• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 2

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's an interesting blog I came across last night:

Is it Possible That Everything is Made of Information?

“The duality of simulation and physical reality is an illusion like all dualities- the universe is the computation.”

It’s simulation that is an illusion. The duality is between information (abstract representation) and performance (aesthetic presentation). Computation is the distance between the two, not the unity. Only awareness can project a representation – representations themselves are inert. To quote a friend, “Math/ physics is ‘the map’ and Awareness per se is the ‘territory’.

Information does not account for the aesthetic qualities of sensation, feeling, and direct participation which comprise the universe. Because of the great success of the instrument of our era, the computer, many find it irresistible to use the metaphor of information processing to describe the brain, genetics, or physics itself. This is in keeping with the historical trend of describing the universe in terms of the newest and most sophisticated technology. In the industrial era, the universe was considered by many to be a machine, before that a clock, etc.

In my view, this is also a reaction against the anthropomorphic tendencies of religion. Many who view deity concepts as backward and superstitious are subconsciously compelled to the opposite polarity. If the universe is not teleological and divine, then it must be mechanical and generic. If the image of a conscious creator is absurdly naive, then the image of an unconscious process of calculation must be the height of sophistication.

The idea of information as universal is not without appeal. Certainly it provides enormous, even Godlike flexibility, so that no matter what phenomena we find in the universe, from gravitational lensing to the feeling of dizziness, “information” serves as the machina ex deus to religion’s deus ex machina. We have substituted sophisticated unrealism for naive realism, turning our own consciousness into an algebraic ‘simulation’ – a function in which sensory representations ‘emerge’ as properties of the computations they represent.

In my view, this does not quite work. Like religion, information-theoretic views have an inherent confirmation bias. When it comes to understanding consciousness itself, experiments which are based on measurement alone cannot be trusted to reveal the true nature of measurement itself. Measurement is analogy and metaphor. It can only account for the relation of one phenomena against the index of another, it cannot access the phenomena itself. All conceptualization of forms and functions automatically frame the context so that the appreciation/apprehension of those forms and participation in those functions is overlooked or taken for granted. For this reason, most who favor an info-centric view see information as including consciousness, but this is, in my estimation, a category error. It would be like confusing the code for a program with the electric or motive force that runs a computing machine. They are not merely different, they are diametrically opposed.

A lot of people take offense to Searle’s Chinese Room and project their own lack of understanding onto others, even vilifying Searle himself. Likewise, the Hard Problem of Consciousness written about by David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel are harshly treated for daring to set the qualities of awareness apart from the functions that we associate with it. An array of doctrines, from Logical Positivism to Functionalism, to Determinism, Structured Realism, Computationalism and Eliminativism share a deep and abiding intolerance for any thought which departs from the absolute belief in the disbelief of authentic subjectivity or direct perception. By committing to this ‘representation without presentation’, we make the mistake of amputating no less than half of the universe.

Here are three examples of what I mean. The information of a deck of cards is very easy to compute. Each card gets a number, each suit becomes one of four categories, also numbered with binary codes. You can now play any card game that you care to play. If you want them to look like cards, however, with red and black shapes and royal portraits, that is a much different trick to pull off. You need to invent a video screen, and eyes, colors and shapes, you need to invent human history to give meaning to the prestige of royal rankings. The players themselves need to be conjured into being to supply the intention to win, the significance of competition and improvement. These are things which cannot be simulated from the outside in. Mathematical functions don’t “want” to do anything, and projecting that want onto them selectively is no more scientific than any metaphysical doctrine of religion.

The second example involves computer passwords. Many people have found that using a keyboard-based password is more secure than using a memorized string of text. Knowing were to put your fingers and where to move them allows you to have a very cryptic password without having to know what the characters actually are. This was what Searle was getting at with the Chinese Room. Mechanical copying is not the same thing as understanding. Consciousness has many different levels, and the syntactic-informational level is only one of them. Because that computational level is the most public-facing and generic level, it is also the most universal. The Church-Turing thesis has codified that universality, saying that all computable functions can be digitally emulated. But digital is still not analog, and analog is still representation, not presentation. No matter how much computing we do, programs are no more able to understand the significance of what they are doing than an abacus. They still might have no genuine private experience.

