Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 9

[smcder]

One might respond:

"Because emergent properties cannot be reduced to smaller parts and are instead a combination of smaller parts and their interactions, the properties come from primary properties but aren't found in primary properties."

So when we look at the parts of a brain--the neurons--we can't see the emergent property. Likewise, if we look at the individual water molecules that combine and interact to realize a wave, we will not see a wave. So molecule is to wave as neuron is to green.

But a difference remains: When we observe combinations of interacting molecules was see waves. But when we observe combinations of interacting neurons we do not see green.

Why is this? It seems very, very intuitive that phenomenal consciousness emerges from combinations of interacting neurons. There are heaps of evidence that combinations of interacting neurons are crucial to phenomenal consciousness, and yet this curious distinction remains.

There are many types of neutral mon

Kidneys and bile are both objective, but brains and minds are not both objective.

That's why the analogy doesn't work.

My position is perhaps better described as neutral monist. However I don't think of consciousness and matter as being ontologically equal.

What does it mean that consciousness and matter are not ontologically equal?

 

[smcder]

neutral monism and psi (sigh)

(@Soupie - did you write this???)

Psi and the Problem of Consciousness

https://philpapers.org/archive/WILPAT-20.pdf

Abstract
In this paper, I consider what the growing evidence in parapsychology can tell us about the nature of consciousness. Parapsychology remains controversial because it implies deviations from the understanding that many scientists and philosophers hold about the nature of reality. However, given the difficulties in explaining consciousness, a growing number of philosophers have called for new, possibly radical, explanations, which include versions of dualism or panpsychism. In this spirit, I briefly review the evidence on psi to see what explanation of consciousness might best be supported. After a brief survey of the evidence, I conclude that the best explanation would probably be neutral monism. I then explore a framework for neutral monism, using well-known features of quantum mechanics, to develop a ground or bridge between consciousness and matter. This framework, which I believe helps explain the psi evidence, suggests that a non-local proto-conscious field of potential or seed stuff underlies both matter and consciousness.

 

[smcder]

Psi and the problem of consciousness
https://philpapers.org/archive/WILPAT-20.pdf

Conclusion

The intractable nature of the explanatory gap between subjective experience and everything we know about matter will likely remain until more radical views on matter are considered. I argue here that the literature on psi helps to provide some useful direction for this problem. While serious discussion of psi remains taboo in many quarters of academia, the cumulated evidence does confirm significant effects (albeit small or modest). Thus a strong attachment to purely materialistic explanations of consciousness appears unwarranted. Including the results from random number field experiments field experiments and the Global Coherence Project, we must confront a view where the most subtle processes of matter are deeply intertwined with consciousness. Skeptics of psi have often argued that accepting such evidence requires a revision of everything we know. Such arguments assume, however, that more orthodox theories completely and satisfactorily explain our world. This is of course not the case for two areas of interest most closely related to psi: consciousness and quantum mechanics. As I have attempted to show, an examination of psi will likely help shed light on the mysteries in those areas as well. We must consider the possibility that the mysterious natures of each of these are rooted in a common source.

Two concerns behind the taboo of Psi

1. something "spooky" is implied
2. having to revise everything we know

 

[smcder]

Psi and the problem of consciousness
https://philpapers.org/archive/WILPAT-20.pdf

