TPF : Consciousness Studies

[Gnomon]

Over at Vox Future Perfect. — Srap Tasmaner

One Amazon review of Goff's book, boils it down to a competition between theories for the origin of consciousness in a material world : "The book identifies three possible explanations for consciousness: dualism, materialism, and panpsychism".

Apparently, monistic Materialism solves the origin problem by denying that it is a problem : consciousness is not real, but ideal : a figment of imagination, so it literally does not matter. Dualism just accepts that we tend to think of Mind & Matter as two completely different things, and never the twain shall meet : hyle + morph = real matter + ideal form. Monistic Panpsychism assumes that Matter is an illusion generated by the inherent mental processes of nature (a priori Cosmic Consciousness), hence matter does not matter.

Global Workspace Theory is merely a Cartesian Theater metaphor that does not attempt to answer the Origin question. Integrated Information Theory assumes that Consciousness is a summary (integral) product of fundamental mathematical essence : number. Again, these alternative definitions of Consciousness presume that some kind of mind essence "just is", with no further elaboration on its original source.

Pragmatic here & now science has no need for hypotheses about ultimate origins. But over the millennia, theoretical philosophy has produced a proliferation of possible ontologies. Which include the three noted above, plus one more that was once the leading candidate, but is no longer considered a viable option : intelligent intentional creation by divine fiat. Hence it was omitted from the "round-up". Ironically, due mostly to the quandaries of quantum science, the ancient notion of fundamental/essential Mind*1 seems to be making a comeback to fill the gaps in those other theories.


*1. Panpsychism :
Though it sounds like something that sprang fully formed from the psychedelic culture, panpsychism has been around for a very long time. Philosophers and mathematicians Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, physicists Arthur Eddington, Ernst Schrödinger, and Max Planck, and psychologist William James are just a few thinkers who supported some form of panpsychism. The idea lost traction in the late 20th century, but recently, philosophers and scientists such as David Chalmers, Bernardo Kastrup, Christof Koch, and Philip Goff have revived the idea, making strong claims for some form of panpsychism.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/p ... cycles-are

[Gnomon]

In what conceivable way is panpsychism not a reclothing (i.e., re-branding or re-veiling) of the quite ancient and, back then, basically ubiquitous notion of animism?

In other words, what can possibly be rationally different between panpsychism and animism as metaphysical understandings of reality? — javra

Materialists will dismiss both Panpsychism and Animism as primitive religious superstitions. But the 21st century quantum physicists (see my post above), who openly admit to accepting Universal Mind as a valid philosophical interpretation of their empirical work, cannot be described as "primitive" or "superstitious". Yet, more conventional scientists will still interpret the evidence in terms of their matter-is-fundamental Naturalistic worldview*1. And that's OK, for scientific purposes. Yet, for philosophical purposes, that view has an explanatory gap at the inception of Matter itself.

I do think of the ancient writings about universal Mind as prescient-but-primitive guesses about how mental phenomena could emerge from material substrates. Quantum Physics is not as definitive about such enigmatic questions, but it does point in the same direction : Mental Potential is intrinsic in the universe, but emerges in stages ; as postulated several thousand years ago in Hindu philosophy*2.

Likewise, instead of presuming that essential Potential was fully-formed into Consciousness at the beginning, some 21st century thinkers interpret that power-to-evolve-both-matter-&-minds in terms of both Evolutionary Theory and Information Theory*3. The same essential "stuff" animates Matter and informs Brains. From that non-mainstream perspective, the potential to change Possibility to Actuality, Inanimate to Animate, and Neurons to Awareness, is closer to our modern notion of causal Energy, than to fully-evolved homo sapiens Consciousness.

