On 5/6/2017 9:04 PM, Kip Ingram wrote:
The initial reply to this post stated the need to define free will before seeking its origins. My own definition is "the injection of new information into a dynamic system." Not the injection of randomness, but rather the injection of /information/. As noted in other replies, the only avenue for the entry of anything otherwise undetermined by the system's prior state is necessarily quantum.

If I look up and see a meteorite streak across the sky that is new information injected into me that did not depend on my prior state.

The objection then raised is that quantum uncertainty is random. However, we don't truly know that.

We know it as truly as we know what "quantum uncertainty" means. All theories are provisional.

Laboratory experiments on ensembles of identically prepared systems typically show a certain set of statistics corresponding to solutions of Schrodinger's equation. However, any given run of the experiment can make no prediction beyond those statistics as to which of those possible outcomes will arise.

That's what random means, it only predicts statistics.


These experiments are not done within the brains of living things, and furthermore (even if such an in-brain experiment is conducted someday) it is impossible to prepare an /ensemble/ of such systems such that they have identical starting conditions. The circumstances of life within which we exercise our free will occur uniquely and cannot be repeated. So there is simply no way to completely rule out the possibility that quantum processes within the brain serve as a conduit for the application of intelligent, non-random free will into our behaviors.

Nor is there a way to rule out that our behavior is completely deterministic and the new information comes from the environment. But evolution would obviously favor development of the latter.


Free will seems to become the focal points of conversations like this much more than it should, though. The simple presence of self-awareness is adequate to bring the key issues to the surface. Though none of us can directly observe the self-awareness of others, each of us can observe our own. When you kick the tires of mainstream theories of physics in search for the mechanism of self-awareness, you come up completely dry. There simply is no theory. There are claims - theories of "emergence" - but none of these claims have any rigor associated with them. The primary reasoning is simply "there can't be anything other than the physical entities our theories embrace, so self-awareness must arise from those." Since no simple theory can be brought forth, complexity beyond our ability to fully process is invoked as required.

I'm not here to say that theories of emergence are wrong and theories that self-awareness is a more fundamental aspect of reality are right. I'm hear to say that neither proposal has enough scientific rigor behind it to be taken for granted, and neither proposal has enough scientific evidence against it to be tossed aside. Those of us who truly want nothing but to understand will keep both ideas open as possibilities and look for ways to advance one or the other set of ideas or to find a way to gain preference for one.

The almost rabid antagonism that many seem to have toward the idea that consciousness might be anything other than purely phsyical frankly baffles me. I've tried to understand it, and the only explanation I've been able to come up with is that they fear the idea will be used as a way to "back door" religious concepts into the discussion - they view it as a "front in a war between science and religion.". I see no basis for this. I've spent many years pondering the nature of our consciousness, and as far as I'm concerned even if we proved completely that our own consciousness arose in a non-physical way we should not conclude from that the existence of a "super-charged" version of that consciousness. The one does not imply the other in any way.

The common idea is not that consciousness is non-physical (democracy and insurance are non-physical) but that it is super-physical, i.e. that thought drives physical changes. This is a natural conclusion from the observation that we seem to be able to move our bodies by thoughts, desires, decisions,... But it's extension to psychokinesis, teleportation, remote-viewing, faith-healing, etc. has been the playground of charlatans.


I am an electrical engineer with specialization in digital and computer related systems by profession. I feel /thoroughly/ sure that the hardware of standard computers offers no basis for self-awareness, and I am almost as sure that software systems don't either. We completely understand the physics of computers. Basically computers simply throw switches in a controlled, algorithmic manner. Each switch (transistor) is either open or closed, and is in that state due to voltages applied at its terminals. No transistor has any "knowledge" of the state of any other transistor or of any global patterns in the overall state of the system. For that reason I feel that any physical explanation for consciousness will require some sort of quantum component.

You seem to reason informally that because we understand how a computer works it can't be self-aware. I'd say that first that's a non-sequitur and second we don't necessarily understand how a computer works just because we know how each component (gate, transistor,...) works. For example, no one knows anymore about how Watson works than they know how a child works. They know it learned things from various sources, but the only way to find out what it thinks about a question is to ask it. You could no more determine what it thought by watching its transistor states than your could know what the child was thinking by seeing it's neurons fire.


If all we had to do was explain the observed external behavior of conscious agents, then I see no issue. I feel sure that a sufficiently powerful (standard, deterministic) computational system could emulate these behaviors to an arbitrary degree of accuracy, if provided with enough sufficiently clever programming. But that is not all we have to do - we also must explain our internal conscious experiences.