Implications for Quantum Mechanics

Recall that while both versions of neutral monism via Bohm and Hameroff were rooted in quantum mechanics, neither was developed with the intention of explaining psi phenomena. Further, it isn’t clear that the Hameroff and Prenrose theory can be expanded to allow for the kind of mind–matter interaction I reviewed earlier. Hameroff and Penrose describe objective reduction as a process originating from the Plank scale within the brain’s microtubules that creates the experience of consciousness. With causality running this direction, it is not clear how conscious intention might affect the probabilities residing within the neutral stratum underling mind and matter. On the other hand, the frameworks of Bohm and Stapp appear flexible enough to accommodate psi experiments. Those sympathetic to a view of reality that supports mind–matter interactions often invoke the conventional theory of quantum mechanics, which invokes the waveform collapse. However, as I have noted, Bohm’s later work describes an implicate order as a foundation of wholeness embracing both mind and matter. While he does not invoke the waveform collapse, the underlying unity between mind and matter within his framework nevertheless supports psi phenomena. In fact, Bohm (1990) himself has speculated how his notion of the implicate order could be used to understand the psychokinesis data. It is less clear how this model fits with the conventional waveform collapse descriptions of quantum mechanics. Like the proposed framework, waveform collapse models see indeterminism as an inherent aspect of reality. There are different mechanisms of collapse, however. Wigner (1967) and Stapp (1993) have argued that the consciousness of the observer plays an essential role in the collapse of the waveform. As noted, this interpretation has natural appeal for a theory of psi. However, the theory does not just imply that consciousness affects matter or provides a mechanism for information transfer; the theory implies that the stable feature of matter that we experience requires the consciousness of the observer. However, the random number generator field effects suggest that collective or shared emotions (which might be unconscious) may affect quantum mechanical probabilities. Thus the role that consciousness plays in psi may not be congruent with the waveform collapse theories favored by Wigner and Stapp. The interpretation proposed here is likely most problematic to the Everett or many-worlds explanation of quantum mechanics. Recall for this theory that the probabilistic feature of quantum mechanics implies multiple worlds or universes; every possible state described by the quantum mechanical equations exists. This interpretation clashes with the view developed here (based on psi evidence) that groups sharing emotions can affect quantum probabilities. Thus it appears (perhaps ironically) that taking the psi evidence seriously leads us toward accepting a more common sense view of reality.

Conclusion

The intractable nature of the explanatory gap between subjective experience and everything we know about matter will likely remain until more radical views on matter are considered. I argue here that the literature on psi helps to provide some useful direction for this problem. While serious discussion of psi remains taboo in many quarters of academia, the cumulated evidence does confirm significant effects (albeit small or modest). Thus a strong attachment to purely materialistic explanations of consciousness appears unwarranted. Including the results from random number field experiments field experiments and the Global Coherence Project, we must confront a view where the most subtle processes of matter are deeply intertwined with consciousness. Skeptics of psi have often argued that accepting such evidence requires a revision of everything we know. Such arguments assume, however, that more orthodox theories completely and satisfactorily explain our world. This is of course not the case for two areas of interest most closely related to psi: consciousness and quantum mechanics. As I have attempted to show, an examination of psi will likely help shed light on the mysteries in those areas as well. We must consider the possibility that the mysterious natures of each of these are rooted in a common source.

Two concerns behind the taboo of Psi that this seems to avoid:

1. something "spooky" is implied

2. having to revise everything we know

 

[Soupie]

What does it mean that consciousness and matter are not ontologically equal?

In most forms of NM, matter and consciousness are thought of as both arising from a neutral substrate.

My way of thinking about NM is subtley different. I think of consciousness as arising from neutral background/substrate, and matter as arising from consciousness.

This approach sounds quite radical, but it's actually not too far off from mainstream ways of thinking about reality.

Most physicists when pressed would agree that our perceptions and conceptions of reality are maps of the territory, not the territory themselves.

That's what my form of neutral monism suggests: matter is but a perceptual and conceptual map of the territory, not the territory itself.

The physist would however still insist that there is an external something out there. And they would likely insist that it was matter. (As noted above, not all physicists would agree, especially some quantum physicists.)

I too insist that there is an external something out there, but I don't think of it as matter for one very specific reason.

While many physicists when pressed would agree that our perceptions and conceptions of external reality are merely maps of external reality, many of them would insist that this external reality is devoid of consciousness.

Thus, although they intellectually understand that our perceptions and conceptions of reality are maps, they would say these maps essentially have it right when it comes to reality being devoid of consciousness. Thus, they feel comfortable referring to external reality as matter (even if they know that our perceptions and conceptions of this "matter" are maps.)

But this is where I do differ from the mainstream view. I agree that our perceptions and conceptions of external reality are merely maps, but I don't think that external reality is devoid of consciousness.

I think rather (and this is the radical bit) that external reality just is consciousness. I think subjects just are complex systems of this consciousness substrate (i.e., minds). When these conscious subjects perceive reality, they perceive it to be matter.

We are conscious subjects who perceive reality to be matter.