To Inform : implies the imparting of knowledge https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inform
Note --- Knowledge presumes Consciousness

*1. Why Panpsychism Is Probably Wrong :
Perhaps phenomenal properties, or ‘proto-phenomenal’ precursors of them, are the fundamental intrinsic properties of matter we’re looking for, and each subatomic particle is a tiny conscious subject. This solves the hard problem: brain and consciousness emerge together when billions of basic particles are assembled in the right way.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... ng/500774/

*2. Hindu Mind Evolves :
In this theory, mind is an emergent entity, but this emergence requires the presence of the Self. The mind may be viewed to be constituted by five basic components: manas, ahamkara, citta, buddhi and atman, which cannot be reduced to gross elements. Manas is the lower mind which collects sense impressions.
https://swarajyamag.com/culture/underst ... f-the-mind

*3. Is energy a form of information? :
Information is a distinct form of energy, just as electricity, magnetism, steam, nuclear, or solar radiation are also alternate forms of energy. To illustrate this, consider that information behaves similarly to other energy types. Many physicists agree that information is conserved, especially at the quantum level.
https://jumpthespark.com/2017/02/06/inf ... is-energy/
Note --- Information is like Energy in its Cause & Effect functions : to convert incoming photons into mental images, and mental images into language.

[Gnomon]

You might consider me a materialist, depending on the time of day and the weather. I'm certainly not a dualist or a panpsychist. There is nothing in materialism that requires belief that the mind is not real. I certainly believe it is and I believe it matters. Seems to me you, or the author you're discussing, is trying a bit of flashy rhetorical footwork by misrepresenting the ideas of people you disagree with. — T Clark

I'm not trying to misrepresent anyone's beliefs. Just to be descriptive of a pertinent contrasting interpretations of the Materialistic belief system*1, in a thread on the topic of the ontological status of Mind. Besides, some of the matter-first Materialists on this forum do mis-represent the beliefs of mind-first Panpsychists as primitive, superstitious, and gullible. But they are just trying to show the superiority of their own modern & scientific worldview over ancient spooky-woo. This, despite some scientific evidence to support a mind-first view.

Personally, I'm not a Panpsychist, in any formal sense. So, I don't have a dog in the race between true believers on both sides. As I've stated before : for all practical purposes, I am a Materialist; but for philosophical reasons, I am an Idealist. So, I agree with you : ideas matter, but not literally.

*1. Does eliminative materialism regard consciousness as an illusion? :
There is a relatively new position in philosophy of mind called illusionism.
https://www.quora.com/Does-eliminative- ... n-illusion

Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist.
https://plato.stanford.edu/Archives/Win ... iminative/

[Gnomon]

Seems to me you, or the author you're discussing, is trying a bit of flashy rhetorical footwork by misrepresenting the ideas of people you disagree with. — T Clark

You seem to be a level-headed fellow. So, I was concerned that you interpreted my brief sketches of three competing worldviews as "mis-representing" the ideas of those who hold such views. It was not intended as a put-down, but as a way to distinguish the philosophically pertinent differences between them. If you are willing, I'd like to hear your own compare & contrast between monistic Materialism and monistic Panpsychism. For example, here's what I said in the post above :

"Apparently, monistic Materialism solves the origin problem by denying that it is a problem : consciousness is not real, but ideal : a figment of imagination, so it literally does not matter. Dualism just accepts that we tend to think of Mind & Matter as two completely different things, and never the twain shall meet : hyle + morph = real matter + ideal form. Monistic Panpsychism assumes that Matter is an illusion generated by the inherent mental processes of nature (a priori Cosmic Consciousness), hence matter does not matter."

You admitted to being a Materialist, depending on circumstances ; and I admitted to being a Materialist, for all practical purposes. But I suspect that you assumed I was prejudiced in favor of spooky Panexperientialism. So, I confessed that I am not a panpsychist in any formal sense. And I don't believe that grains of sand are conscious. Besides, I have never been a hippie or Hindu, and I don't personally know anyone who admits openly to being a Panpsychist, except for a few scientists & philosophers whose books I have read. Yet, ancient Cosmic Mind theories do seem to be prescient of modern non-mechanical post-classical physics.