Earlier, you speculated that awareness may be fundamental, by which you meant not explicable by physics. But what does that mean? Does fundamental mean not explicable in terms of anything else. Does it mean physics can't change awareness (obviously untrue).

No standard, deterministic computer will ever have such experiences.

Sounds like dogma.

Will a quantum computer, if and when we develop one? I really don't know - obviously we living things /are/ physical systems that are either directly capable of conscious experience or are used as "interfaces" by entities that are. I see no reason to feel that /only/ biological systems like us can fill that role. We indeed might find a way to create such systems in the future. But I feel sure quantum physics will be required to make that happen.

Of course every computer is already a quantum in the sense that all physical objects obey QM (we think). The evolution of a quantum system can be emulated by a Turing machine - so whatever can be computed by a quantum computer can be computed by a classical digital computer up to some arbitrary accuracy. The quantum computer only offers a significant speed up for some problems. Scott Aaronson sometimes argues that this difference in speed makes a qualitative difference - but that doesn't seem to be your point.


On Friday, January 17, 2014 at 6:46:04 AM UTC-6, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

    All,

    This has nothing to do with consciousness, but it may have
    something to do with the origin of free will.


I think the origin of free will is just that we cannot predict our thoughts and actions. That doesn't need to come from any quantum randomness, although that might be a factor, but just from Bruno's observation that we can't know which machine (which program) we are.

Brent

    Edgar


          Discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain
          neurons corroborates controversial 20-year-old theory of
          consciousness


              January 16, 2014

    *[+]* <http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/Microtubule.png>

    /Structure of a microtubule. The ring shape depicts a microtubule
    in cross-section, showing the 13 protofilaments surrounding a
    hollow center. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)/

    A review and update
    <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188> of
a controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness published in Elsevier’s /Physics of Life Reviews/ (open access) claims that
    consciousness derives from deeper-level, finer-scale activities
    inside brain neurons.

    The recent discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules inside
    brain neurons corroborates this theory, according to review
    authors Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose. They suggest that
    EEG rhythms (brain waves) also derive from deeper level
    microtubule vibrations, and that from a practical standpoint,
    treating brain microtubule vibrations could benefit a host of
    mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions.

    Microtubules <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtubule> are major
    components of the structural skeleton of cells.

    The theory, called “orchestrated objective reduction
    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction>”
    (‘Orch OR’), was first put forward in the mid-1990s by eminent
    mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose, FRS, Mathematical
    Institute and Wadham College, University of Oxford, and prominent
    anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, MD, Anesthesiology, Psychology
    and Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona,
    Tucson.

    *[+]* <http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/Microtubule-automaton.png>

    /Three time-steps (e.g. at 10 megahertz) of a microtubule
    automaton. Tubulin subunit dipole states (yellow, blue) represent
    information. (Left three) Spin currents interact and compute along
    spiral lattice pathways. For example (upper, middle in each
    microtubule) two upward traveling blue spin waves intersect,
    generating a new vertical spin wave (a “glider gun” in cellular
    automata). (Right three) A general microtubule automata process.
    (Credit: P. Dustin, Microtubules, Springer-Verlag)/

    They suggested that quantum vibrational computations in
    microtubules were “orchestrated” (“Orch”) by synaptic inputs and
    memory stored in microtubules, and terminated by Penrose
    “objective reduction” (‘OR’), hence “Orch OR.”

    *Warm quantum coherence*

    Orch OR was harshly criticized from its inception, as the brain
    was considered too “warm, wet, and noisy” for seemingly delicate
    quantum processes. However, evidence has now shown warm quantum
    coherence in plant photosynthesis, bird brain navigation, our
    sense of smell, and brain microtubules.

    The recent discovery of warm-temperature quantum vibrations in
    microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by
    Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material
    Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the
    pair’s theory and suggests that EEG rhythms also derive from
    deeper level microtubule vibrations.

    In addition, work from the laboratory of Roderick G. Eckenhoff,
    MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that anesthesia,
    which selectively erases consciousness while sparing non-conscious
    brain activities, acts via microtubules in brain neurons.

    “The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe,
    the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex
    computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or
    has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as
    spiritual approaches maintain?” ask Hameroff and Penrose in the
    current review.