 

[smcder]

In most forms of NM, matter and consciousness are thought of as both arising from a neutral substrate.

My way of thinking about NM is subtley different. I think of consciousness as arising from neutral background/substrate, and matter as arising from consciousness.

This approach sounds quite radical, but it's actually not too far off from mainstream ways of thinking about reality.

Most physicists when pressed would agree that our perceptions and conceptions of reality are maps of the territory, not the territory themselves.

That's what my form of neutral monism suggests: matter is but a perceptual and conceptual map of the territory, not the territory itself.

The physist would however still insist that there is an external something out there. And they would likely insist that it was matter. (As noted above, not all physicists would agree, especially some quantum physicists.)

I too insist that there is an external something out there, but I don't think of it as matter for one very specific reason.

While many physicists when pressed would agree that our perceptions and conceptions of external reality are merely maps of external reality, many of them would insist that this external reality is devoid of consciousness.

Thus, although they intellectually understand that our perceptions and conceptions of reality are maps, they would say these maps essentially have it right when it comes to reality being devoid of consciousness. Thus, they feel comfortable referring to external reality as matter (even if they know that our perceptions and conceptions of this "matter" are maps.)

But this is where I do differ from the mainstream view. I agree that our perceptions and conceptions of external reality are merely maps, but I don't think that external reality is devoid of consciousness.

I think rather (and this is the radical bit) that external reality just is consciousness. I think subjects just are complex systems of this consciousness substrate (i.e., minds). When these conscious subjects perceive reality, they perceive it to be matter.

We are conscious subjects who perceive reality to be matter.

That sounds like idealism not NM.

"In the philosophy of mind, neutral monism is the view that the mental and the physical are two ways of organizing or describing the same elements, which are themselves "neutral", that is, neither physical nor mental. This view denies that the mental and the physical are two fundamentally different things."

 

[smcder]

In most forms of NM, matter and consciousness are thought of as both arising from a neutral substrate.

My way of thinking about NM is subtley different. I think of consciousness as arising from neutral background/substrate, and matter as arising from consciousness.

"In the philosophy of mind, neutral monism is the view that the mental and the physical are two ways of organizing or describing the same elements, which are themselves "neutral", that is, neither physical nor mental. This view denies that the mental and the physical are two fundamentally different things."

When you say arising from - this suggests a temporal order and a dependency of matter, in fact an identity of matter with consciousness - matter is what we see when we look at external reality - so that matter and mind are not fundamentally different - the temporal order is first neutral substrate, then consciousness (how and when does consciousness arise from a neutral substrate? - if it is neutral why does consciousness and not matter emerge from it? How does something neutral give rise to anything?) and then matter ... but you also say "matter" is what consciousness perceives of external reality? What is external reality? The neutral substrate or consciousness?

This approach sounds quite radical, but it's actually not too far off from mainstream ways of thinking about reality.

Most physicists when pressed would agree that our perceptions and conceptions of reality are maps of the territory, not the territory themselves.

See "scientific realism" vs "naive realism"

That's what my form of neutral monism suggests: matter is but a perceptual and conceptual map of the territory, not the territory itself.

The physist would however still insist that there is an external something out there. And they would likely insist that it was matter. (As noted above, not all physicists would agree, especially some quantum physicists.)

I too insist that there is an external something out there, but I don't think of it as matter for one very specific reason.

While many physicists when pressed would agree that our perceptions and conceptions of external reality are merely maps of external reality, many of them would insist that this external reality is devoid of consciousness.

Thus, although they intellectually understand that our perceptions and conceptions of reality are maps, they would say these maps essentially have it right when it comes to reality being devoid of consciousness. Thus, they feel comfortable referring to external reality as matter (even if they know that our perceptions and conceptions of this "matter" are maps.)

But this is where I do differ from the mainstream view. I agree that our perceptions and conceptions of external reality are merely maps, but I don't think that external reality is devoid of consciousness.

I think rather (and this is the radical bit) that external reality just is consciousness. I think subjects just are complex systems of this consciousness substrate (i.e., minds). When these conscious subjects perceive reality, they perceive it to be matter.

