https://apple.news/AiVqIKbNuTqOUVJaEMdirpQ

“Scientists Believe They’ve Unlocked Consciousness—and It Connects to the Entire Universe
It’s just a simple quantum wave that can interact with everything that’s ever existed.

WHEN PEOPLE TALK about consciousness, or the mind, the context almost always seems a bit nebulous. Whether we create consciousness in our brain as a function of our neurons firing or it exists independently of us, there’s no universally accepted scientific explanation for where consciousness comes from or where it lives. However, new research on the physics, anatomy, and geometry of this mysterious notion has begun to reveal its possible form. In other words, we may soon be able to identify a true architecture of consciousness.
The new work builds upon a theory that Nobel Prize–winning physicist Roger Penrose, PhD, and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, MD, first posited in the 1990s, known as the Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory, or Orch OR. Broadly, it claims that consciousness is a quantum process facilitated by microtubules in the brain’s nerve cells.”

God of the gaps: Quantum Anything.

I know this because my microtubules connected with a far away universe where consciousness lives.

I think this hypothesis need a bit more work.

I had my microtubules tied to prevent impure thoughs.

I know. My microtubules got stuck in a bunch of string theory and nothing has been the same since. That stuff is STICKY!

Zactly! Using an explanatory fiction called "God" is not better than an explanatory fiction called "consciousness."


Same fallacy. Different day.

HH =)

Zactly! Using an explanatory fiction called "God" is not better than an explanatory fiction called "consciousness."

COMMENT: The 'God of the Gaps' argument is a rhetorical (as opposed to factual) representation of theists as invoking 'God' as the explanation for phenomena that science has not yet adequately explained.

The Penrose-Hammeroff theory is quite the contrary. It is in effect a 'science of the gaps' argument or 'quantum of the gaps' argument, invoked to explain the mystery of consciousness by way of speculative and unsupported scientific theory. In such cases, the scientific temptation is to invoke the mystery of quantum mechanics in order to explain the mystery of consciousness. The scientific reality, however, is that according to 'orthodox' quantum mechanics (i.e. the science) the quantum collapse is a function of consciousness (measurement), and not the other way around. (see Heisenberg and von Neumann) Consciousness it taken as a given, and NOT an "explanatory fiction."

So, you and Dagny need to get your "gaps" arguments straight. Instead of reading Richard Dawkins, you might try reading theoretical physicist Henry Stapp, as for example the following:

"In view of this fundamental re-entry of mind into basic physics [through quantum mechanics], it is nigh on incomprehensible that so few philosophers and non-physicist scientists entertain today . . . the idea that the physicalist conception of nature, based on the invalidated classical physical theory, might be profoundly wrong in ways highly relevant to the mind-matter problem.

"Philosophers are often called upon to defend highly counter-intuitive and apparently absurd positions. [like consciousness being an illusion] But to brand as an illusion, and accordingly discount, the supremely successful conceptual foundation of our lives -- the idea that our conscious efforts can influence our physical actions -- on the basis of its conflict with a known-to-be-false theory of nature that leaves out all that we really know, is a travesty against reason, particularly in view of the fact that the empirically valid replacement of that empirically invalid classical theory is *specifically about* the details of the connection between our consciously chosen intentional actions and the experiential feedbacks that such actions engender.

Henry Stapp, *Quantum Reality and Mind* p. 19) (You may need to read this a few times!)

If you register your consciousness with Mint Mobile, you will save a ton of money over all the other carriers.

"My consciousness has been hacked!  I knew I should have used a stronger PIN!!!"

"I found my consciousness but then lost it in the singularity."

--Anonymous, Deep Thoughts with Accordion, self-published, 2022

1 2 3 4 just doesn't cut it.

> "true architecture of consciousness"


How does one compare/contrast 'true architecture' from false architecture?

Does consciousness have a roof?  ...windows?  Stairs v. ramps?  Urban v. suburban v. rural v. hermitage?

Is mormonism the absolute best consciousness one can possess?

Frankly, I won't trust "humanity" until we learn to photosynthsize our daily bread.  But I am a fan of how we spread our seed!

> But I am a
> fan of how we spread our seed!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why escorts are necessary in the temple.

