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

[Pattern-chaser]

So, patterns - any patterns - are proto-consciousness, and if you build up enough smaller patterns in the right configuration then that results in what we think of as consciousness.

Is that part of panpsychism? General definitions seem to say it's "that mind or a mind-like aspect is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. It is also described as a theory in which "the mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists throughout the universe"." I have to say I'm not 100% on board with that, particularly the second part. I don't wholly disagree either....

Anyway, patterns are something I've been interested in for a long time. I didn't pick my net-name randomly. A pattern is just a configuration of things that we recognise. Incredibly useful, but really nothing more than those words describe. Proto-consciousness? I won't say "nay", but this isn't exactly obvious to me.

This link might help: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... ciousness/

Conceived by neuroscientist Guilio Tononi (who trained under the late, great Gerald Edelman), IIT is an extremely ambitious theory of consciousness. It applies to all forms of matter, not just brains, and it implies that panpsychism might be true. Koch and others are taking panpsychism seriously because they take IIT seriously.

... The theory’s core claim is that a system is conscious if it possesses a property called Φ, or phi, which is a measure of the system’s “integrated information.”

Phi corresponds to the feedback between and interdependence of different parts of a system. In Consciousness, Koch equates phi to “synergy,” the degree to which a system is “more than the sum of its parts.” Phi can be a property of any entity, biological or non-biological. Even a proton can possess phi, because a proton is an emergent phenomenon stemming from the interaction of its quarks. Hence panpsychism.

The watered-down version of panpsychism they describe in the article is something I find a lot easier to accept. I quite like it, in fact.

[Sy Borg]

So, patterns - any patterns - are proto-consciousness, and if you build up enough smaller patterns in the right configuration then that results in what we think of as consciousness.

Is that part of panpsychism? General definitions seem to say it's "that mind or a mind-like aspect is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. It is also described as a theory in which "the mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists throughout the universe"." I have to say I'm not 100% on board with that, particularly the second part. I don't wholly disagree either.... 😉

Anyway, patterns are something I've been interested in for a long time. I didn't pick my net-name randomly. 🙂 A pattern is just a configuration of things that we recognise. Incredibly useful, but really nothing more than those words describe. Proto-consciousness? I won't say "nay", but this isn't exactly obvious to me. 😉

This link might help: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... ciousness/

Conceived by neuroscientist Guilio Tononi (who trained under the late, great Gerald Edelman), IIT is an extremely ambitious theory of consciousness. It applies to all forms of matter, not just brains, and it implies that panpsychism might be true. Koch and others are taking panpsychism seriously because they take IIT seriously.

... The theory’s core claim is that a system is conscious if it possesses a property called Φ, or phi, which is a measure of the system’s “integrated information.”

Phi corresponds to the feedback between and interdependence of different parts of a system. In Consciousness, Koch equates phi to “synergy,” the degree to which a system is “more than the sum of its parts.” Phi can be a property of any entity, biological or non-biological. Even a proton can possess phi, because a proton is an emergent phenomenon stemming from the interaction of its quarks. Hence panpsychism.

The watered-down version of panpsychism they describe in the article is something I find a lot easier to accept. I quite like it, in fact. 😉

When it comes to scientifically trying to understand consciousness, it strikes me that IIT is the only game in town. We have a mass of stuff that experiences its existence while most other stuff seems not to do that. Why would x stuff have experiences while y stuff does not? The answer must relate to the stuff's configuration.

[psyreporter]

I think Psy's point is basically panpsychist. So, patterns - any patterns - are proto-consciousness, and if you build up enough smaller patterns in the right configuration then that results in what we think of as consciousness. Thus order would be seen as more conscious than chaos.

However, crystals and rocks are more ordered entities than life forms, so it's not a matter that patterns bring/are qualia. Rather, life and consciousness stem from dynamic, super-complex and interdependent systems that require some measure of chaos to function.

No, the argument is that what makes a pattern possible is a signifier on behalf of 'pure meaning' that performs empirically as perception which would explain that the origin of physical reality would manifest itself as consciousness (it would be a logical evolution and may provide clues for further Universe-scale evolution).

The logic is simple: the origin of the qualia patternness or value is necessarily meaningful but cannot be a pattern. Therefore, the origin of patternness/value is to be established 'pure meaning' since a deviation from pure meaning would result in a pattern, which would be impossible.

