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

[Pattern-chaser]

(a pattern is signified by perception)

Spotting and responding to patterns is an intrinsic part of the process of perception, as we humans do it. I have no idea what you mean by "signified" in the above quote. "Patterns" is a label we use to identify configurations of connections that we recognise. Patterns themselves do not exist in this sense, it's the connections that exist. If we recognise connection configurations, we call them patterns. One might say that "pattern" signifies a particular configuration of connections...?

[psyreporter]

Spotting and responding to patterns is an intrinsic part of the process of perception, as we humans do it. I have no idea what you mean by "signified" in the above quote. "Patterns" is a label we use to identify configurations of connections that we recognise. Patterns themselves do not exist in this sense, it's the connections that exist. If we recognise connection configurations, we call them patterns. One might say that "pattern" signifies a particular configuration of connections...?

The pattern that is indicated is a pattern-as-such which can also be indicated as 'value'. Value or meaningful pattern are the same.

A connection in the simplest form is also a pattern. While a pattern can be more complex, the imagination of (the connection between) two dots is also a pattern.

What is indicated with signified is that the mentioned 'connection' (as part of a pattern) is necessarily meaningful. This implies by itself that something must precede that connection (connection-as-such) by which meaning is assigned because a pattern-as-such by itself cannot arise out of a pattern. Meaning must therefore precede a pattern and therefore a pattern requires a signifier.

It is established by logic that a pattern-as-such requires a signifier.

[Pattern-chaser]

Value or meaningful pattern are the same.

No, they're not. Patterns are recognised - passive observation - while our values are assigned by us.

Meaning must therefore precede a pattern...

Meaning is also assigned by us. It cannot precede the pattern unless its meaning is objective and independent of us. I.e. it must exist as part of objective reality (but the latter is not a can of worms we would wish to open here).

[psyreporter]

Value or meaningful pattern are the same.

No, they're not. Patterns are recognised - passive observation - while our values are assigned by us.

Meaning must therefore precede a pattern...

Meaning is also assigned by us. It cannot precede the pattern unless its meaning is objective and independent of us. I.e. it must exist as part of objective reality (but the latter is not a can of worms we would wish to open here).

Objective meaning would be a pattern. The indicated qualia patternness (pattern-as-such) simply requires an origin (an explanation) and a simple logical truth indicates that the origin of the qualia patternness cannot be a pattern. By the nature of a pattern it can be said that the origin, whatever it is, is necessarily meaningful. By that logic it can be established that the origin of a pattern can be denoted to be 'pure meaning' because of the simple logic that a deviation from that concept would result in a pattern.

Conclusion: pure meaning necessarily precedes the qualia patternness on a fundamental level and that implies that in the form of a signifier that it would entail as origin of the qualia patternness, it would perform as perception which in a pure form would explain life forms and consciousness.

[Pattern-chaser]

Value or meaningful pattern are the same.

No, they're not. Patterns are recognised - passive observation - while our values are assigned by us.

Meaning must therefore precede a pattern...

Meaning is also assigned by us. It cannot precede the pattern unless its meaning is objective and independent of us. I.e. it must exist as part of objective reality (but the latter is not a can of worms we would wish to open here).

Objective meaning would be a pattern. The indicated qualia patternness (pattern-as-such) simply requires an origin (an explanation) and a simple logical truth indicates that the origin of the qualia patternness cannot be a pattern. By the nature of a pattern it can be said that the origin, whatever it is, is necessarily meaningful. By that logic it can be established that the origin of a pattern can be denoted to be 'pure meaning' because of the simple logic that a deviation from that concept would result in a pattern.

Conclusion: pure meaning necessarily precedes the qualia patternness on a fundamental level and that implies that in the form of a signifier that it would entail as origin of the qualia patternness, it would perform as perception which in a pure form would explain life forms and consciousness.

A pattern is something we humans recognise, often when there is actually no pattern there (e.g. seeing faces in clouds). The pattern is internal to our own cogitations, a convenience we adopt and use, nothing more. Often a pattern I recognise can be (and often is) recognised by other humans too. But the pattern(s) still exist only in our minds.

[psyreporter]

My logic is applicable to pattern-as-such on a fundamental level (pattern as qualia). It is a response to the question "how is a pattern possible?". It does not concern subjective or individual patterns.

If you do not believe that a pattern-as-such requires an explanatory origin, can you explain how a pattern-as-such would be possible?

[Pattern-chaser]

My logic is applicable to pattern-as-such on a fundamental level (pattern as qualia). It is a response to the question "how is a pattern possible?". It does not concern subjective or individual patterns.