How do you solve the combination problem that takes subjects from "consciousness"? and again, why do you have an extra layer of neutral substrate?

If consciousness is external reality - what is the neutral substrate that underlies consciousness? Why not just have consciousness look back against its self? If consciousness is external reality, why do we look back and see "matter"? Why not see consciousness as it is?

We are conscious subjects who perceive reality to be matter.

Again, it seems simpler to just say consciousness is fundamental.

 

[Constance]

Excellent dialogue with @Soupie's post today, Steve, which I also want to respond to. I'll copy your post which includes the sections of Soupie's post. {note: extracts from Soupie are italicized in black; Steve's responses are in roman type and underscored in blue; I will comment in rosy purple}

In most forms of NM, matter and consciousness are thought of as both arising from a neutral substrate.

My way of thinking about NM is subtley different. I think of consciousness as arising from neutral background/substrate, and matter as arising from consciousness.

"In the philosophy of mind, neutral monism is the view that the mental and the physical are two ways of organizing or describing the same elements, which are themselves "neutral", that is, neither physical nor mental. This view denies that the mental and the physical are two fundamentally different things."

When you say arising from - this suggests a temporal order and a dependency of matter, in fact an identity of matter with consciousness - matter is what we see when we look at external reality - so that matter and mind are not fundamentally different - the temporal order is first neutral substrate, then consciousness (how and when does consciousness arise from a neutral substrate? - if it is neutral why does consciousness and not matter emerge from it? How does something neutral give rise to anything?) and then matter ... but you also say "matter" is what consciousness perceives of external reality? What is external reality? The neutral substrate or consciousness?

I think those are all excellent questions, and the sequence of them suggests that some begging of the question is going on in Soupie's description of his position, the question being 'what is real'? Steve asks six questions and all of them are important, require an answer. I'll comment specifically on this one: "How does something neutral give rise to anything?" Especially to concepts of things as different as consciousness (or mind) and matter? In Soupie's theory, matter is ambiguously associated with "external reality" [still steeped in Cartesian dualism] but it is immediately erased as a 'perceptual illusion'. I also wonder why 'Consciousness' as the sole ontological primitive admitted to the theory would invent for itself illusionary concepts of 'matter'.


This approach sounds quite radical, but it's actually not too far off from mainstream ways of thinking about reality.

Most physicists when pressed would agree that our perceptions and conceptions of reality are maps of the territory, not the territory themselves.

See "scientific realism" vs "naive realism"

I doubt that 'most physicists' would agree with the claim in the second paragraph. Even if such a majority sentiment could be proved, what would that actually prove? Most physicists as well as most philosophers are still mired in confusion about how to understand Kant's influential philosophy.

That's what my form of neutral monism suggests: matter is but a perceptual and conceptual map of the territory, not the territory itself.

Nay. We exist within an immense territory whose actuality cannot be blinked except in radical idealism, and we comprehend/understand this territory -- to the extent that we do -- only through the maps we succeed in drawing and verifying (always verifying) as we make our gradual way into it.

The physist would however still insist that there is an external something out there. And they would likely insist that it was matter. (As noted above, not all physicists would agree, especially some quantum physicists.)

I too insist that there is an external something out there, but I don't think of it as matter for one very specific reason.

While many physicists when pressed would agree that our perceptions and conceptions of external reality are merely maps of external reality, many of them would insist that this external reality is devoid of consciousness.

Then they would insist upon something that they as yet have no way of knowing -- indeed, something that physicists have resolutely avoided contemplating or investigating. Which brings us to our present turn toward the paranormal, the parapsychological, the psychic, the liminal aspects of what we experience.

Thus, although they intellectually understand that our perceptions and conceptions of reality are maps, they would say these maps essentially have it right when it comes to reality being devoid of consciousness. Thus, they feel comfortable referring to external reality as matter (even if they know that our perceptions and conceptions of this "matter" are maps.)

I doubt that many physicists, classical or quantum, experimental or theoretical, would agree with that last statement. Scientific hypotheses and theories are not maps of a projected illusionary territory but attempts to describe things and processes encountered in a world taken, indeed known, to be actual.

But this is where I do differ from the mainstream view. I agree that our perceptions and conceptions of external reality are merely maps, but I don't think that external reality is devoid of consciousness.

