How does the material brain initiate the material brain?

a reply to: neoholographic

In fact, it has been shown simply by things like the free will theorem that consciousness doesn't follow any set of mathematical algorithm that can be determined.

An algorithm doesn't need to be deterministic, it's possible to have an algorithm with completely unpredictable outputs if the algorithm has access to a source of truly random data. I already posted a link to a thread where I discussed why consciousness must exploit quantum randomness in order to have free will.

So there will always be some truths that computers can't prove - but which human beings can see are true!

Just because we can sense it is true doesn't mean we can prove it is true. If it cannot be proven mathematically then it cannot be proven by humans or computers. But we can use our intuition to conclude something is likely to be true. An algorithm could do the same thing to estimate the answer the same way a human does.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Again, you keep talking about these things without providing a shred of scientific evidence. You said:

If a computer cannot prove it then neither can we.

This is just an absurd statement.

You posted a link to a thread with more hyperbole and nonsense without a shred of evidence to support this nonsense.

For instance, when you do the math on the equivalence between Heisenberg and Schrodinger you see equivalence until the observer observes his own reference frame. When this occurs there isn't any equivalence. If this occurrence was just an algorithm mimicking consciousness or trying to estimate the answer through some algorithm there wouldn't be a change in equivalency.

Consciousness is something fundamentally different from the material brain and there isn't any complex algorithm doing any of this. If there was the math would clearly show us this and this is why Penrose called it NONSENSE!

It's also why you keep droning on without presented a shred of evidence.

Again, it's mathematically impossible because if it wasn't the math would clearly point to an algorithm and there wouldn't be a need for non equivalence and symmetry breakdown when an observer observes his own reference frame. If this was modeled by some mystery algorithm the math would tell us and there wouldn't be a breakdown in symmetry.

a reply to: neoholographic

If a computer cannot prove it then neither can we.

This is just an absurd statement.

Why? Explain to me how we can prove something without using math...

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I just did, see the above post as it pertains to consciousness being ran by your mystery algorithm. It's impossible!!

a reply to: neoholographic

No you didn't explain how a human can prove something a computer cannot prove. Give me one example of something that humans know is true but cannot be mathematically proven to be true.

Edit: also I should point out that your mumbo jumbo concerning equivalence and symmetry only seems to works if you apply a special status to the observer, which I would argue is totally incorrect, small measuring devices can collapse the wave function just like humans, even if we don't look at the information recorded by the measuring devices. It all boils down to decoherence, there is nothing about QM that indicates humans have a special observer status.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

A computer can't observe it's own reference frame and break down the symmetry between Heisenberg and Schrodinger. This is why your mystery algorithm is nonsense.

We know that a measurement occurs but we can't prove mathematically if the wave function collapses or not. Here's a recent poll:

In the poll, 42 percent of respondents said Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation was their favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics — no other interpretation received more than 24 percent of the votes.

Again, we know it to be true that when a measurement occurs a probable state of the wave function is observed instead of probabilities. We know it to be true but it cannot be mathematically proven why it's true or if there's a collapse of the wave function, no collapse or something else.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Sure there is.

Consciousness Does Not Compute (and Never Will), Says Korean Scientist

In his paper, "Non-computability of Consciousness," Daegene Song proves human consciousness cannot be computed. Song arrived at his conclusion through quantum computer research in which he showed there is a unique mechanism in human consciousness that no computing device can simulate.

What is that uniqueness? One thing is the fundamental breakdown of symmetry between Schrodinger and Heisenberg when a human observer observes his reference frame.

Song's work also shows consciousness is not like other physical systems like neurons, atoms or galaxies. "If consciousness cannot be represented in the same way all other physical systems are represented, it may not be something that arises out of a physical system like the brain," said Song. "The brain and consciousness are linked together, but the brain does not produce consciousness. Consciousness is something altogether different and separate. The math doesn't lie."

www.prnewswire.com...

Your mystery algorithm as consciousness is just silly.

a reply to: neoholographic

Again, we know it to be true that when a measurement occurs a probable state of the wave function is observed instead of probabilities. We know it to be true but it cannot be mathematically proven why it's true or if there's a collapse of the wave function, no collapse or something else.