It is further implied that as signifier on behalf of 'pure meaning', perception precedes physical reality and thus complex patterns as seen in crystals and rocks cannot give rise to consciousness merely by being as such.

When the logic that patterns are bound by perception-as-signifier on behalf of 'pure meaning' is valid, then it would imply something about any pattern, namely that they - in actuality - can only be possible as kind within the scope of infinity.

The main argument by Free Will Sceptics is the following, which is the idea that mind is necessarily ’caused’ within the scope of physical reality.

To make a choice that wasn’t merely the next link in the unbroken chain of causes, you’d have to be able to stand apart from the whole thing, a ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it. But of course you can’t actually get to this supposed place that’s external to the universe, separate from all the atoms that comprise it and the laws that govern them. You just are some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest. ~ The Guardian

As can be seen in the reasoning by Free Will Sceptics, only the idea that mind has a primary role in nature could prevent a belief in determinism.

Recent scientific studies indicate that the conscious observer (mind) precedes reality.

(2020) Do Quantum Phenomena Require Conscious Observers?
“Experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed,” writes scientist Bernardo Kastrup and colleagues earlier this year on Scientific American, adding that this suggests “a primary role for mind in nature”
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ar ... -observers

The idea that mind has a primary role in nature would be logical when mind is a direct manifestation of the origin of existence – of that which precedes physical reality:

pure meaning -> perception-as-signifier -> meaningful pattern (value) -> physical reality -> consciousness

[Sy Borg]

Psy, my understanding of the double slit experiment is that "observation" need not be conscious. It's the measuring equipment, not the conscious human running it, that caused the photons to act like particles. Ideally, measurement does not impact on an experiment, but entities at the tiniest scales are incredibly sensitive, so that's a complication.

While we ultimately construct our reality from the raw materials of reality, it seems that everything is less bounded and distinct than we perceive. I'm reminded of Jill Bolte-Taylor talking about the stroke that took out some of her left brain, leaving an emphasis on right brain activity. She increasingly struggled to tell herself apart from her surroundings, perceiving herself to be melded into everything, not quite separate. This may well be a more true perception of reality than our fairly strict notions of separateness, but it's not an efficacious one. It's clearly helpful in terms of natural selection to perceive things as being more separate than they are.

Another thing that can prevent belief in determinism is chaos and the indeterminate nature of quantum phenomena.

The only way I can imagine consciousness preceding matter - and it is wildly speculative, heaping assumptions on assumptions - is if our big bang was not the first one, and that the life in the universes before it had evolved into an entity or entities that found a way to survive on space itself, and now exists in, or permeates our universe.

Or not :)

[Pattern-chaser]

Psy, my understanding of the double slit experiment is that "observation" need not be conscious. It's the measuring equipment, not the conscious human running it, that caused the photons to act like particles. Ideally, measurement does not impact on an experiment, but entities at the tiniest scales are incredibly sensitive, so that's a complication.

Excuse me interrupting your fun with PsyReporter, but QM has always fascinated me.

To start with, I will not go against Feynman, who opined that anyone who claims to understand QM is mistaken, or words to that effect. Having said that, it is my understanding that QM shows that measurement unavoidably and always impacts on the experiment. This understanding is so widespread that even The Simpsons features a quote to that effect. That doesn't make it right, of course. I don't know the details of why this should be so; I assume it's because measurement causes quantum superposition to collapse?

In the double slit experiment, I think it's the detector that defines whether particles or waves are measured, but not quite as you describe. If we fit a particle detector, we detect particles; if we fit a wave detector, we detect waves. The whole situation gets much more entertaining, though, when we restrict the experiment so that only one photon at a time passes through the equipment. We still observe scattering. Individual photons seem to pass through both slits (simultaneously?), interfere with themselves, and hit the detector screen accordingly!

[psyreporter]

Psy, my understanding of the double slit experiment is that "observation" need not be conscious. It's the measuring equipment, not the conscious human running it, that caused the photons to act like particles. Ideally, measurement does not impact on an experiment, but entities at the tiniest scales are incredibly sensitive, so that's a complication.