And that, my friends, is a quantum leap from one thread to another. That's how it's done!

:-)

Those of us who have served as her stepping stones to glory are as full of pride as she is full of it...

Those were stepping stones? I guess I didn't need to clean my shoes after all.

Considering the source, I'd say more like kidney stones. So grab your slingshot!

How does one compare/contrast 'true architecture' from false architecture?

COMMENT: This question is deeper than you think. The notion of "architecture of consciousness" is metaphorical, representing the "structure" of thought, mind, and human cognition. This structure is identified with the logic and semantics of language, and the 'mechanisms of thought,' but is presumabed by most to be a reality that is prior to language. (See, e.g. Chomsky, and Fodor, i.e. 'The Language of Thought.")

Of course, the question is (as you inadvertently raise), What is the nature of this structure? especially if one is a 'realist.' Presumably, 'structure' is identified with 'something' real (as opposed to abstract) to which such structure applies. With respect to consciousness or mind, what is this underlying something? A quantum reality? a soul? Whatever it is, it is not an illusion, because, after all, we do have thoughts, and they do have structure!

Note also that the nebulous notion of 'structure' when confronted with realism finds its way into physics as well. We often read about the "structure of space-time" in general relativity; or the structure of subatomic particles, without really understanding the base reality that is supposed to support such structure.

> This question is deeper than you think.


It may be deeper, but it's not wider!

I cant read the linked article. Searching for likely related reporting I find
https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/India/science-or-pseudo-science-a-debate-rekindled/ar-BB1hsaHf

Which says the evidence so far rejects Penrose consciousness.

"In experiments starting 2014, scientists at Italy’s National Institute for Nuclear Physics set out to test the second pillar of Orch OR, based on the DP model. From the results of their experiments in the world’s largest underground laboratory at Gran Sasso, they concluded in Physics of Life Reviews in 2022 that Orch OR, “when based on the simplest version of gravity-related dynamical collapse, is highly implausible in all the cases analysed”. "

And then goes on to promote a whole lot of unsubstantiable woo. based on Penrose theories.

Perhaps cat is talking about something else entirely. but based on past experience with articles that contradict cat's headlines and quotes, I wouldn't be surprised if this is another of those cases.

The Orch-OR theory was originally developed by anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff. Sir Roger teamed with Hameroff later. To be fair, Penrose steers clear of woo.

Stuart Hameroff has the gift of gab, which comes in handy when he is teaching at the U of A. To me, he comes off as an evangelist for Orch-OR. He is more entertainer than scientist, but so what? Science could use more of those.

Anesthesia works. How it works is a mystery which Hameroff tries to explain. Do microtubules play a role? That is still an open question. The experiment in Italy rules out one possible mechanism. It hardly puts the theory to rest.

    What’s the right answer? Is it possible that there are no wrong answers when one factors-in an endless, limitless universe, allegedly fated to die a slow, lingering Heat Death?

    You know the totally made-up word: permutation? You can write it as a singular noun, but it’s possible to agree that it can’t exist as a singular function.

    Permutations are forks in the road. Because “...every action/inaction in a universe of too many things to count, creates an infinite + 1 number of possibilities hurtling out like photons from a pulsating, pissed-off star.”*

    And what if there is no Heat Death if you pay the electric bill?







*“144 Gross Truths” by Sir Nasdaq Nascar, LLMNOPQ; Gnome Press, 2011

Interesting.

The science section the other night was showing black holes that had all this white stuff around them. I realized that these are just giant hurricanes billions of miles wide and the supposed black hole is only the eye of the storm and they are reading way too much into it. I haven't had a chance to call Nasa yet or alert the NYT science section yet, but they are going to be very grateful when I do.

And just like love means never having to say your are sorry, infinity means you never have to say you are wrong.

Tomorrow is another day. Who knew?

>> “Scientists Believe They’ve Unlocked Consciousness <<

So many questions.....

Who locked it in the first place and why?

How did they unlock it? A key? A combination? Key fob? Voice activated? Pick the lock? Hire a lock smith? shoot it with a gun like in the movies?

Now that its unlocked, is it free for everyone?

If its free, how can I get mine? Hold on, I may need to rethink that one.

Will they ever lock it up again?