That's untrue, if we knew what the correct interpretation of QM was then we would know what was really happening. And furthermore, there's no reason a self-aware android couldn't set up the double-slit experiment and then see an interference pattern. In fact all QM experiments could be performed by the android and they would all be the same. The android could then proceed to analyze the results and derive a theory based on the evidence. There's no reason I can see why it couldn't derive exactly the same laws of QM that we have today. They may not know what the correct interpretation of QM is, but they could build a theory from the evidence just like us. Basically what you're saying is that a machine cannot produce a theory based on evidence, which is clearly false.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Again, we're talking about your silly notion that an algorithm is consciousness without one shred of evidence.

Nobody said a machine couldn't derive the same laws with an algorithm that consciousness produced. Your post is about consciousness being some sort of algorithm and that's what this debate is about.

The android couldn't perform the double slit experiment and think about how it relates to himself and the nature of reality and break the symmetry between Schrodinger and Heisenberg.

This is the whole point of your threads that lack any evidence.

In his paper, "Non-computability of Consciousness," Daegene Song proves human consciousness cannot be computed. Song arrived at his conclusion through quantum computer research in which he showed there is a unique mechanism in human consciousness that no computing device can simulate.

I think this were the both of you may be arguing pointlessly. There would never be a computer worthy enough to create consciousness...in our dimension. But there is an algorithm if it does come from somewhere else. There would have to be because the implications of consciousness coming from elsewhere would lend credence to all the other evidence pointing towards a digital world. Take James Gates and what he found in string theory equations. Error correcting code 0's and 1's

a reply to: FlySolo

It can't be the case as it pertains to consciousness or the math would tell us this. Could there be an algorithm connected to the local universes that observers experience in space-time? Of course.

But consciousness being some sort of algorithm is just nonsense and we wouldn't see a breakdown in symmetry when an observer observes his own reference frame.

a reply to: neoholographic

The android couldn't perform the double slit experiment and think about how it relates to himself and the nature of reality and break the symmetry between Schrodinger and Heisenberg.

Once again this only seems to hold true if you're applying a special status to human observers. When I think about the double-slit experiment I don't think it says anything special about myself as a conscious observer. It says more about the nature of reality, it tells me that the universe is non-deterministic and probabilistic. There's no reason the android wouldn't reach the same conclusion after looking at the evidence. What makes humans so special that we cannot replicate ourselves with steel and silicon? The android could easily ponder the nature of its own existence if it had a conceptual model of its self and the world it existed in. What you really seem to be saying is that it cannot be aware of its own thoughts the way humans are. My response to that is just to add another layer of complexity to the algorithm, adding the ability to have thoughts about thoughts, self-reflection and self-diagnoses.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Again, this is just nonsense and it shows more evidence to support what I'm saying. You said:

Once again this only seems to hold true if you're applying a special status to human observers. When I think about the double-slit experiment I don't think it says anything special about myself as a conscious observer.

Of course you don't but other humans will see the double slit experiment and reach a very different conclusion. They can self reflect on these things and break the symmetry between Heisenberg and Schrodinger.

Of course there's a reason that an android wouldn't reach the same conclusion because we have no idea what it would mean to an android equipped with machine intelligence to reach the same conclusion or if it will ever reach the same conclusions in the same way as humans.

What we do know is that it will not be anything like human consciousness outside of our ability to mimic human consciousness through an intelligent algorithm.

Again, I don't what you're debating now because you must realize that your notion of an algorithm as consciousness is silly and impossible.

a reply to: neoholographic

Of course you don't but other humans will see the double slit experiment and reach a very different conclusion.

It has nothing to do with my personal conclusion, our experiments prove that there is nothing special about human observers compared to any other type of measuring device, conscious or not.

Again, I don't what you're debating now because you must realize that your notion of an algorithm as consciousness is silly and impossible.

Oh and your notion of consciousness as some undefinable thing is not silly?

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

First, I didn't say consciousness was undefinable. I said it can't be defined or confined by materialism or any silly notion of an algorithm.

I didn't say there was anything special about a human observer. I said there's something special about consciousness. The material brain isn't different than any other measuring device. The consciousness that interacts with the material brain can't be defined nor confined by the prison of materialism.