While we ultimately construct our reality from the raw materials of reality, it seems that everything is less bounded and distinct than we perceive. I'm reminded of Jill Bolte-Taylor talking about the stroke that took out some of her left brain, leaving an emphasis on right brain activity. She increasingly struggled to tell herself apart from her surroundings, perceiving herself to be melded into everything, not quite separate. This may well be a more true perception of reality than our fairly strict notions of separateness, but it's not an efficacious one. It's clearly helpful in terms of natural selection to perceive things as being more separate than they are.

Another thing that can prevent belief in determinism is chaos and the indeterminate nature of quantum phenomena.

The only way I can imagine consciousness preceding matter - and it is wildly speculative, heaping assumptions on assumptions - is if our big bang was not the first one, and that the life in the universes before it had evolved into an entity or entities that found a way to survive on space itself, and now exists in, or permeates our universe.

Or not

Observer = pattern-recognizer or 'perception'. A measurement device would function as a pattern-recognizer on behalf of a life form.

(2021) In Quantum Physics, “Reality” Really Is What We Choose To Observe
Interview of idealist philosopher of science and physicist Bruce Gordon on how the quantum physics that underlies our universe makes much more sense if we have a non-materialist view of reality.
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/04/in-quant ... o-observe/

My logic has indicated that what is termed 'physical reality' isn't real and therefore not bound by causality that would require a 'Big Bang' or 'exploding primordial atom' as a begin.

The Big Bang theory is questionable for many diverse reasons.

When perception-as-signifier would precede the possibility of patterns, it would imply that any pattern can only be possible as kind within the scope of infinity.

A recent study confirms this:



(2020) Is nonlocality inherent in all identical particles in the universe?
The photon emitted by the monitor screen and the photon from the distant galaxy at the depths of the universe seem to be entangled only by their identical nature. This is a great mystery that science will soon confront.
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-nonlocali ... verse.html

[Sy Borg]

Psy, my understanding of the double slit experiment is that "observation" need not be conscious. It's the measuring equipment, not the conscious human running it, that caused the photons to act like particles. Ideally, measurement does not impact on an experiment, but entities at the tiniest scales are incredibly sensitive, so that's a complication.

While we ultimately construct our reality from the raw materials of reality, it seems that everything is less bounded and distinct than we perceive. I'm reminded of Jill Bolte-Taylor talking about the stroke that took out some of her left brain, leaving an emphasis on right brain activity. She increasingly struggled to tell herself apart from her surroundings, perceiving herself to be melded into everything, not quite separate. This may well be a more true perception of reality than our fairly strict notions of separateness, but it's not an efficacious one. It's clearly helpful in terms of natural selection to perceive things as being more separate than they are.

Another thing that can prevent belief in determinism is chaos and the indeterminate nature of quantum phenomena.

The only way I can imagine consciousness preceding matter - and it is wildly speculative, heaping assumptions on assumptions - is if our big bang was not the first one, and that the life in the universes before it had evolved into an entity or entities that found a way to survive on space itself, and now exists in, or permeates our universe.

Or not :)

Observer = pattern-recognizer or 'perception'. A measurement device would function as a pattern-recognizer on behalf of a life form.

No, the only connection the measurement device has with a life form is that it was made by them. The machine operates 100% independently and it changes the result of the experiment. It's not as though magic human thought waves are attached to the measuring device as it works.

https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ar ... -observers

Not everyone agrees. In a Scientific American article from earlier this month, author Anil Ananthaswamy writes that double-slit experiments don’t necessarily support the existence of a transpersonal mind or the need for a conscious observer to collapse a wave function.

Ananthaswamy does accept, however, that a measurement is needed for this collapse to occur, but he adds that quantum mechanics is unclear about the nature of that measurement. When experiments produce an interference pattern, the results simply support the need for “an ill-defined process called measurement. That’s all,” he writes.

He also points out that there are other ways to interpret the double-slit experiment that don’t require a conscious observer. One is the de Broglie-Bohm theory, also known as the pilot-wave model. In this theory, the photon (a particle) always has a definite position. But it’s riding a pilot wave that goes through both slits to produce the interference patterns.

Other theories provide reasons for the collapse of the wave function that have nothing to do with a conscious observer. One of these collapse theories argues that as the number of particles in a system increases, the likelihood of collapse also increases. Another theory suggests that objects with greater mass are more likely to collapse.

