Quantum Theory of Consciousness and 'external-origin' theories of mind

[psyreporter]

Is consciousness possibly anything other than a manifestation of the origin of life?

Probably, yes; many things. I can see consciousness as (maybe) being an attribute of some living things, "of life", but I can see no direct connection at all to the origin of life...?

Is conscious experience not at most a manifestation of life-as-life in a pure form?

No, not that I can see. What makes you think this is so?

Well, is there an indication for a substance or factor that is other than life-as-life that could be the explanatory origin of consciousness?

[psyreporter]

In the ancient Samaveda (song of knowledge) from 1500 BCE, consciousness is external from the body and illuminates the body.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaveda

The following short video provides an introduction.

Consciousness beautifully explained in 200 sec | Swami Sarvapriyananda at IIT Kanpur
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n6NvDpcwLM

[yid]9n6NvDpcwLM[/yid]

"Consciousness is not a part of your body. It is apart from your body. Here it (Samaveda) is different from science because modern science would say that consciousness is a product of your body. This is what physiology would say today.

But here consciousness is apart from your body. It is not a part of your body. It is not a product of your body.

Consciousness pervades and illuminates the body."

[Count Lucanor]

It seems that we should think of this 'why' something exists as "what makes something to exist" or "what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for something to exist", being in this case consciousness that something. In the end, when you look for origins you're actually looking for causes: the natural cause or causes of the existence of consciousness. This is also different from trying to find out what consciousness is, what it is made of, so that a thing can be said to have that property. Although there is obviously still a lot of problems to solve concerning these inquiries, we can be pretty sure the answers cannot bypass the fact that consciousness has only been found in living physical bodies.

In any case, I don't think logic can solve by itself problems of existence.

At question would be whether that is so, since isn't it wonderful that the Universe has a structure that performs in such a way that life is possible?

Basic logic has indicated that simple functions that originate from life, are to be considered evidence of life and obligate one to explain the origin of life. Simple functions, for example the structure of the Universe, cannot be accepted as 'just is' without addressing the question why it exists (what the explanatory origin is).

What lays at the basis of the structure of the Universe is the qualia patternness and by logic, a pattern is bound by observation/perception. A pattern is not possible without observation/perception. This would explain that the origin of the Universe (physical reality) is logically the source of life (life's origin), with consciousness being a logical manifestation of the pure form of the origin of the Universe (pure perception) that seeks itself (its origin) because what precedes an individual on a fundamental level lays beyond it from the perspective of an individual.

With regard logic being unable to solve the problems of existence. I am not certain whether that would be so. Do you have an argumentative foundation for the idea why it would be impossible that logic is able to explain existence?

I still have problems with this wording, especially the use of the word "origin". The universe exists as a physical reality, we can agree on that, and life arose within that universe, but to say that the emergence of life is explained by whatever explains the universe coming into existence, is disputable. This is pure old determinism: it implies that once the initial conditions at the moment of the universe coming into existence were given, life had to appear some time later, and those conditions are its "final cause" in Aristotelian terms . But is quite possible, and most likely, that life is a mere contingency, as many other things in the universe. It might have not appeared or be completely a random event, which is not explained by a constant condition of the universe, but by a dynamical process in which different states or outcomes at given moments are completely undetermined. This means that life could also disappear contingently and the universe would go on without it. I would be tempted to say more or less the same about the emergence of consciousness in relation to the appearance of life forms.

I think it is generally agreed that logic has to do with proper reasoning and deals with the truth of propositions according to their meaning and internal relations, while matters of fact are truths about states of the world dependent of observable regularities. Logic all by itself does not discover or produce new facts, although logical processes intervene in our making sense of the evidence.

[Pattern-chaser]

Is consciousness possibly anything other than a manifestation of the origin of life?

Probably, yes; many things. I can see consciousness as (maybe) being an attribute of some living things, "of life", but I can see no direct connection at all to the origin of life...?

Is conscious experience not at most a manifestation of life-as-life in a pure form?

No, not that I can see. What makes you think this is so?

Well, is there an indication for a substance or factor that is other than life-as-life that could be the explanatory origin of consciousness?

More than anything else, it is your focus on the origin of consciousness, rather than consciousness itself, that confuses me. Does consciousness have an origin? Does thought, or (emotional) mood, or (bird) migration, or even politics have a (meaningful) origin? I suspect that many such things are simply attributes of something else.

Are you waiting for someone to say that consciousness comes from God, who is the Source (origin) of All Things, or something similar? [The previous sentence is not my view, btw, just an example.] What is your search for origins all about? What do you hope to gain/learn?

[Sy Borg]

If we do exist inside a conscious system or systems, how would we know? What would be possible signs?

[Belindi]

psyreporter wrote:

As of today in 2021, there is not yet a theory or clue to explain the origin of life and consciousness. Increasingly, prominent neuroscientists are looking to philosophy to continue the quest to provide an explanation, with a mainstream interest in Panpsychism as a result.