The third example does not even involve consciousness, but aesthetics. As you know, a computer renders geometric shapes on a screen bit by bit. Even vector based graphics rely on a point to point simulation of geometry. When we resize a circle in Photoshop, the circle is erased and recreated as a new circle. All motion is inferred by manipulation of adjacent bits being turned on and off like a marquee effect or cells of a cartoon. The universe of information is one of Cartesian coordinates – charts or cards which display a static reference through which dynamism and animation can be inferred by the conscious viewer. To the computer itself, there is no memory, no perceptual caching of fluid motion. Unlike our perceptions of the real world, virtual realities must be constantly projected and are not grounded in the history of experience and physics. Information is more like the shadows on the wall of Plato’s cave. The only difference is that now we have decided that the shadows must be all there are.

Is it Possible That Everything is Made of Information? | Multisense Realism
 
Constance said:
Here's an interesting blog I came across last night:

Is it Possible That Everything is Made of Information?

“The duality of simulation and physical reality is an illusion like all dualities- the universe is the computation.”

It’s simulation that is an illusion. The duality is between information (abstract representation) and performance (aesthetic presentation). Computation is the distance between the two, not the unity. Only awareness can project a representation – representations themselves are inert. To quote a friend, “Math/ physics is ‘the map’ and Awareness per se is the ‘territory’.

Information does not account for the aesthetic qualities of sensation, feeling, and direct participation which comprise the universe. Because of the great success of the instrument of our era, the computer, many find it irresistible to use the metaphor of information processing to describe the brain, genetics, or physics itself. This is in keeping with the historical trend of describing the universe in terms of the newest and most sophisticated technology. In the industrial era, the universe was considered by many to be a machine, before that a clock, etc.

In my view, this is also a reaction against the anthropomorphic tendencies of religion. Many who view deity concepts as backward and superstitious are subconsciously compelled to the opposite polarity. If the universe is not teleological and divine, then it must be mechanical and generic. If the image of a conscious creator is absurdly naive, then the image of an unconscious process of calculation must be the height of sophistication.

The idea of information as universal is not without appeal. Certainly it provides enormous, even Godlike flexibility, so that no matter what phenomena we find in the universe, from gravitational lensing to the feeling of dizziness, “information” serves as the machina ex deus to religion’s deus ex machina. We have substituted sophisticated unrealism for naive realism, turning our own consciousness into an algebraic ‘simulation’ – a function in which sensory representations ‘emerge’ as properties of the computations they represent.

In my view, this does not quite work. Like religion, information-theoretic views have an inherent confirmation bias. When it comes to understanding consciousness itself, experiments which are based on measurement alone cannot be trusted to reveal the true nature of measurement itself. Measurement is analogy and metaphor. It can only account for the relation of one phenomena against the index of another, it cannot access the phenomena itself. All conceptualization of forms and functions automatically frame the context so that the appreciation/apprehension of those forms and participation in those functions is overlooked or taken for granted. For this reason, most who favor an info-centric view see information as including consciousness, but this is, in my estimation, a category error. It would be like confusing the code for a program with the electric or motive force that runs a computing machine. They are not merely different, they are diametrically opposed.

A lot of people take offense to Searle’s Chinese Room and project their own lack of understanding onto others, even vilifying Searle himself. Likewise, the Hard Problem of Consciousness written about by David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel are harshly treated for daring to set the qualities of awareness apart from the functions that we associate with it. An array of doctrines, from Logical Positivism to Functionalism, to Determinism, Structured Realism, Computationalism and Eliminativism share a deep and abiding intolerance for any thought which departs from the absolute belief in the disbelief of authentic subjectivity or direct perception. By committing to this ‘representation without presentation’, we make the mistake of amputating no less than half of the universe.

