of temporal evolution, some, such as perhaps that described by Schrödinger’s equation, govern or determine or generate the evolution. But these metaphors are not offered as analyses. In fact it is relatively clear what is asserted when a functional relation is said to be a law. Laws are the patterns that nature respects; to say what is physically possible is to say what the constraint of those patterns allows.

(Maudlin, Tim. The Metaphysics Within Physics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. p. 15)

If laws are objective patterns in nature, they aren't just patterns that nature happens to respect; they are patterns that nature has to respect, because they are grounded in the essences of things, i.e. in what they are, what they can do or not do, and what they are disposed to do or not to do.

[Mgrinder]

As far as I know, photons do not and cannot split into two. The link you provided does not mention this splitting.

It basically does, but anyways, try this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqUpruigMsE

It also splits into two in a double slit experiment with a single photon. If you put thin mirror between the slits, shaped like a wedge, after the slits, you reflect half the photon one way, half the other . Put two detectors nearby, and 50% of the time you get a detection at one, 50% at the other. But you can imagine recombining these two halves, and get interference. Would work with electrons too, if you can reflect them.

[Mgrinder]

Here's what Tim Maudlin thinks laws are. (He's a primitivist or fundamentalist about the concept of a natural law in the sense that he believes that "the notion of a law cannot be reduced to other more primitive notions.")

"My own proposal is simple: laws of nature ought to be accepted as ontologically primitive. We may use metaphors to fire the imagination: among the regularities of temporal evolution, some, such as perhaps that described by Schrödinger’s equation, govern or determine or generate the evolution. But these metaphors are not offered as analyses. In fact it is relatively clear what is asserted when a functional relation is said to be a law. Laws are the patterns that nature respects; to say what is physically possible is to say what the constraint of those patterns allows.

(Maudlin, Tim. The Metaphysics Within Physics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. p. 15)

If laws are objective patterns in nature, they aren't just patterns that nature happens to respect; they are patterns that nature has to respect, because they are grounded in the essences of things, i.e. in what they are, what they can do or not do, and what they are disposed to do or not to do.

Okay, I think. I don't see why there isn't room for a "calculation" of sorts (invloving qualia) that happens for each wavefunction collapse (which enables nature to "decide" what to do next) that creates a regular pattern that nature respects.

To expand on how this might work, whenever particles change state, you get a qualia and a "calculation" of sorts. However, the vast majority of these qualia are nothing to write home about, as they involves no memories (no references to past states) and no sense of self. They are maybe like the first thought a baby ever has. An electron changing state in an Iron atom might have a qualia like seeing grey, then a different shade of grey the next time, except worse, because each shade of grey for an electron in an Iron atom is entierly unique and novel, as it cannot reference any past shades of grey.

Many changes of state for particles in a brain or any living organism like a bacteria would be the same, except some of them involve large molecules, connected to others in some way not quite clear to me, that would enable the collapse of the molecule to be rather complex. As it collapses, it can access alot of information, including memories and/or a sense of self. I think the microtubules proposed by Penrose and Hafferhoff look like they might fit the bill, as the microtubule is like a spider web connected to others, and if the whole thing becomes one quantum object briefly, as it collapses it must calculate what to do next in a complex environment, which could very well reference past states and a sense of self. Hope that makes sense.

[3017Metaphysician]

The "laws of nature", "cause", and "effect", are elements of mental models created by humans in an effort to understand the universe, or 'nature'. Nature itself includes no such things. It is what it is, and in consequence, it does what it does. No rules; no laws; no models necessary or present.

Well sure, but the models work. We don't know what nature is really doing, probably can't. However we want to understand what is going as best we can, hence science.

The point is that in our attempt to understand nature, we have a conceptual scheme that has relegated the phemomenon of consciousness into what we conceptualize as "physical laws". We don't realize this. Whatever these laws are, something is "doing" something to objects to make them behave the way they do (I don't know how on earth one can phrase this process properly with words) and consciousness plays a role in this, as it calculates what should happen next for each and every change of state. Other factors (space, time, mass) play a role too.

Notice how this solves the free will problem: We notice that these physical laws make our behavior predictable in principle, but too difficult to predict in practice. The fact that we are potentially utterly predictable by the laws of nature naturally makes us assume that we have no free will, makes us assume that something other than "us" controls us (because obviously, we can't be the laws of nature, or so everyone thinks). However, if we are part of the laws of nature, then we do have free will in the sense that we are part of the cause of what happens. We're still predictable, but it is "us" that is doing things, rather than us being controlled by physical laws.

The fact that this idea explains free will, why thoughts are not physical, and why science can't find a role for consciousness, make is seem like a pretty good theory.

Yes! And as it relates to the OP, your first point is the premise from which PC and others can't seem to argue against. I'm not sure why either.

Because it's obvious that something is causing something, it begs so many questions about what, where, how, who or why things exist the way in which they do that it seems overwhelming to consider its implications. Perhaps he's not up to the task, not sure. I'm trying to follow his logic. For instance, even if there was a conceptual landscape of complete chaos, it (that thing-in-itself) in principle still has causal properties or powers. In other words, in principle chaotic systems would still have causes for their existence. Alternatively, the concept of Infinite regress exists for a reason. In either case, you have some sort of causal entity.

But within the context of conscious existence, our Will is calling the shots. It has the causal powers or properties that is logically necessary to cause us to do stuff. Whether it's pure instinct, free will, or a little of both, it holds primacy in effecting our behavior. At the very least, both (the information narrative) are still calling the shots.

Anyway, as occurring in nature, I think that if one were to correspond say, spooky action at a distance to self-organized, self-directed information systems that moves matter around (at the most fundamental level/material interactions), it's not such a leap to conclude information processing is calling the shots. The question is whether information emerges from matter, or matter emerges from information. My world view is the latter. Information processing is calling the shots. Genetically coded instructions that causes conscious existence is calling the shots. No different than quantum particles behaving as if there are instructions causing their behavior. Or phenomena like Higgs Boson and particles coming in and out of existence from seemingly nowhere. And non-locality where there is no apparent physical communication between particles.

Even if one were to think about time and relativity, and how illusionary the stoppage of time actually is, it's more or less like saying time itself comes in and out of existence.

In the end, since the conceptual landscapes of physical matter and biological matter seem diametrically opposed to one another, yet share some similarity, I don't see science bridging the gap. Like a theory of everything (combining relativity and QM), it's still worth trying though... !

I think if we knew where Singularly came from, and we knew how the first species emerged ex nihilo (remember Darwin only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures) then most of this conversation would not be logically necessary, as we'd already understand the nature of causality and its existence. It's fun to talk about anyway!

[Mgrinder]

Because it's obvious that something is causing something, it begs so many questions about what, where, how, who or why things exist the way in which they do that it seems overwhelming to consider its implications. Perhaps he's not up to the task, not sure. I'm trying to follow his logic. For instance, even if there was a conceptual landscape of complete chaos, it (that thing-in-itself) in principle still has causal properties or powers. In other words, in principle chaotic systems would still have causes for their existence. Alternatively, the concept of Infinite regress exists for a reason. In either case, you have some sort of causal entity.

Hard for me to disagree.