Another view from Reddit:

Comment: Let me make it very clear: if the word "consciousness" is involved in the explanation being provided, that's pseudo-science. This is a very reliable indicator.

'Measurement' in this context is simply an interaction. Leave the particle alone, and the wave is uncollapsed. Have it interact with another particle, and then stuff happens. Keep in mind, you don't need a person to cause that interaction. It could be a machine, or some other external source.

In fact, this is the single greatest challenge in a lot of quantum experiments - how to prevent the wave function from collapsing. All techniques basically boil down to the same thing: do not let the particle interact with the environment. Any such random interaction will make it collapse. It doesn't have to be a human with a stick prodding the particle; just random interactions with the world will cause the collapse.

Response: In some of the original experiments they used a photographic film. So each photon is "observed" by a quantum change in a silver halide crystal. The scientist "observer" does not even know what the pattern was until the film is developed. Long after the experiment is finished.

[psyreporter]

Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, John von Neumann, and Eugene Wigner insisted that a measurement depends on the mind of a conscious observer.

Without Recorded Information, an Observation Is Not Possible.

Once Recorded, the Observer Can Then Look at the "Observable."

When the new information is observed (recorded in a human mind), it becomes an observation.

Source: The Information Philosopher

--

A recent study suggested that particles in the Universe can become quantum entangled by post-selection (a correlation between particles in the future).

Pigeon paradox reveals cosmic connections
Post-selection links any two particles every time their quantum properties are measured, no matter where they are in the universe. In other words, all particles everywhere could be linked, provided they have been post-selected in some way. “Is that mind-blowing or is that mind-blowing?”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... nnections/

This would indicate that even in the case that a conscious observer looks at measured information 'after the fact', it still can have had an influence on the measurement.

[Steve3007]

In the double slit experiment, I think it's the detector that defines whether particles or waves are measured, but not quite as you describe. If we fit a particle detector, we detect particles; if we fit a wave detector, we detect waves.

Excuse me for interrupting your interruption. . But this my take on that:

In a double-slit experiment with electrons (for example) the answer to the question of whether the electrons are particles or waves is that the electrons are electrons and "particle" and "wave" are two aspects of the model of how electrons behave. They hit the target in a way that reminds us of particles (in discrete flashes) but the flashes build up over time in a pattern that reminds us of the interference patterns in waves. So I wouldn't say it's right to say it's the detector that defines whether particles or waves are measured. The detector just detects. There isn't a particle detector and a wave detector.

[SteveKlinko]

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 ...

Here's a possibility:
The Scientific and Physicalist view is that Consciousness is somehow located in the Neurons or is an Emergent Property of Neural Activity. It is a reasonable assumption given that Conscious Activity is Correlated with Neural Activity. But Science has no Theory, Hypothesis, or even a Speculation about how Consciousness could be in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. Science has not been able to show for example, how something like the Experience of Redness is some kind of effect of Neural Activity. In fact, the more you think about the Redness Experience and then think about Neural Activity, the less likely it seems that the Redness Experience is actually some sort of Neural Activity. Science has tried in vain for a hundred years to figure this out. If the Experience of Redness actually was in the Neurons, Science would have had a lot to say about it by now. Something has got to be wrong with their perspective on the problem.

The Inter Mind Model (IMM) can accommodate Consciousness as being in the Neurons or an Emergent Property, but it can also accommodate other concepts of Consciousness. The IMM is structurally a Connection Model, in the sense that the Physical Mind (PM) is connected to the Inter Mind (IM) which is connected to the Conscious Mind (CM). These Connections might be conceptual where all three Minds are actually in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. But these Connections might have more reality to them where the PM, the IM, and the CM are separate things. I will Speculate that the situation is more like the latter than the former. In that case the PM, which is in Physical Space (PSp), uses the IM to create a Connection to the CM, which is in Conscious Space (CSp). The important perspective change here is that the PM is Connected to the CM, rather than assuming that the PM contains the CM as part of the PM. This allows the CM to be a thing in itself existing in it’s own CSp.

I would like to introduce the term Connectism, to identify this new Philosophical concept. With proper usage you would say that you are a Connectist because of your Connectist views on Connectism. Connectism is similar but different from Dualism because the Dualist does not emphasize the Connection aspect of the PM to the CM.