Here are three examples of what I mean. The information of a deck of cards is very easy to compute. Each card gets a number, each suit becomes one of four categories, also numbered with binary codes. You can now play any card game that you care to play. If you want them to look like cards, however, with red and black shapes and royal portraits, that is a much different trick to pull off. You need to invent a video screen, and eyes, colors and shapes, you need to invent human history to give meaning to the prestige of royal rankings. The players themselves need to be conjured into being to supply the intention to win, the significance of competition and improvement. These are things which cannot be simulated from the outside in. Mathematical functions don’t “want” to do anything, and projecting that want onto them selectively is no more scientific than any metaphysical doctrine of religion.

The second example involves computer passwords. Many people have found that using a keyboard-based password is more secure than using a memorized string of text. Knowing were to put your fingers and where to move them allows you to have a very cryptic password without having to know what the characters actually are. This was what Searle was getting at with the Chinese Room. Mechanical copying is not the same thing as understanding. Consciousness has many different levels, and the syntactic-informational level is only one of them. Because that computational level is the most public-facing and generic level, it is also the most universal. The Church-Turing thesis has codified that universality, saying that all computable functions can be digitally emulated. But digital is still not analog, and analog is still representation, not presentation. No matter how much computing we do, programs are no more able to understand the significance of what they are doing than an abacus. They still might have no genuine private experience.

The third example does not even involve consciousness, but aesthetics. As you know, a computer renders geometric shapes on a screen bit by bit. Even vector based graphics rely on a point to point simulation of geometry. When we resize a circle in Photoshop, the circle is erased and recreated as a new circle. All motion is inferred by manipulation of adjacent bits being turned on and off like a marquee effect or cells of a cartoon. The universe of information is one of Cartesian coordinates – charts or cards which display a static reference through which dynamism and animation can be inferred by the conscious viewer. To the computer itself, there is no memory, no perceptual caching of fluid motion. Unlike our perceptions of the real world, virtual realities must be constantly projected and are not grounded in the history of experience and physics. Information is more like the shadows on the wall of Plato’s cave. The only difference is that now we have decided that the shadows must be all there are.

Is it Possible That Everything is Made of Information? | Multisense Realism
Click to expand...
Constance, recall what Deutsch said when talking about Contructor Theory: information is physical.

Many mathematicians to this day don't realize that information is physical and that there is no such thing as an abstract computer.​

The kind of information Bob Doyle, Tonini, and Pharaoh are talking about is not abstract, simulated, computed information. In IIT 3.0, it is explicitly stated that the information referred to is causal states of physical elements (neurons) and that the information they generate is not "processed" or computed.

In IIT, the relationship between the MICS generated by a complex of mechanisms, such as a brain, and the environment to which it is adapted, is not one of ‘‘information processing’’, but rather one of ‘‘matching’’ between internal and external causal structures [4,6].
​
The information Pharoah refers to is likewise embodied in the physical structure of organisms and also their neurons.

While brains appears to manipulate and process data/information, it is done on a completely physical, causal level; information is not computed the way it is in a computer simulation.

Thus, for me, to say that subjective experience is information is not to say that its not real, physical, or realized via interaction with the real physical world (save for dreaming and other altered states).

For me, consciousness is meaning — phenomenal and conceptual meaning. Organisms make meaning (information) by adapting to the regular, physical patterns (data) in their environment.

Pharaoh makes this explicit in his HCT as does IIT in version 3.0.

While emphasizing the self-referential nature of concepts and meaning, IIT naturally recognizes that in the end most concepts owe their origin to the presence of regularities in the environment, to which they ultimately must refer, albeit only indirectly. This is because the mechanisms specifying the concepts have themselves been honed under selective pressure from the environment during evolution, development, and learning [65–67].​
 
Last edited:
Soupie 1844: exactly!!
The blog post entitled "Is it Possible That Everything is Made of Information?" has taken the typically narrow view on information: the bogger is correct from this stance on 'information'. But I would encourage anyone to throw out the old computational, data constructing, Shannonian notion of what information is. As an alternative, consider what might consistitute 'natural-information' (biological, neurochemical, neuro-mechanical). Natural-information does not constitute information by virtue of it 'taking the information-data of environmental experience and processing it'. Alternatvely, one can think of its "construct" as being, in itself an 'information-type' . What these constructions do - in terms of processing environmental interaction - is not the 'information'. What they are - in terms of why environmental interaction happens to get processed - is why they are information constructs.
ITT isn't the right interpretation either imo.