To clarify where I'm coming from, I'll note that I have been steered away from conventional Materialism by the elementary physics of 20th century Quantum Theory. The QT pioneers were shocked to discover that the fundamental indivisible Atom they were seeking seemed to fracture into a menagerie of sub-atomic particles. Eventually, even the evanescent sub-sub-particles (e.g. Quarks) soon dissolved into nothing more substantial than uncertain statistical equations*1. So, the mathematical physicists began to describe their new Reality in terms of a Quantum Field of "virtual particles", that only become real when observed by experimenters*2. That's not magic, it's physics.

Any effect of the observer's mind upon material reality was, of course, quite controversial for those steeped in classical mechanical physics. But, after a century of debate, the flame-wars have calmed-down. So, QFT now seems to be almost mainstream*3. Today, some quantum physicists and mathematicians (noted in post above) openly admit to some form of Panpsychism worldview. However, my personal view has little to do with that ancient Cosmic Mind concept. Instead, it's a combination of Quantum & Information theories, as advocated by physicist Paul Davies, and the Santa Fe Institute for the study of complexity, for example.

I just started reading a book, by mathematical physicist Charles Pinter. And the subtitle says : "How the Mind creates the features & structure of all things, and why this Insight transforms Physics". It mentions Quantum Bayesianism*4, which I was only vaguely familiar with. Perhaps, a glance at the excerpt below will give you an idea of the 21st century notion that Mind is fundamental to reality, not an incidental side-effect of random evolution. I mention all of this abstruse & esoteric stuff, just to let you know that I'm not an anti-science nut-case spouting hippie non-sense.


*1. A quark is a type of elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter. Quarks ... which means they are fermions according to the spin–statistics theorem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

*2. The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it. Observer effects are especially prominent in physics where observation and uncertainty are fundamental aspects of modern quantum mechanics.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8423983

*3. Quantum field theory,a framework for explaining how subatomic particles behave, ... Mathematician Seeks to Bring Quantum Field Theory into Mainstream Math
https://bfl.cns.utexas.edu › news › mathematician-seeks-t...

*4. Quantum Bayesianism :
In physics and the philosophy of physics, quantum Bayesianism is a collection of related approaches to the interpretation of quantum mechanics, of which the most prominent is QBism (pronounced "cubism"). QBism is an interpretation that takes an agent's actions and experiences as the central concerns of the theory. QBism deals with common questions in the interpretation of quantum theory about the nature of wavefunction superposition, quantum measurement, and entanglement. According to QBism, many, but not all, aspects of the quantum formalism are subjective in nature. For example, in this interpretation, a quantum state is not an element of reality—instead it represents the degrees of belief an agent has about the possible outcomes of measurements. For this reason, some philosophers of science have deemed QBism a form of anti-realism. The originators of the interpretation disagree with this characterization, proposing instead that the theory more properly aligns with a kind of realism they call "participatory realism", wherein reality consists of more than can be captured by any putative third-person account of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism
Note --- QBism expands upon the notion of "participatory realism", that quantum physicist John A. Wheeler postulated back in the '60s. From the perspective of Materialism, it may sound like anti-realism.

[Gnomon]

Then: Properly speaking, would you interpret panpsychism thus understood to be an ontological monism or an ontological, non-Cartesian dualism? — javra

Depends on how you look at it. :joke:

Empirical science ignored the mental aspects of reality for centuries, because it was associated with Souls, Spirits, and Ghosts. But now, quantum scientists are forced to deal with the effects of observation on the foundations of reality. I'm not aware of any results of that new insight that could be called "practical magic".

Except, of course, for the ability to transform immaterial information into physical matter & energy*1. But the science of "virtual reality" certainly gives philosophers something to think about. Quantum Bayesianism is one way of looking at how personal beliefs & expectations can affect the models of Reality that we construct. For theoretical philosophy though, I see many possibilities for making sense of a non-classical non-mechanical world, where ideas are either a dime a dozen, or the substance of human culture.

For me, the Statistical Holism of quantum entanglement is not a sign of divine perversion (e.g. trickster god). But it does put ancient holistic models into a new light. Seems like it could be interpreted as Ontological Monism. But from another angle, we've intuited for millennia that reality is a mind/body Substance Dualism of some sort. Personally, I have interpreted this New Science in terms of Quantum & Information theories : evolutionary EnFormAction*2 and ontological Enformationism*3.