The inability of Science to solve the problem of Consciousness is the main driver for looking at other perspectives. Insisting that Consciousness is in the Neurons or is just some artifact of Neural Activity is getting us nowhere. Not only is Science unable to Explain Consciousness as Neural Activity, it is also unable to provide the first clue as to what something like the Experience of Redness actually is. Things like Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste, are Conscious Experiences. These kinds of Conscious Experiences are some sort of Phenomena that exist in the Reality of the Manifest Universe, but they are in a Category of Phenomena that Science cannot yet explain. It is therefore Sensible and Logical to Speculate a place for them to exist. This of Course is CSp.

At the developmental level we now will have the PM developing in PSp and a separate CM developing in CSp. There is also an IM which is developing the Connections between the PM and the CM. The CM is no longer trapped in the PM which is in PSp. The CM now has a separate development and existence in CSp. Maybe an IM, along with a CM, inhabits and uses a PM from conception. The IM and CM grow as a particular PM grows. First there is only one Neuron, then there are two, then three, and four, and so on until a fully formed PM, IM, and CM are produced. Note that maybe the IM will only need to connect with the Cortical Areas on the surface of the PM. With regard to memory, it is thought that it is possible that the recognition of objects and faces comes down to one Neuron firing. With this theory, the IM must know what a particular Neuron means when it fires in order to send a feeling of Recognition to a CM. On the other hand, if Memory has a more distributed configuration among many Neurons involving feedback and feedforward connections, then the IM will need to interpret the Memory using that more complicated activity.

Could an IM attach to a fully formed PM and just start using it? Or does an IM need to grow as a PM grows in order to properly use it? I will speculate that there probably is a developmental aspect involved in PM, IM, and CM connections. The act of growing from a single Neuron might be absolutely necessary for an IM and CM to properly connect. The IM might eventually be in contact with every Neuron in the PM. Maybe the only way an IM can be in control of billions of Neurons is if, as the PM slowly develops, the IM learns how to use each Neuron. It is not known how the IM learns the meaning of any particular Neuron that is firing. The PM and the IM might have built in mechanisms that facilitate the interconnection process. Maybe individual types of Neurons have some sort of chemical signatures that the IM can read in order to know what Conscious Experiences to produce. This seems to predict that the IM must have some innate ability to operate with Neurons.

We can make some statements about things that are in the CM and things that are in the PM. For example, the CM is where the Experiences of Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste are located. The CM is also where the Conscious Self is located. Examples of things that are located in the PM are Memory, Pattern Recognition, Eye Convergence/Tracking, and Balance.

Separating the CM from the PM allows a whole new Perspective for understanding various operational aspects of Consciousness. Some previous experimental deductions and conclusions about Consciousness may have to be overturned when using this new Perspective. For example, this separation provides a new way of understanding the effect of Anesthesia. With the old Perspective the reasoning was like this: The Neural Activity was halted and Consciousness seemed to also be halted, so therefore Consciousness must be in the Neurons. With the new Perspective the reasoning would be: The Neural Activity was halted and Consciousness seemed to be halted, so therefore the Connection must have been interrupted. With this new Perspective, Consciousness itself was not halted but rather the Connection from the PM to the CM was interrupted. We don't know what the CM does during an interruption. But since Anesthesia can halt Memory operations, the PM will not have been able to save any Memories of the interruption, that could be accessed by the CM after the Connection is reestablished.

The old assumptions about how PM injuries affect Consciousness will have new interpretations using the Connection Perspective. After a PM injury, the Connections between the PM and the CM can be disrupted. Memories may be difficult to retrieve, Volitional control of the body may become erratic, and the Personality might even be changed. But these are PM degradations and not CM degradations. The CM will not be affected because the CM is connected through the IM to the PM. The IM protects and buffers the CM from PM damages. The CM will effectively be Connected to something different after a PM injury. The CM will try to do the best it can with whatever PM it is Connected to, regardless of the PM degenerations that exist.