    “This opens a potential Pandora’s Box, but our theory accommodates
    both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum
    vibrations in microtubules (protein polymers inside brain
    neurons), which govern neuronal and synaptic function, and also
    connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine
    scale, ‘proto-conscious’ quantum structure of reality.”

    After 20 years of skeptical criticism, “the evidence now clearly
    supports Orch OR,” continue Hameroff and Penrose. “Our new paper
    updates the evidence, clarifies Orch OR quantum bits, or “qubits,”
    as helical pathways in microtubule lattices, rebuts critics, and
    reviews 20 testable predictions of Orch OR published in 1998 — of
    these, six are confirmed and none refuted.”

    *Hidden origins of EEG*

    An important new facet of the theory is introduced. Microtubule
    quantum vibrations (e.g. in the megahertz frequency range) appear
    to interfere and produce much slower EEG “beat frequencies.”
    Despite a century of clinical use, the underlying origins of EEG
    rhythms have remained a mystery. Clinical trials of brief brain
    stimulation — aimed at microtubule resonances with megahertz
    mechanical vibrations using transcranial ultrasound — have shown
    reported improvements in mood, and may prove useful against
    Alzheimer’s disease and brain injury in the future.

    Lead author Stuart Hameroff concludes, “Orch OR is the most
    rigorous, comprehensive and successfully-tested theory of
    consciousness ever put forth. From a practical standpoint,
    treating brain microtubule vibrations could benefit a host of
    mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions.”

    The review is accompanied by eight commentaries from outside
    authorities, including an Australian group of Orch OR
    arch-skeptics. To all, Hameroff and Penrose respond robustly.

    Penrose, Hameroff and Bandyopadhyay will explore their theories
    during a session on “Microtubules and the Big Consciousness
    Debate” at the Brainstorm Sessions, a public three-day event at
    the Brakke Grond in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, January 16-18,
    2014
    
<http://www.brakkegrond.nl/programma/1253/Penrose_Bandyopadhyay_Hameroff/Lezing_Microtubuli_het_grote_debat_over_het_bewustzijn/#eng>.

    They will engage skeptics in a debate on the nature of
    consciousness, and Bandyopadhyay and his team will couple
    microtubule vibrations from active neurons to play Indian musical
    instruments. “Consciousness depends on anharmonic vibrations of
    microtubules inside neurons, similar to certain kinds of Indian
    music, but unlike Western music, which is harmonic,” Hameroff
    explains.

    /Full disclosure: I have collaborated with Jack Tuszynski, a
    co-author with Hameroff, in developing patent applications related
    to microtubules. — Amara D. Angelica/

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    *Abstract of Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch
    OR’ theory*

    The nature of consciousness, the mechanism by which it occurs in
    the brain, and its ultimate place in the universe are unknown. We
    proposed in the mid 1990ʼs that consciousness depends on
    biologically ‘orchestrated’ coherent quantum processes in
    collections of microtubules within brain neurons, that these
    quantum processes correlate with, and regulate, neuronal synaptic
    and membrane activity, and that the continuous Schrödinger
    evolution of each such process terminates in accordance with the
    specific Diósi–Penrose (DP) scheme of ‘objective reduction’ (‘OR’)
    of the quantum state. This orchestrated OR activity (‘Orch OR’) is
    taken to result in moments of conscious awareness and/or choice.
    The DP form of OR is related to the fundamentals of quantum
    mechanics and space–time geometry, so Orch OR suggests that there
    is a connection between the brainʼs biomolecular processes and the
    basic structure of the universe. Here we review Orch OR in light
    of criticisms and developments in quantum biology, neuroscience,
    physics and cosmology. We also introduce a novel suggestion of
    ‘beat frequencies’ of faster microtubule vibrations as a possible
    source of the observed electro-encephalographic (‘EEG’) correlates
    of consciousness. We conclude that consciousness plays an
    intrinsic role in the universe.


          REFERENCES:

      * Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose, Consciousness in the
        universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory, Physics of Life
        Reviews, Aug. 20, 2013
        <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188>


          RELATED:

      * Discovery of Quantum Vibrations in “Microtubules” Inside Brain
        Neurons Corroborates Controversial 20-Year-Old Theory of
        Consciousness
        
<http://3blmedia.com/News/Health/Discovery-Quantum-Vibrations-Microtubules-Inside-Brain-Neurons-Corroborates>

    *Topics:* Cognitive Science/Neuroscie

    __._,_.___

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to