I think rather (and this is the radical bit) that external reality just is consciousness.

Why would a universal ontologically self-contained consciousness invent a concept of a material 'reality' external to itself?

How do you solve the combination problem that takes subjects from "consciousness"? and again, why do you have an extra layer of neutral substrate?

If consciousness is external reality - what is the neutral substrate that underlies consciousness? Why not just have consciousness look back against its self? If consciousness is external reality, why do we look back and see "matter"? Why not see consciousness as it is?

We are conscious subjects who perceive reality to be matter.

Again, it seems simpler to just say consciousness is fundamental.

 

[Soupie]

"In the philosophy of mind, neutral monism is the view that the mental and the physical are two ways of organizing or describing the same elements, which are themselves "neutral", that is, neither physical nor mental. This view denies that the mental and the physical are two fundamentally different things."

My approach would be like Neutral Monism in two respects:

(1) Consciousness and matter arise from a background that is neutral, i.e., it's neither consciousness nor matter.

(2) My approach denies that consciousness and matter are two fundamentally different things, i.e., my approach denies ontological dualism.

When you say arising from - this suggests a temporal order and a dependency of matter, in fact an identity of matter with consciousness - matter is what we see when we look at external reality - so that matter and mind are not fundamentally different - the temporal order is first neutral substrate, then consciousness (how and when does consciousness arise from a neutral substrate? - if it is neutral why does consciousness and not matter emerge from it? How does something neutral give rise to anything?) and then matter ... but you also say "matter" is what consciousness perceives of external reality? What is external reality? The neutral substrate or consciousness?

A lot of questions packed into this paragraph. I will try to answer them.

>> When you say arising from - this suggests a temporal order and a dependency of matter, in fact an identity of matter with consciousness - matter is what we see when we look at external reality - so that matter and mind are not fundamentally different - the temporal order is first neutral substrate, then consciousness...

Yes, I do mean to imply an order or hierarchy. The order goes as such: neutral background, consciousness, matter

Yes, the existence of matter is dependent on consciousness. One has to be very careful to understand what I am saying here. The following quotation--which I had actually been trying to track down for some time--captures the situation very well, I believe:

"Discussing the play, John H. Marburger III, President George W. Bush’s science adviser, observes that “in the Copenhagen interpretation of microscopic nature, there are neither waves nor particles”, but then frames his remarks in terms of a non-existent “underlying stuff ”. He points out that it is not true that matter “sometimes" behaves like a wave and sometimes like a particle... The wave is not in the underlying stuff; it is in the spatial pattern of detector clicks... We cannot help but think of the clicks as caused by little localized pieces of stuff that we might as well call particles. This is where the particle language comes from. It does not come from the underlying stuff, but from our psychological predisposition to associate localized phenomena with particles.”​

What is matter? Matter is a subjective perception. Matter is a subjective concept.

It is conceivable that there exist organisms on earth that do not perceive reality to be matter/material. They may perceive reality to exist in a form completely alien to us. Indeed, there may exist non-terrestrial organism that likewise do not perceive reality to be material--consisting of particles or waves. And perhaps they don't conceive of it that way either. Perhaps their way of perceiving and conceiving reality is completely alien to our material way of perceiving and conceiving of reality.

Matter is a perceptual and conceptual map of the territory that is external (i.e., non-subjective) reality.

>> an identity of matter with consciousness

The "identity" between matter and consciousness is like so: matter is to consciousness as map is to territory.

>> matter is what we see when we look at external reality - so that matter and mind are not fundamentally different

When a submarine turns its sonar on "external reality" it sees red blobs on its radar screen. We would say those red blobs on the radar screen are a map of external reality, however we would never say external reality just is red blobs.

Likewise, when we turn our perception to external reality, we see matter. However, most people do say reality just is matter. This is a mistake.

However, just as the red blobs on the radar screen and the external icebergs floating around the submarine are not fundamentally (ontologically) different, neither are our perceptions and external reality constituted of fundamentally different stuff.

>> how and when does consciousness arise from a neutral substrate? - if it is neutral why does consciousness and not matter emerge from it? How does something neutral give rise to anything?