In the past I have had extensive communications with Peter Carruthers. I like the way he views things, In particular c.f. "natural theories of consciousness" survey article. But his Dispositional HOT is objectionable and few can take it seriously. I think of DHOT as being a great example of the danger of logically determined rationality.
 
Soupie said:
While brains appears to manipulate and process data/information, it is done on a completely physical, causal level; information is not computed the way it is in a computer simulation.

The kind of information Bob Doyle, Tonini, and Pharaoh are talking about is not abstract, simulated, computed information. In IIT 3.0, it is explicitly stated that the information referred to is causal states of physical elements (neurons) and that the information they generate is not "processed" or computed.

In IIT, the relationship between the MICS generated by a complex of mechanisms, such as a brain, and the environment to which it is adapted, is not one of ‘‘information processing’’, but rather one of ‘‘matching’’ between internal and external causal structures [4,6].
Click to expand...

"The kind of information Bob Doyle, Tonini, and Pharaoh are talking about is not abstract, simulated, computed information. In IIT 3.0, it is explicitly stated that the information referred to is causal states of physical elements (neurons) and that the information they generate is not "processed" or computed.

In IIT, the relationship between the MICS generated by a complex of mechanisms, such as a brain, and the environment to which it is adapted, is not one of ‘‘information processing’’, but rather one of ‘‘matching’’ between internal and external causal structures [4,6]."

We talked here a week or two ago about the significant developments in Tononi's description of the changes in his IIT.3. Evidently his concept of 'information' has expanded and become more complex since he states in his two most recent papers that IIT.3 no longer considers living systems to operate the same way computers do in terms of 'information' and 'integrating' information.

Pharoah writes in his response to your last post: "What these constructions do - in terms of processing environmental interaction - is not the 'information'. What they are - in terms of why environmental interaction happens to get processed - is why they are information constructs."

Just to be sure I follow, Pharoah, are you now speaking of 'interaction' as taking place between organisms and their environments, and does your theory recognize the open-endedness in the behavior of organisms in time?

Also you wrote: "ITT isn't the right interpretation either imo."

Are you referring to ITT in versions 1 and 2, or in version 3?
 
Last edited:
Can Mind Affect Matter
Via Active Information?

Basil J. Hiley
Birkbeck College
University of London, United Kingdom
and
Paavo Pylkk¨anen
School of Humanities and Informatics
University of Sk¨ovde, Sweden

Abstract

Mainstream cognitive neuroscience typically ignores the role of
quantum physical effects in the neural processes underlying cognition
and consciousness. However, many unsolved problems remain,
suggesting the need to consider new approaches. We propose that
quantum theory, especially through an ontological interpretation
due to Bohm and Hiley, provides a fruitful framework for addressing
the neural correlates of cognition and consciousness. In particular,
the ontological interpretation suggests that a novel type of “active
information”, connected with a novel type of “quantum potential
energy”, plays a key role in quantum physical processes. After introducing
the ontological interpretation we illustrate its value for
cognitive neuroscience by discussing it in the light of a proposal
by Beck and Eccles about how quantum tunneling could play a
role in controlling the frequency of synaptic exocytosis. In this
proposal, quantum tunneling would enable the “self” to control
its brain without violating the energy conservation law. We argue
that the ontological interpretation provides a sharper picture of
what actually could be taking place in quantum tunneling in general
and in synaptic exocytosis in particular. Based on the notions
of active information and quantum potential energy, we propose a
coherent way of understanding how mental processes (understood
as involving non-classical physical processes) can act on traditional,
classically describable neural processes without violating the energy
conservation law.

http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Hiley2005.pdf
 
Soupie said:
Haha!