This separation of CM from PM also presents a new Perspective for thinking about the Sub-Conscious Mind versus the CM. It is logical to speculate that the Sub-Conscious Mind is completely implemented in the PM. Many of the actions we do everyday are controlled by Sub-Conscious Brain Programs that run in the background, out of view of our Conscious awareness. The IM needs to make the Processing decisions for which of the Activities in the PM should be Translated into Conscious Experiences. The IM implements the Binding Processing necessary to create a usable Conscious Experience of the External world for the CM to operate in. It would be very confusing and inefficient if the IM had to Translate all Neural Activity, including the Background Brain Programs, into Conscious Experiences. There has always been an intuition that there was a separate Conscious Mind and Sub-Conscious Mind. It is now easy to see how this PM to CM separation logically and naturally predicts a Sub-Conscious Mind concept separate from the CM.

Does the shape of the Brain say anything about the Connection Perspective? Interconnecting axons take up the bulk of the space inside the Brain (the white matter). The Conscious Experience part of the Brain consists of a thin layer of Neurons on the outer surface of the Brain (the gray matter). This is of course the Cortex. All Experience seems to to be correlated with Neural Activity in specific Areas of the Cortex. Maybe it is easier for the IM to Monitor and Connect to the Brain given that kind of surface configuration. Of course there are some large folds to the cortex, but it is essentially a surface structure. When you think about all those distinct functional Experiential Areas that make up the Cortex, it just looks like it must be some kind of Interface to some next Processing stage. But this is just a speculation. The only explanation from Brain Physiology is that it is a surface on the exterior of the Brain in order to promote cooling. But what if there is more to it than that?

It is time for Science to think more outside the Box with regard to Consciousness, and hopefully this Connection Perspective will inspire Research in new directions that might someday solve the Problem of Consciousness.

[Belindi]

Science can explain consciousness.

There are exteroreceptors which are organs that receive nerve stimuli from the environment outside the body. And there are also interoceptors which are organs that receive stimuli from inside the body. In cephalic animals such as humans , both of these types of receptors send afferent nerve signals to the brain.

The brain itself is not furnished with any receptors at all. If it were so equipped then brain receptors could send afferent signals to whichever part of the brain does the cephalising. In this hypothetical case there would be no so-called problem of consciousness as the brain and the mind would be as much of a unit as is a finger joint and its sensation, or a bit of gut and its sensation.

[psyreporter]

Science can explain consciousness.

There are exteroreceptors which are organs that receive nerve stimuli from the environment outside the body. And there are also interoceptors which are organs that receive stimuli from inside the body. In cephalic animals such as humans , both of these types of receptors send afferent nerve signals to the brain.

The brain itself is not furnished with any receptors at all. If it were so equipped then brain receptors could send afferent signals to whichever part of the brain does the cephalising. In this hypothetical case there would be no so-called problem of consciousness as the brain and the mind would be as much of a unit as is a finger joint and its sensation, or a bit of gut and its sensation.

That is not a valid statement because when it concerns an explanation for consciousness, it concerns the question why consciousness is possible and that means that it will concern the question why for example the indicated 'exteroreceptors' and 'interoceptors' have been able to come into existence.

It would be magical thinking to argue that the core qualities of life and thus of consciousness as manifestation has arisen out of pure randomness, and further, to think that a moment in time is the origin of life in its actuality today, with life today essentially being 'passed on' like a fire originating from that moment in time.

Simple logic indicates that life requires an 'external origin' ('external' being external from an individual perspective, with the whole of what is deemed possible within the scope of empirical reality, being an individual perspective).

The idea that consciousness originates from something that can be explained empirically, e.g. de brain, requires determinism to be true. The determinism vs free will debate is not a settled debate, which is evident from the website debatingfreewill.com (2021) by philosophy professors Daniel C. Dennett and Gregg D. Caruso.

The main argument by Free Will Sceptics is the following:

To make a choice that wasn’t merely the next link in the unbroken chain of causes, you’d have to be able to stand apart from the whole thing, a ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it. But of course you can’t actually get to this supposed place that’s external to the universe, separate from all the atoms that comprise it and the laws that govern them. You just are some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest. ~ The Guardian

(2021) The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/a ... n-illusion

As can be seen from the reasoning by Free Will Sceptics, only the idea that mind has a primary role in nature could prevent a belief in determinism.

Scientific evidence for the idea of “a primary role for the mind in nature” is mounting from several angles. For example, recent quantum physics studies through experiments have shown that the observer precedes reality (the scientific “observer” = consciousness = mind).