I believe in panpsychism. From beings that are not aware, such as AI machines, the Mona Lisa painting, and table lamps, through rivers and diamonds, to oak trees and aware dogs and more; the basic of panpsychism is not essences but relations. Every centre is a centre only by virtue of its environment of other centres of experience.

I can't comment on neutrinos.

[Belindi]

psyreporter wrote:

As of today in 2021, there is not yet a theory or clue to explain the origin of life and consciousness. Increasingly, prominent neuroscientists are looking to philosophy to continue the quest to provide an explanation, with a mainstream interest in Panpsychism as a result.

I believe in panpsychism. From beings that are not aware, such as AI machines, the Mona Lisa painting, and table lamps, through rivers and diamonds, to oak trees and aware dogs and more; the basic of panpsychism is not essences but relations. Every centre is a centre only by virtue of its environment of other centres of experience.

Eg space is an environment that does not exist except for relations.

I can't comment on neutrinos.

[Steve3007]

If we do exist inside a conscious system or systems, how would we know? What would be possible signs?

You've discussed this idea a lot before, and in one relatively recent post you pointed out, by way of an analogy, that the human body contains a lot of non-living matter, like water, but we still think of the whole human as living. Likewise, we can observe that the universe contains a lot of non-living matter (the vast majority of it) but in the same way we could regard the whole universe as a living thing. Or on a smaller scale we can think of the earth as a living thing.

This is true. We can think of the universe and the earth like that. But if that is the sense in which we regard the universe or the earth as living, then presumably there wouldn't be any signs, because it's not an ontologically proposition. It's a proposed way of thinking about things.

(Apologies if jumping into the conversation at this point meant that I missed some context.)

[Steve3007]

(typo: ontological not ontologically.)

[Pattern-chaser]

If we do exist inside a conscious system or systems, how would we know? What would be possible signs?

You've discussed this idea a lot before, and in one relatively recent post you pointed out, by way of an analogy, that the human body contains a lot of non-living matter, like water, but we still think of the whole human as living. Likewise, we can observe that the universe contains a lot of non-living matter (the vast majority of it) but in the same way we could regard the whole universe as a living thing. Or on a smaller scale we can think of the earth as a living thing.

My own 'religious' beliefs follow this general theme. It's one of many useful and fairly-obvious perspectives on life, the universe and everything. Nice summary.

As for Sy Borg's questions, it's difficult to see how we might know, or discover, that we are part of a bigger living thing than just ourselves. How could one of my red blood cells know that it was part of a human bio-community (that we commonly call a "body" or "person")? Even if we assign to that red blood cell intelligence such as a whole human might have - purely as a thought experiment! - it remains difficult for me to see how the cell might recognise its nature as part of "a conscious system or systems". From the perspective of that red blood cell, I'm not sure there are any "possible signs". I'd love to be corrected over that final point...?

[Count Lucanor]

[...]the human body contains a lot of non-living matter, like water, but we still think of the whole human as living. Likewise, we can observe that the universe contains a lot of non-living matter (the vast majority of it) but in the same way we could regard the whole universe as a living thing. Or on a smaller scale we can think of the earth as a living thing.

This is true.

But no, that is false. If the whole universe were a living thing, then simply the concept "non-living matter" would be indescribable. Non-life could not be an emergent property of life, even a decaying body would be living matter. Unlike the concept "living matter" that is the result of describing some forms of organization of "non-living matter".

We can think of the universe and the earth like that. But if that is the sense in which we regard the universe or the earth as living, then presumably there wouldn't be any signs, because it's not an ontologically proposition. It's a proposed way of thinking about things.

That's true. As a way of thinking, is more like a poetic, metaphorical way of thinking, not very useful for our day to day dealings with the reality of the world.

[Steve3007]

My own 'religious' beliefs follow this general theme. It's one of many useful and fairly-obvious perspectives on life, the universe and everything. Nice summary.

Yes, although Count Lucanor makes a pretty good point about this doesn't he? He makes a point about the utility of language. He points out that if we were to regard the entire universe as a living thing then there's really no point in having any living/non-living distinction at all, since everything is regarded as living by virtue of being part of a living thing. But this then relates back to your topics on division and connectionism, and the notion that we sub-divide the parts of the universe in different ways depending on our purposes.

As for Sy Borg's questions, it's difficult to see how we might know, or discover, that we are part of a bigger living thing than just ourselves. How could one of my red blood cells know that it was part of a human bio-community (that we commonly call a "body" or "person")? Even if we assign to that red blood cell intelligence such as a whole human might have - purely as a thought experiment! - it remains difficult for me to see how the cell might recognise its nature as part of "a conscious system or systems". From the perspective of that red blood cell, I'm not sure there are any "possible signs". I'd love to be corrected over that final point...?

I think that would depend critically on whether that bigger living thing is the entire universe or a part of it. If it's a part of it (e.g. a planet or a human body) then we can observe how it interacts with its environment. We could decide that conscious systems tend to do certain things to and within that environment.