This is a non-vitalist view, correct. (Don't want to put words in your mouth.)

I think viruses are interesting in this regard, as they are — hell, I don't know what they are — organic information constructs that seem to bridge the gap between non-living matter and living matter. I agree with you — I think — that life is a process not a thing.

And I think consciousness is the same. And that I do not think you'd agree with.


I'm honestly not playing dumb, but what is the argument for non-local consciousness?

What I've gathered from you and Constance has been NDEs, OBEs, past life memories and the current inability to fully describe the apparent relation between the body and experience.
Click to expand...

"This is a non-vitalist view, correct. (Don't want to put words in your mouth.)"

I was talking about where we draw the line between life and not life.

"And I think consciousness is the same. And that I do not think you'd agree with."

I don't know exactly what consciousness is.
 
Soupie said:
If life evolved from non-life, organic material may have been more (or the only substrate) conducive to this process.

However, now that life and intelligence are established, perhaps a transition to non-organics is now feasible.


And playing is what I who so often am accused of proclimating am doing.


My point is that neither non-organic life/intelligence nor human driven evolution need be considered non-natural. Although one could make the argument.

The crux for me is that the supernatural is excluded, not non-organics and teleology.


Ok. But would agree that historically man has arrived at incorrect — albeit explanatory meaning and science has helped us develop better — perhaps more truerist — narratives?
Click to expand...

"And playing is what I who so often am accused of proclimating am doing?"

I don't understand this sentence? Proclaiming?

"If life evolved from non-life, organic material may have been more (or the only substrate) conducive to this process."

As far as we know, this could perhaps be true.

"However, now that life and intelligence are established, perhaps a transition to non-organics is now feasible."

Perhapsical statements may be truthy. We just don't want to assume feasible is preferable - while we examine that question we can look at other possibilities.

"My point is that neither non-organic life/intelligence nor human driven evolution need be considered non-natural. Although one could make the argument."

I'm not at all sure it's possible not to agree with this statement.

"The crux for me is that the supernatural is excluded, not non-organics and teleology."

I think that's a very good crux for you to bare. The supernatural can't be scientifically excluded but it's interesting because I thought you referred to "God" several time recently ... I will double check for Tricksterish context. ;-)

Natural teleology as Nagel defines it?
 
Soupie said:
I didnt ask for proof or evidence, I asked for an argument/theory.

I don't recall even one suggestion from Constance regarding the non-locality of consciousness. Maybe a book about quantum/entangled consciousness? Constance has certainly never provided a theory/argument for the non-locality of consciousness.

Constance won't even explain how consciousness might have naturally evolved along with biological life but at the same time not be ontologically physical/material.

Re: Radin: If I recall, his work is on psi. That the brain/mind may causally effect non-local physical objects does not mean the mind is non-local. As Constance has noted, she (and apparently Radin himself) has identified quantum entanglement (a notably physical process) as the potential mechanism of psi.

Unless I'm missing something, Radin's work doesn't indicate that the mind itself is non-local, nor does it indicate the mind in non-physical.
Click to expand...

You talk about consciousness and then mind being non local - it's a good time to define non local mind and non local consciousness.

I'm wondering now if you have looked at the evidence page I referred to? I ask because it isn't just Radin's work. It's about 100 articles published on Psi and some deal with non local cobsciousness and survival.

"The inevitable conclusion that consciousness can be experienced independently of brain function might well induce a huge change in the scientific paradigm in western medicine, " - Van Lommel

Again - I DONT say they are conclusive but I do say if we are going to exclude non local consciousness, then it should be done after examining the evidence and theories, not before.

As for theories of I refer you to Google - variations of theory of non local consciousness as search term returned relevant hints.

Which books have you read by Radin?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Soupie, you might want to check Wikipedia for an overview of quantum nonlocality and also the wiki article on quantum entanglement for starters..
 
smcder said:
"The crux for me is that the supernatural is excluded, not non-organics and teleology."