If we say that (a field of) consciousness just is the most primal substrate, then we are left with the same question we ask when we suggest that matter is the most primal substrate: Why is there something instead of nothing?

At the end of the day, I believe there are deeper processes underlying the emergence of consciousness.

>> How does something neutral give rise to anything?

The background is neutral in the sense that it doesn't favor consciousness or matter as being primary.

The Hard Problem is getting consciousness (feeling) from a material background, a background of "figures and movement." While it certainly is beyond our ken as to how consciousness could emerge from a non-conscious background, it is different problem then getting consciousness from a material background.

>> What is external reality? The neutral substrate or consciousness?

Reality just is (a field) of consciousness. Individual points-of-view or subjects differentiate within this field of consciousness. (I don't necessarily like using the term "field" but I think it works as a temporary conceptual scaffolding.)

When these differentiated subjects perceive other subjects they perceive them to be objects/matter. So external reality is the field of consciousness external to the differentiated subject from its point of view.

Another way of thinking about this is a system of systems. Reality just is one big system and subjects are sub-systems within the system. They are all one super system but individual sub-system will view the rest of the system as external from their pov.

>> How do you solve the combination problem that takes subjects from "consciousness"?

On this view, subjects don't combine but rather divide. That's a rather crude way of saying that this background field of consciousness differentiates into subjects (and sub-subjects).

>> If consciousness is external reality, why do we look back and see "matter"? Why not see consciousness as it is? Why not just have consciousness look back against its self?

When a subject perceives reality it does so in the manner outlined by Strawson. As we've discussed, this is the most direct perception can ever hope to be:

Stimulus X evokes change X1 in the organism.

Simply put, we can't perceive reality as it really is. Perception is a process of exquisitely complex state changes occurring to the organism when it encounters various external stimuli.

This is how sub-systems perceive other sub-systems within the super system.

"In the tenth century, Ibn al-Haytham initiated the view that light proceeds from a source, enters the eye, and is perceived. This picture is incorrect but is still what most people think occurs, including, unless pressed, most physicists."​

 

[Constance]

Psi and the problem of consciousness
https://philpapers.org/archive/WILPAT-20.pdf

Implications for Quantum Mechanics

Recall that while both versions of neutral monism via Bohm and Hameroff were rooted in quantum mechanics, neither was developed with the intention of explaining psi phenomena. Further, it isn’t clear that the Hameroff and Prenrose theory can be expanded to allow for the kind of mind–matter interaction I reviewed earlier. Hameroff and Penrose describe objective reduction as a process originating from the Plank scale within the brain’s microtubules that creates the experience of consciousness. With causality running this direction, it is not clear how conscious intention might affect the probabilities residing within the neutral stratum underling mind and matter. On the other hand, the frameworks of Bohm and Stapp appear flexible enough to accommodate psi experiments. Those sympathetic to a view of reality that supports mind–matter interactions often invoke the conventional theory of quantum mechanics, which invokes the waveform collapse. However, as I have noted, Bohm’s later work describes an implicate order as a foundation of wholeness embracing both mind and matter. While he does not invoke the waveform collapse, the underlying unity between mind and matter within his framework nevertheless supports psi phenomena. In fact, Bohm (1990) himself has speculated how his notion of the implicate order could be used to understand the psychokinesis data. It is less clear how this model fits with the conventional waveform collapse descriptions of quantum mechanics. Like the proposed framework, waveform collapse models see indeterminism as an inherent aspect of reality. There are different mechanisms of collapse, however. Wigner (1967) and Stapp (1993) have argued that the consciousness of the observer plays an essential role in the collapse of the waveform. As noted, this interpretation has natural appeal for a theory of psi. However, the theory does not just imply that consciousness affects matter or provides a mechanism for information transfer; the theory implies that the stable feature of matter that we experience requires the consciousness of the observer. However, the random number generator field effects suggest that collective or shared emotions (which might be unconscious) may affect quantum mechanical probabilities. Thus the role that consciousness plays in psi may not be congruent with the waveform collapse theories favored by Wigner and Stapp. The interpretation proposed here is likely most problematic to the Everett or many-worlds explanation of quantum mechanics. Recall for this theory that the probabilistic feature of quantum mechanics implies multiple worlds or universes; every possible state described by the quantum mechanical equations exists. This interpretation clashes with the view developed here (based on psi evidence) that groups sharing emotions can affect quantum probabilities. Thus it appears (perhaps ironically) that taking the psi evidence seriously leads us toward accepting a more common sense view of reality.