(2020) Do Quantum Phenomena Require Conscious Observers?
“Experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed,” writes scientist Bernardo Kastrup and colleagues earlier this year on Scientific American, adding that this suggests “a primary role for mind in nature”
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ar ... -observers

How observers create reality
https://psyreporter.com/pdf/arxiv-quantum-observer.pdf

(2018) Is the Universe a conscious mind?
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-ex ... d-for-life

(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

(2019) Quantum physics: objective reality doesn’t exist
Clearly these are all deeply philosophical questions about the fundamental nature of reality. Whatever the answer, an interesting future awaits.
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-quantum-p ... oesnt.html

[psyreporter]

It is time for Science to think more outside the Box with regard to Consciousness, and hopefully this Connection Perspective will inspire Research in new directions that might someday solve the Problem of Consciousness.

Interesting!

Does your theory account for today's knowledge regarding ESP, remote viewing and near-death experiences (NDE)?

According to the CIA, ESP and remote viewing are real, which could imply something about consciousness.

CIA program director of Stanford Research Institute:

In my experience and according to most other researchers, it appears that an experienced psychic can answer any question that has an answer. I cannot wait to see what the future holds when we fully open the doors of our perception! It is time to accept the gift of psychic abilities. The hardware is fine; it’s the software that must be upgraded—and quickly.

https://www.watkinsmagazine.com/the-rea ... -abilities

third-eye-spies.jpg (25.62 KiB) Viewed 1198 times

https://thirdeyespies.com/ (free on YouTube)

Near-death experiences (NDE) also provide evidence that consciousness may not originate in the brain.

The AWARE—AWAreness during REsuscitation study by Sam Parnia, director of the Human Consciousness Project at the University of Southampton may provide evidence that consciousness is independent from the brain.

(2019) Does Consciousness Continue After Brain Flat-line?
How can people brought back from death after cardiac arrest report having experienced lucid and vivid memories and recollections without a functioning brain? The study of near-death experiences is challenging the idea our consciousness originates in the brain.
https://www.sca-aware.org/sca-news/life ... eart-stops

Video interview about NDE and consciousness: https://www.closertotruth.com/series/wh ... ideo-49279

Consciousness = source of human intelligence.

There are people with only 5-10% brain tissue who lead a normal life with a wife and two children, work as municipal officials, and sometimes even have a high IQ and can obtain an academic degree.

A quote from a Belgian philosophy professor:

"Any theory of consciousness has to be able to explain why a person like that, who's missing 90 percent of his neurons, still exhibits normal behaviour," Axel Cleeremans, a professor philosophy of cognitive science from the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium"

tiny bit of a brain:
100%: ####################
5%: #

The French man the Belgian professor speaks of had only 10% brain tissue and lived a normal life with wife and two children. The condition was discovered at a routine hospital check at the age of 45. He had lived a full life with the condition, unnoticed.

There are many similar cases. Professor John Lorber has examined more than 600 cases. One is a math student with home it was discovered that he had merely 5% brain tissue.

Remarkable story of maths genius who had almost no brain

The student was bright, having an IQ of 126. The doctor noticed that the student's head seemed a little larger than normal and he referred him to Dr Lorber for further examination. Dr Lorber examined the boy's head by Cat-scan to discover that the student had virtually no brain.

Dr Lorber systematically studied hydrocephalus and documented over 600 scans of people with this condition. He divided them into four groups: people with nearly normal brains; those with between 50 per cent and 70 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid; those with 70 per cent to 90 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid; those with 95 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid. The latter group constituted less than 10 per cent of the study and half of these people were profoundly mentally disabled. However, the other half had IQs over 100.

"I can't say whether the mathematics student with an IQ of 126 had a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear it is nowhere near the normal 1.5kg and much of the brain he does have is in the more primitive deep structures that are relatively spared in hydrochephalus".

Source: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/remarka ... -1.1026845

The questions are:

1. How is it possible that people with merely 5% brain tissue can lead a normal life and even manage to reach the final exam of an academic study with the condition unnoticed?

2. What are whales doing with brain technology that appears to be more advanced than the brain of humans, with 6x more brain tissue and neurons?

3. What explains ESP and remote viewing where conscious experiences can exist at a distance? https://thirdeyespies.com/ (free on YouTube)

4. What explains near-death experiences (NDE) where clear conscious experiences appear to be possible during 'brain flatline', with accurate descriptions of details?