[Belindi]

If we do exist inside a conscious system or systems, how would we know? What would be possible signs?

Th system we call relativity can be known. It is known(although not universally acknowledged)because nothing exists except as it relates to what is other.

If I were the very last consciousness in the universe as it becomes non-existent I would still exist because of my life-long habit , since I became separated from my mother, of looking towards my environment of others. Others, panpsychologically, range between the stone on the beach that responds to gravity, inertia, and friction and humans that respond not only to gravity, inertia, and friction but also to qualia of hunger, thirst, sadness, and so forth and most notably to communications of meanings between consciousnesses. I attribute these qualia to other beings that I have learned are like me and can communicate.

(Some people can communnicate with animals and a few may be able to communicate with plants. Human artefacts are odd in that people communicate in a low level sort of way with tools such as levers, wheels, artificial intelligence machines, and works of art.The latter are especially queer as they almost let strangers feel the artists' qualia.)

On the occasion of the universe's ceasing to exist one quale would be feeling of intense loneliness and I'd hope there would be some alien, somehow and somewhere.Death is marked by relations with others that are like relationships experienced by stones or bits of dirt ---gravity, inertia, and friction and no more.

[psyreporter]

More than anything else, it is your focus on the origin of consciousness, rather than consciousness itself, that confuses me. Does consciousness have an origin? Does thought, or (emotional) mood, or (bird) migration, or even politics have a (meaningful) origin? I suspect that many such things are simply attributes of something else.

Are you waiting for someone to say that consciousness comes from God, who is the Source (origin) of All Things, or something similar? [The previous sentence is not my view, btw, just an example.] What is your search for origins all about? What do you hope to gain/learn?

The logic is very simple.

1) the origin of a pattern (as qualia patternness) cannot be a pattern
2) the origin of a pattern is necessarily meaningful and thus is to be considered 'pure meaning' because a deviation from that concept would result in a pattern
3) a pattern is signified by perception
4) perception must precede a pattern on a fundamental level because as signifier it represents 'pure meaning' that cannot be a pattern

As can be seen, the qualia meaningful patternness that provides the foundation for physical reality, logically manifests itself as consciousness with consciousness being, in theory, a direct manifestation of pure perception (the signifier of the qualia patternness) that finds its origin in pure meaning.

What the Universe has done, is unlock its perception potential beyond the scope of a meaningful pattern, with consciousness/life seeking its origin (the origin of existence, which empirically is evident from the strive to survive). The origin of existence is 'truth' of which it can be said that there is no opposite. The origin of existence is 'good per se', the foundation for morality. The origin of existence is perceived as pure beauty when it is considered in the form of a successful manifestation.

With regard the use of the term origin.

The concept origin is by definition applicable to explain why something has entered the scope of a perspective (why there has been a start of a pattern). Within the context of conscious experience, which includes science and philosophy, one has merely the start of a pattern to explain reality. The question what the origin is of reality is therefor applicable because the quality patternness demands it.

The term 'origin' differs from causality in that it can find suffice in a theoretical context.

It has been shown by simple logic that the origin of a pattern (the qualia patternness) cannot be a pattern itself. Further, it has been indicated that a pattern is bound by (and to be considered preceded by) perception on a fundamental level which provides evidence that the perception quality in conscious experience is a direct manifestation of the core qualia that necessarily underlays physical reality: pure meaning (origin) -> perception (signifier) BEFORE value/pattern.

Do you agree?

[psyreporter]

If we do exist inside a conscious system or systems, how would we know? What would be possible signs?

The following article may provide valuable information:

(2018) Is the Universe a conscious mind?
It turns out that, for life to be possible, the numbers in basic physics – for example, the strength of gravity, or the mass of the electron – must have values falling in a certain range. And that range is an incredibly narrow slice of all the possible values those numbers can have. It is therefore incredibly unlikely that a universe like ours would have the kind of numbers compatible with the existence of life. But, against all the odds, our Universe does.

Here are a few of examples of this fine-tuning for life:

The strong nuclear force has a value of 0.007. If that value had been 0.006 or 0.008, life would not have been possible.
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-ex ... d-for-life

Recent evidence shows that rocks on earth developed the first photosynthesis by which the earth obtained oxygen that enabled life to arise. It started hundreds of millions of years before the first organic life forms existed.

(2021) Non-classical photosynthesis by earth's inorganic semiconducting minerals
Our work in this new research field on the mechanisms of interaction between light, minerals, and life reveals that minerals and organisms are actually inseparable. ... producing hydrogen and oxygen from water
https://phys.org/news/2021-01-non-class ... cting.html

The following article is more recent:

(2021) Can our brains help prove the universe is conscious?
"If it is proven that consciousness plays a causal role in the universe, it would have huge consequences for the scientific view of the world, said Kleiner. "It could lead to a scientific revolution on a par with the one initiated by Galileo Galilei," he said.
https://www.space.com/is-the-universe-conscious