1. Elemental Information Hypothesis :
Several philosophers and scientists have concluded from implications of Quantum Theory, Information Theory, and Computer Simulations that mathematical-mental Information is the elemental substance of reality underlying the Space-Time-Matter-Energy we observe on the macro level of human perception and in classical physics.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/i ... ndamental/
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Note -- "Physicists in Japan have shown experimentally that a particle can be made to do work simply by receiving information, rather than energy".
https://physicsworld.com/a/information- ... to-energy/

*2. The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
EnFormAction theory takes a leap of imagination, to envision a more holistic interpretation of the evidence, both empirical and philosophical. Contrary to the Neo-Darwinian theory of Evolution, EFA implies a distinct direction for causation, toward the top rung in the hierarchy of Emergence, as denoted by the arrow of Time. Pure Randomness would just go around in circles. But selection (Entention) works like the ratchet in a clock-work to hold the latest cycle at a useful, and ultimately meaningful, stable state : a Phase Transition, or a step on the ladder of Being. Darwinian Evolution is going nowhere, but EnFormAction is going out-there.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

*3. What is Information? :
The Enformationism thesis and the BothAnd Blog are based on a multi-level understanding of the phenomenon known as “Information”. Unfortunately, most people have only a vague or general concept of what the term means scientifically and philosophically. So, in answer to a request for a general definition, as it “pertains to inorganic (physical), organic (biological), and semantic types of information”, I have defined “Information” in the context of various real-world instances of ubiquitous enforming power.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

[Gnomon]

This goes out to those who are not irreducibly fixated on the unquestionable reality of their own particular worldview, whatever it might be (if any). — javra

Coincidentally, I just came across a YouTube video, by Sabine Hossenfelder, on the topic of "why the universe is not locally real". After a quick Google, I found that it's a hot topic right now, because of the recent Nobel winners. Quantum physics should give those who are "irreducibly fixated" pause to question their assumptions about their own local Reality. To quote an old TV ad : "Is it real, or is it Memorex?"

Why No Portals?
Universe is not locally real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpkgPJo_z6Y

The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... proved-it/

[Gnomon]

The less woo understanding of this Bayesianism is that the human measurer can construct the mechanical constraints on a prepared quantum system so as to decohere it to the degree it answers to a classical counterfactual description. — apokrisis

The quoted sentence above, sounds pretty technical (abstruse). Can you deconstruct it for someone not familiar with Biosemiotic jargon? Does it deny that the observer of a quantum experiment can influence, but not control, its outcome? Is Biosemiotics derived from a metaphysical Materialism worldview? Hence, avoiding the "woo" label, signifying non-sense? Do you think that Wheeler meant to imply a mind-over-matter form of magic?

Are you implying that Wheeler's Participatory Realism is more woo than Biosemiotics? Does PR sound like "anti-realism" to you? What does Biosemiosis mean for a human "construct" like Participatory Realism? The meaning of that phrase is simple enough : biological humans play a role in the construction of their own personal mental model of reality. And Bayesianism is about private subjective first-person beliefs (models), not about ding an sich reality. Third-person objective models of reality (science facts) are based on a consensus drawn from among various first person models (opinions). But it's still a mental map, not the physical terrain.


On Participatory Realism :
These views have lately been termed "participatory realism" to emphasize that rather than relinquishing the idea of reality (as they are often accused of), they are saying that reality is more than any third-person perspective can capture. Thus, far from instances of instrumentalism or antirealism, these views of quantum theory should be regarded as attempts to make a deep statement about the nature of reality. This paper explicates the idea for the case of QBism. As well, it highlights the influence of John Wheeler's "law without law" on QBism's formulation.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.04360

Instrumentalism is thus the view that scientific theories should be thought of primarily as tools for solving practical problems rather than as meaningful descriptions of the natural world.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/instrumentalism

Anti-Realism : in philosophy, a belief that is opposed to realism (= the belief that objects continue to exist even when no one is there to see them):
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/

[Gnomon]

Together those processes make up the mind. Is it real? Yes. Is it physical - good question. What kind of a thing is it? I'm not sure, but I do believe it is a manifestation of physical, biological, neurological processes. — T Clark

I didn't think you were an expert on the philosophy of monistic Panpsychism; neither am I. But you seem to have a negative opinion of it. Others on this forum openly label such immaterial notions as "woo". It is obviously contrary to the fundamental axiom*1 of monistic Materialism. And it may seem to contradict another basic assumption of Naturalism : "nothing supernatural"*2. Both of those positions are presumptions, not conclusions from the empirical scientific method.