[Sy Borg]

According to the CIA, ESP and remote viewing are real, which could imply something about consciousness.

CIA program director of Stanford Research Institute:

In my experience and according to most other researchers, it appears that an experienced psychic can answer any question that has an answer. I cannot wait to see what the future holds when we fully open the doors of our perception! It is time to accept the gift of psychic abilities. The hardware is fine; it’s the software that must be upgraded—and quickly.

https://www.watkinsmagazine.com/the-rea ... -abilities

...

Let's say that no one is mistaken or being cunning, and it's true that expert psychics can correctly answer all sorts of questions they ideally wouldn't be able to answer, thanks to psi abilities.

That doesn't mean anyone can do it. What if these psychics are the telepathic equivalent of Olympic athletes? After all, some people have physiques, sensory acuity, fast twitch response, mental speed and spatial capacities that are far outside of the normal range, so most others could never achieve the same, no matter how excellent their attitude and coaching.

So tiny people don't win heavyweight boxing or weightlifting titles, just as huge people don't win at gymnastics, synchronised swimming or horse racing. So we can't expect those with all the sensitivity of a sun-baked brick to experience anything remotely like psi. If psi exists, that is. Such people's software is perfectly fine, just that it's not designed to read BCC emails, so to speak.

[psyreporter]

According to the CIA, ESP and remote viewing are real, which could imply something about consciousness.

CIA program director of Stanford Research Institute:

In my experience and according to most other researchers, it appears that an experienced psychic can answer any question that has an answer. I cannot wait to see what the future holds when we fully open the doors of our perception! It is time to accept the gift of psychic abilities. The hardware is fine; it’s the software that must be upgraded—and quickly.

https://www.watkinsmagazine.com/the-rea ... -abilities

third-eye-spies.jpg (25.62 KiB) Viewed 1178 times

https://thirdeyespies.com/ (free on YouTube)

...

Let's say that no one is mistaken or being cunning, and it's true that expert psychics can correctly answer all sorts of questions they ideally wouldn't be able to answer, thanks to psi abilities.

That doesn't mean anyone can do it. What if these psychics are the telepathic equivalent of Olympic athletes? After all, some people have physiques, sensory acuity, fast twitch response, mental speed and spatial capacities that are far outside of the normal range, so most others could never achieve the same, no matter how excellent their attitude and coaching.

So tiny people don't win heavyweight boxing or weightlifting titles, just as huge people don't win at gymnastics, synchronised swimming or horse racing. So we can't expect those with all the sensitivity of a sun-baked brick to experience anything remotely like psi. If psi exists, that is. Such people's software is perfectly fine, just that it's not designed to read BCC emails, so to speak.

When it comes to the 'mind', physical and thus 'comparable' factors may not be at play and the mere potential would imply that 'anyone can do it' (potentially). However, any meaning relative to the human as a specie does require a 'human', thus a healthy normal human would be an aspect by which for example a whale may not have the same potential capacities, or not in the same way.

It is a logical idea that ESP, remote viewing or anything paranormal require something 'special', but the film Third Eye Spies showed that they recruited regular people from the military without prior experience with anything paranormal to perform professional remote viewing, and that the least experienced persons were sometimes better at the task. 'Anyone can do it', but there are people with talent.

There is even a remote viewing conference where regular people (public) can take part in remote viewing. It is showed in the film and as it appears, students and people without prior paranormal experience were able to perform 'paranormal' remote viewing.

International Remote Viewing Association | IRVA
IRVA is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to promoting the responsible use and development of remote viewing.
https://www.irva.org/

When it concerns a theory of consciousness and when remote viewing is to be considered real, then at question will be how a theory of consciousness can explain that capacity.

With regard relevance for philosophy: the capacity to answer any question may come in handy. If one can connect to civilizations on other planets, or humans in a far future for example, that may unlock value-able insights. On earth it may enable to connect meaningfully with whales, dolphins and perhaps even plants.

If the human is not able to appreciate a meaningful connection with a whale, for example, why would a human 10,000 years into the future or on another planet be interested to connect meaningfully with humans from earth? The potential for valuing meaningful connections, for example between humans and animals on earth and beyond mere subjective emotions, may be vital.