Conclusion

The intractable nature of the explanatory gap between subjective experience and everything we know about matter will likely remain until more radical views on matter are considered. I argue here that the literature on psi helps to provide some useful direction for this problem. While serious discussion of psi remains taboo in many quarters of academia, the cumulated evidence does confirm significant effects (albeit small or modest). Thus a strong attachment to purely materialistic explanations of consciousness appears unwarranted. Including the results from random number field experiments field experiments and the Global Coherence Project, we must confront a view where the most subtle processes of matter are deeply intertwined with consciousness. Skeptics of psi have often argued that accepting such evidence requires a revision of everything we know. Such arguments assume, however, that more orthodox theories completely and satisfactorily explain our world. This is of course not the case for two areas of interest most closely related to psi: consciousness and quantum mechanics. As I have attempted to show, an examination of psi will likely help shed light on the mysteries in those areas as well. We must consider the possibility that the mysterious natures of each of these are rooted in a common source.

Two concerns behind the taboo of Psi that this seems to avoid:

1. something "spooky" is implied

2. having to revise everything we know

So glad you found and linked this paper. I read the last half tonight and am deeply impressed by the psi, qm, and neutral monism theory the author develops. I'm going to have to read that last half again after I've slept. Also want to look for more from this author. Wow.

 

[smcder]

So glad you found and linked this paper. I read the last half tonight and am deeply impressed by the psi, qm, and neutral monism theory the author develops. I'm going to have to read that last half again after I've slept. Also want to look for more from this author. Wow.

George Williams | Federal Communications Commission - Academia.edu

 

[Constance]

Thank you for these links, Steve. @Soupie, I'm anxious to hear what you think of the George Williams paper Steve linked for us above.

Also, on the way to reading the two additional Williams papers Steve linked today at academia.edu, I found this very informative paper by Strawson that traces the history of the MBP in early modern philosophy of consciousness:

The consciousness myth 2015

 

[Constance]

Let's also read this paper by George Williams:

What Can Consciousness Anomalies Tell Us about Quantum Mechanics?

 

[smcder]

Let's also read this paper by George Williams:

What Can Consciousness Anomalies Tell Us about Quantum Mechanics?

"This standard interpretation has been successful in describing the behavior of subatomic particles, but it remains unpalatable in a number of respects. The superposition of vector states suggests an ontology radically different from our common sense view of the world, as Schrödinger famously illustrated with his theoretical cat simultaneously alive and dead. Another problem is that a measurement changes the state of a system in a way that is not described by the theory itself. Because whatever measuring apparatus we choose is also composed of particles like those within the system under investigation, there is nothing to suggest how a physical measuring apparatus can somehow instigate a collapse of the wave function."

 

[smcder]

The history of the role or rejection of consciousness in QM is interesting, the influence of Eastern thought and the continuing influence of the historical attitude of science to consciousness.

 

[smcder]

Thank you for these links, Steve. @Soupie, I'm anxious to hear what you think of the George Williams paper Steve linked for us above.

Also, on the way to reading the two additional Williams papers Steve linked today at academia.edu, I found this very informative paper by Strawson that traces the history of the MBP in early modern philosophy of consciousness:

The consciousness myth 2015

"You don’t absurdly deny the existence of consciousness, as some philosophers (e.g. Daniel Dennett) still do today.18 You don’t—to borrow Broad’s terminology—put forward the silliest view that has ever been held in the whole history of the human race. Instead you raise doubts about how well we know the nature of matter. You think through the point that “Matter”, as Auden remarked in 1940, is, like love, “much / Odder than we thought”. You see that there is—must be—more to matter than physics can tell us. You see that this is in fact a massive understatement. For what does physics tell us about the ultimate intrinsic nature of matter, considered apart from its mathematically expressible structure? Nothing. As Eddington said in 1928, “Trinculo might have been referring to modern physics in the words, “This is the tune of our catch, played by the picture of Nobody’”. “If you want a concrete definition of matter”, he said, “it is no use looking to physics.” Physics can’t get at “its inner unget-atable nature”.19 Russell in 1927 was equally emphatic: “Physics is mathematical, not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little: it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover. For the rest, our knowledge is negative”.20

 

[smcder]

My approach would be like Neutral Monism in two respects:

(1) Consciousness and matter arise from a background that is neutral, i.e., it's neither consciousness nor matter.