The material brain can't break the symmetry between Heisenberg and Schrodinger when it observes it's own reference. This is not the material brain that's doing this but consciousness.

Song's work also shows consciousness is not like other physical systems like neurons, atoms or galaxies. "If consciousness cannot be represented in the same way all other physical systems are represented, it may not be something that arises out of a physical system like the brain," said Song. "The brain and consciousness are linked together, but the brain does not produce consciousness. Consciousness is something altogether different and separate. The math doesn't lie."

If consciousness was a product of the material brain then it would be like any other material system but sadly for materialist this isn't the case.

a reply to: neoholographic

First, I didn't say consciousness was undefinable. I said it can't be defined or confined by materialism or any silly notion of an algorithm.

If it cannot be defined with mathematics then it cannot be defined with any tools we have. There is nothing silly about saying consciousness can be defined as an information processing system (aka an algorithm). It's fine if you want to say that consciousness is an emergent property of the information processing, but you're saying the processing it's self cannot be defined because it some how transcends all natural logic and math. What you are promoting is pseudo-science and you should understand that the researchers you are quoting are not exactly mainstream scientists. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat their mumbo jumbo, it doesn't make it any truer.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Bedlam

But that proves that microtubules vibrate at high frequencies. Maybe. What it doesn't prove, is that there's a quantum being/soul/spirit/ghost on the other end somehow driving the body like a car.

It proves that "For some unknown and unexplained reason" we have microtubules that vibrate in megahertz not hertz. Quantum vibrations, ultra fast. Not just high frequencies. Why?

That's a good question. I think it's a leap of illogic to say "I don't know what function this serves...therefore quantum soul is doing it". Also, that's not ultrafast, especially for a QM vibration. Recall, any molecule does this, it's how we get IR and microwave spectroscopy. Usually this happens in the THz range. So it's probably a structural thing with a microtubule that can get it down that slow, actually.

...and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality.

Why assume the "quantum structure of reality" is "proto-conscious"? That sounds a lot like a code word for spirit, no?

I'd assume it's chaotic, like thermal noise. Maybe the only function is provides, if any, is dithering.

Whilst this doesn't prove a soul or God puppeteer, it certainly leads to a trail of breadcrumbs in that direction. Can you take a metal bucket of circuits, put them together and create consciousness? That's what our meat brain is.

Your brain is amazingly complex. Why assume it requires a quantum spirit to operate it? If you posit that a quantum spirit can be complex enough to have a thought, then why is that same argument not applicable to a brain? Does the quantum spirit have to have a sub-quantum spirit?

eta: just want to mention anesthesia. We know how to use it, we know just how much to administer to a patient, we know where it comes from, but we still don't know how it works.

Most of them affect sodium channels in the neuron, and their mechanism of action is well-known.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Bedlam

You said:

Why do you think any "quantum component" of a nervous system exists at all? What proof do you have for it? Why should I invoke some invisible, uninstrumentable putative dualism construct to explain behavior? And, again, how do you explain the functioning of this invisible component? In what way does IT initiate thought?

Again, there's plenty of evidence that supports what I'm saying. The problem is there isn't a shred of evidence that supports that the material brain can initiate anything.

And less than a shred that there is a "quantum proto-consciouness".

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Bedlam

You said:

Why do you think any "quantum component" of a nervous system exists at all? What proof do you have for it? Why should I invoke some invisible, uninstrumentable putative dualism construct to explain behavior? And, again, how do you explain the functioning of this invisible component? In what way does IT initiate thought?

Again, there's plenty of evidence that supports what I'm saying. The problem is there isn't a shred of evidence that supports that the material brain can initiate anything.

And less than a shred that there is a "quantum proto-consciousness".

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Bedlam

You said:

Why do you think any "quantum component" of a nervous system exists at all? What proof do you have for it? Why should I invoke some invisible, uninstrumentable putative dualism construct to explain behavior? And, again, how do you explain the functioning of this invisible component? In what way does IT initiate thought?

Again, there's plenty of evidence that supports what I'm saying. The problem is there isn't a shred of evidence that supports that the material brain can initiate anything.

And less than a shred that there is a "quantum proto-consciousness".