I think that's a very good crux for you to bare. The supernatural can't be scientifically excluded but it's interesting because I thought you referred to "God" several time recently ... I will double check for Tricksterish context.
Click to expand...
I meant in reference to whether something is considered "natural."

I would still consider natural, life transitioning to a non-organic substrate via human effort. To me, that would be a natural process.

What I wouldn't consider natural would be the intervention of supernatural being(s).

As for the actual existence of supernatural beings, I'm agnostic.

I have looked over the page of studies you shared awhile back. I didn't read all the studies but I did read a few, 2-3. I've never read a book by Radin.
 
I'd be very open to you (and constance) posting some interesting, thought provoking accounts if NDEs, OBEs, and psi that may challenge the materialist paradigm.

I don't have any personal experience with the paranormal, so I don't often consider it when pondering consciousness, etc.

One thing I think we've all agreed on regarding consciousness is that it seems to be related to brains (and bodies).

We've said we need to have theories that account for paranormal phenomena (but the interaction with the brain as well of course).

Other than the radio/filter theory, what other theories/models might there be?

I agree, let's try to get out of the cul de sac!
 
Soupie said:
I meant in reference to whether something is considered "natural."

I would still consider natural, life transitioning to a non-organic substrate via human effort. To me, that would be a natural process.

What I wouldn't consider natural would be the intervention of supernatural being(s).

As for the actual existence of supernatural beings, I'm agnostic.

I have looked over the page of studies you shared awhile back. I didn't read all the studies but I did read a few, 2-3. I've never read a book by Radin.
Click to expand...

Good answers! We'll talk of other things then.

As worded there I don't think I'd consider supernatural intervention natural either! We could play a lot with words here ... but let's don't.

The main thing I think is that we seem to agree there's not much to talk about in re supernatural beings for now.
 
Soupie said:
I'd be very open to you (and constance) posting some interesting, thought provoking accounts if NDEs, OBEs, and psi that may challenge the materialist paradigm.

I don't have any personal experience with the paranormal, so I don't often consider it when pondering consciousness, etc.

One thing I think we've all agreed on regarding consciousness is that it seems to be related to brains (and bodies).

We've said we need to have theories that account for paranormal phenomena (but the interaction with the brain as well of course).

Other than the radio/filter theory, what other theories/models might there be?

I agree, let's try to get out of the cul de sac!
Click to expand...

"I'd be very open to you (and constance) posting some interesting, thought provoking accounts if NDEs, OBEs, and psi that may challenge the materialist paradigm."

And I thought we had. I have to question your interest if you've only read 2-3 studies and otherwise aren't aware of what's already been posted in that regard. But if you are open - you might spend some time searching through the thread.

I feel if someone is open to something then they will pursue it for themselves in due course.

But when people say I'm open to you doing the work for me ... I've found they aren't very interested, aren't likely to read what you present to them and will tend to be dismissive.

I don't say that applies to you now - but it's been my experience in general.

Finally, I'm not an advocate or denier of non local theories of consciousness - I've presented what I know about them and I would be interested in discussing them where relevant. But I'm not interested in convincing anyone one way or the other.

But the same questions keep coming up for you (and also on Buddhism, meditation, McGilChrist and now Radin) but you admit to not reading the source material - and I don't know how to have a discussion under those circumstances. In the past it's just been an exchange of

"What I've understood of what I've read is"

with

"My impression is"

And it's not gotten us very far! ;-)

Is that fair?
 
What you might do, Soupie, in addition to reading the many posts and links we've entered in this thread (parts 1 and 2) is to google the terms of interest you mentioned. You can also search those terms with the Paracast's search engine. Psychical and parapsychological research are both extensive fields of research and no one can appreciate their significance from a handful of articles. Spirituality is another topic you might research historically. Steve has posted numerous explanations and links concerning Eastern thought and mysticism. None of this requires a belief in 'The Supernatural'. If you find something interesting you want to bring here for discussion, I and I'm sure Steve will be happy to engage that.
Oh, and you should also explore the physics experiments and theories concerning nonlocality and entanglement in nature and explore the quantum contributions to neuroscience and consciousness studies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top