Will someone try and steal it now that its unlocked?

What does the lock attach to? A latch plate? Or is it like a deadbolt? Or maybe like a cable for locking your bike?

Someone help me please!

I'd say that stream of consciousness already indicates it's too late for you. Just hold tight.



PS You forgot bolt cutters.

Thanks for the reassurance. I'll hold tight, just not to the rod.

No surprise. Hindus have long known this.
Based on this knowledge enacted ‘a way of life’ or ‘Santaan dharma’(mistakenly labeled as a religion).
The oldest, consistent and sole survivor of ancient civilizations is testimony to the truthfulness of this ‘find’.

I came across a veiled reference to the "Black Hole Religion" which preaches that we already within the Event Horizon of a Black Hole, but that due to "something-something-something" we won't actually fall 'into' the Black Hole for at least a million years.

Apparently, this religion teaches that "...nothing matters and no one should care..."

Plus, it's free to join, free to participate, and free to resign.

Heaven is attainable ... but cramped.

Utah has solved the Black Cat religion need years ago with the Summum sect. Pyramids! Embalmed cats!

Their "Seven Aphorisms" don't specifically allow for a black hole religion, but certainly don't rule it out.


=================
According to the group, the "Seven Aphorisms" are:[24]

SUMMUM is MIND, thought; the universe is a mental creation.

As above, so below; as below, so above.

Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates.

Everything is dual; everything has an opposing point; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes bond; all truths are but partial truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled.

Everything flows out and in; everything has its season; all things rise and fall; the pendulum swing expresses itself in everything; the measure of the swing to the right is the measure of the swing to the left; rhythm compensates.

Every cause has its effect; every effect has its cause; everything happens according to Law; Chance is just a name for
Law not recognized; there are many fields of causation, but nothing escapes the Law of Destiny.

Gender is in everything; everything has its masculine and feminine principles; Gender manifests on all levels.

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2024 12:44PM by Brother Of Jerry.

So the universe is dreaming through us? It sure has a lot of nightmares.

Hail to the microtubules!

...called "the Adam Dream." They interpret the Eden story as the fall of Mankind's collective (or individual? Mary Baker Eddy was vague here) spirit, "And a mist arose..." That is, "mist" is allegorical for the false consciousness of a dream world.

And yes, it is Eastern, via Emerson and the Transcendentalists, in spite of a gloss Christian-Biblical nomenclature and hodgepodge theology.

This is one of the big things that began my disenchantment with CS. If we all live in a "dream cosmos" of our own making, then that makes me the Creator of the cosmos--everything exists because I believe it exists! Further, you--all of you--do not exist, except that I believe you exist. You're part of my "Adam dream!"

(OTOH, maybe I don't exist, and I'm simply a creature of your "Adam dream." But which one of you--come on, 'fess up!)

Maybe the Universe is like a bowl of soup. We are all part of the soup, kind of like a more sentient slime mold.

What explains why our subjective experience is unique? Maybe subjectivity was the forbidden fruit. The illusion of separation is necessary for free will, or our experience of free will.

Free will is a real experience even if it is objectively unreal. The same can be said of God.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Free will is a real experience even if it is
> objectively unreal. The same can be said of God.

The same could be said of rainbows, which depend upon 3 thing,

A source of light
A reflective/refractive surface and
An observer (at 41 degrees from the source).

Without an observer (@ 41d from the source), rainbows do not exist.

What we call ‘objective reality’ is made up of particles that don’t exist unless and until we observe them.


The same could be said of Schrodinger’s cat.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2024 07:59PM by schrodingerscat.

What we see is a tiny fraction of what is there. Besides only having Plato's cave to work with, we only access the tiny fraction of potentiality that undergoes the formality of actually occurring. Everything else is out of sight, out of mind.

Which is a long way of saying reality is unknowable even if Donald Hoffman were wrong about humans not being able to perceive reality.

What is the difference between fringe theoretical physics and religion? You can't prove string theory any more than you can prove angels with golden plates. It becomes about what makes you feel good.

My world was rocked when I learned Mormon was made up BS. All religions are made up BS. They are a matter of taste. Our sciences aren't much better, outside the saving grace of mathematics. Even then, bad models abound.

If by taste you mean usefulness