If you do not believe that a pattern-as-such requires an explanatory origin, can you explain how a pattern-as-such would be possible?

I'm sorry. I've really tried, but every post you write is difficult or impossible for me to understand. I don't get the vocabulary you use, nor the point(s) you are trying to make. I regret that I can see no useful purpose in continuing this dialogue.

[psyreporter]

I respect your decision to end the conversation however I believe that the difference between 'individual pattern' and 'patternness as qualia' is very simple to understand. My logic to address that fact has been very clear with my previous post being evidence.

The question "how is a pattern possible?" is very simple. When one seeks an answer to that question, one would address patternness as qualia.

My pending question in my previous post would become applicable and since you didn't answer, I see no logical ground to assume that the qualia patternness does not require an explanatory origin, which means that my provided logic can be considered applicable and potentially valid.

It seems that you may seek a way to escape reasoning that would lead to something that can be named 'God', which is indicative by your question concerning a 'motive' for my logic a few posts back:

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?

As mentioned many times on this forum:

- I am not religious
- I have no ideological, political or religious motives
- My interest lies with fundamental philosophy

My previous reply:

The theory is simply intended to discover a plausible explanation for life and consciousness, and as you may have noticed, it can provide a fundament on the basis of which it can be said that morality is applicable or vital.

With regard the importance of a potential recognition of applicability of morality. If plants are to posses of meaningful experience, whatever that may entail on an individual level, then they are to be considered meaningful within a context that can be denoted as 'vitality of Nature' or Nature's bigger whole (Gaia Philosophy), of which the human is a part and of which the human intends to be a prosperous part.

From that perspective, a base level of respect (moral consideration) for Nature may be essential for successful long term evolution.

My primary concern and motive to discuss the subject is eugenics on Nature (see my other topic) in which plants and animals are reduced to meaningless beyond the value that a company (a short term self-interest perspective) can see in them.

If plants are sentient and have certain interests to be happy, eugenics on Nature may be one of the worst disasters possible for them. Synthetic biology may destroy what is required for Nature to prosper.

[Pattern-chaser]

I respect your decision to end the conversation however I believe that the difference between 'individual pattern' and 'patternness as qualia' is very simple to understand. My logic to address that fact has been very clear...

...no, it hasn't, not to me. That's the problem, and that's why this dialogue is going nowhere.

[Sy Borg]

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.

[Belindi]

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.

Panpsychism is an idea I have learned and accepted since I joined the forum, years ago. I like Sy Borg's explanation above.
Sy Borg do you see that "dynamic, super-complex and interdependent systems" have taken the place of God or Nature? If it is true that dynamic, super-complex and interdependent systems have taken the place formerly assigned to God or Nature, then the total and the gestalt of these dynamic, super-complex and interdependent systems is absolute , and the creator ( and also each single and unique dynamic, super-complex and interdependent system) of what we normally think of as everyday, or scientific, reality.

[Sy Borg]

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.

Panpsychism is an idea I have learned and accepted since I joined the forum, years ago. I like Sy Borg's explanation above.
Sy Borg do you see that "dynamic, super-complex and interdependent systems" have taken the place of God or Nature? If it is true that dynamic, super-complex and interdependent systems have taken the place formerly assigned to God or Nature, then the total and the gestalt of these dynamic, super-complex and interdependent systems is absolute , and the creator ( and also each single and unique dynamic, super-complex and interdependent system) of what we normally think of as everyday, or scientific, reality.

Not sure what you are asking, Belinda? That IIT - the informational formulae behind life and consciousness - will come to be revered?

[Pattern-chaser]

I think Psy's point is basically panpsychist.

Really? Wow! Why not just say so, though?

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.

[Belindi]

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.

Panpsychism is an idea I have learned and accepted since I joined the forum, years ago. I like Sy Borg's explanation above.
Sy Borg do you see that "dynamic, super-complex and interdependent systems" have taken the place of God or Nature? If it is true that dynamic, super-complex and interdependent systems have taken the place formerly assigned to God or Nature, then the total and the gestalt of these dynamic, super-complex and interdependent systems is absolute , and the creator ( and also each single and unique dynamic, super-complex and interdependent system) of what we normally think of as everyday, or scientific, reality.

Not sure what you are asking, Belinda? That IIT - the informational formulae behind life and consciousness - will come to be revered?

It would be difficult not to revere what creates everything. I have understood you previously as suggesting that information is what creates everything. I'd say experience is what creates everything. I can't see any difference between information and experience.An entity is a unique set of experiences: an entity is a unique set of informations.

[Sy Borg]

I think Psy's point is basically panpsychist.

Really? Wow! Why not just say so, though?

It's not for me to say.

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.