Ironically, some supporters of the Ppsyche idea are professional scientists (see my post above). Yet they will admit it's not an objective empirical observation, but a merely philosophical conjecture*3 from personal experience with the immaterial (i.e. mathematical) non-classical non-mechanical sub-atomic nature of the foundations of Reality. So, that raises the question : Is the Universal Mind Conjecture a plausible/tenable/rational philosophical (not scientific) inference/hunch/hypothesis (e.g. from quantum evidence) to explain the emergence of mental phenomena late in the evolution of material phenomena. If so, why or why not? I have an ulterior, but not nefarious, motive for soliciting your unbiased opinion.

My understanding of the traditional & modern Universal Mind theories is also superficial. As they used to say, "all I know is what I read in the papers"(e.g. Wiki). I'm not a member of any group of believers. But, as I understand it, the Cosmic Mind concept assumes that the quality of Consciousness (summarized as Mind) is prior to quantitative Matter. Hence, the material objects we know via the 5 senses, are manifestations of some loosely-defined mind-like power inherent in the universe. Some may think of that universal power as an eternal consciousness (e.g. Brahma). But others may be content to think of it as simply an impersonal primordial Principle of some kind : Logos. All cosmic conjectures are, of course, non-empirical, hence objectively unprovable.

Are you familiar with 21st century Information Theory? My own Information-centric view is similar to Ppsyche in some ways, except that the ultimate Principle (EnFormAction/Directed Energy) is not defined as a conscious Mind, but more like an evolutionary computer program. It's also limited to our best understanding of foundational sub-atomic Physics, plus observed evidence of astronomical evolution, and interpreted in terms of Information Theory. No reference to traditional or biblical or shamanic sources.

So, Enformationism is intended to be more specific in its definitions, and attempts to adhere more closely to current scientific knowledge. It also avoids putting words in the mouth of the Unknown God/Principle (e.g. thou shalt/shalt not). Instead, the "book of nature" (e.g. Laws of Physics) is the only Word (Logos) of the hypothetical Programmer. I know, it's a bit much to grok. But, does that kind of conjecture sound any more plausible/tenable, to you, than traditional Panpsychism? Yes, no, maybe?

*1. Is materialism an axiom or a metaphysical belief?
On this understanding, materialism is a metaphysical belief. It is unclear, however, whether we can consider it an axiom
https://www.quora.com/Is-materialism-an ... cal-belief

*2. Naturalism Is Not an Axiom of the Sciences but a Conclusion of Them :
the sciences have de facto conceded ontological naturalism: supernaturalist belief systems simply aren’t tenable anymore
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/16193

*3. Philosophical Conjecture :
In scientific philosophy, Karl Popper pioneered the use of the term "conjecture" to indicate a statement which is presumed to be real, true, or genuine, mostly based on inconclusive grounds, in contrast with a hypothesis (hence theory, axiom, principle), which is a testable statement based on accepted grounds.
https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Conjecture

[Gnomon]

↪Gnomon
You questions were incoherent . — apokrisis


Apo, I could say the same about the quote from your post. But I didn't want to be crass.

I was simply asking for clarification of unfamiliar jargon and technical idioms. Is that so hard?

[Gnomon]

You cut and paste all this stuff you don’t understand. That is why you can’t follow an informed discussion about it. — apokrisis

Sorry to have bothered you with dumb questions about an esoteric topic. I guess Biosemiotics is not for the uninformed general public. Are you reserving that secret information for only the cognoscenti?