(2) My approach denies that consciousness and matter are two fundamentally different things, i.e., my approach denies ontological dualism.


A lot of questions packed into this paragraph. I will try to answer them.

>> When you say arising from - this suggests a temporal order and a dependency of matter, in fact an identity of matter with consciousness - matter is what we see when we look at external reality - so that matter and mind are not fundamentally different - the temporal order is first neutral substrate, then consciousness...

Yes, I do mean to imply an order or hierarchy. The order goes as such: neutral background, consciousness, matter

Yes, the existence of matter is dependent on consciousness. One has to be very careful to understand what I am saying here. The following quotation--which I had actually been trying to track down for some time--captures the situation very well, I believe:

"Discussing the play, John H. Marburger III, President George W. Bush’s science adviser, observes that “in the Copenhagen interpretation of microscopic nature, there are neither waves nor particles”, but then frames his remarks in terms of a non-existent “underlying stuff ”. He points out that it is not true that matter “sometimes" behaves like a wave and sometimes like a particle... The wave is not in the underlying stuff; it is in the spatial pattern of detector clicks... We cannot help but think of the clicks as caused by little localized pieces of stuff that we might as well call particles. This is where the particle language comes from. It does not come from the underlying stuff, but from our psychological predisposition to associate localized phenomena with particles.”​

What is matter? Matter is a subjective perception. Matter is a subjective concept.

It is conceivable that there exist organisms on earth that do not perceive reality to be matter/material. They may perceive reality to exist in a form completely alien to us. Indeed, there may exist non-terrestrial organism that likewise do not perceive reality to be material--consisting of particles or waves. And perhaps they don't conceive of it that way either. Perhaps their way of perceiving and conceiving reality is completely alien to our material way of perceiving and conceiving of reality.

Matter is a perceptual and conceptual map of the territory that is external (i.e., non-subjective) reality.

>> an identity of matter with consciousness

The "identity" between matter and consciousness is like so: matter is to consciousness as map is to territory.

>> matter is what we see when we look at external reality - so that matter and mind are not fundamentally different

When a submarine turns its sonar on "external reality" it sees red blobs on its radar screen. We would say those red blobs on the radar screen are a map of external reality, however we would never say external reality just is red blobs.

Likewise, when we turn our perception to external reality, we see matter. However, most people do say reality just is matter. This is a mistake.

However, just as the red blobs on the radar screen and the external icebergs floating around the submarine are not fundamentally (ontologically) different, neither are our perceptions and external reality constituted of fundamentally different stuff.

>> how and when does consciousness arise from a neutral substrate? - if it is neutral why does consciousness and not matter emerge from it? How does something neutral give rise to anything?

If we say that (a field of) consciousness just is the most primal substrate, then we are left with the same question we ask when we suggest that matter is the most primal substrate: Why is there something instead of nothing?

At the end of the day, I believe there are deeper processes underlying the emergence of consciousness.

>> How does something neutral give rise to anything?

The background is neutral in the sense that it doesn't favor consciousness or matter as being primary.

The Hard Problem is getting consciousness (feeling) from a material background, a background of "figures and movement." While it certainly is beyond our ken as to how consciousness could emerge from a non-conscious background, it is different problem then getting consciousness from a material background.

>> What is external reality? The neutral substrate or consciousness?

Reality just is (a field) of consciousness. Individual points-of-view or subjects differentiate within this field of consciousness. (I don't necessarily like using the term "field" but I think it works as a temporary conceptual scaffolding.)

When these differentiated subjects perceive other subjects they perceive them to be objects/matter. So external reality is the field of consciousness external to the differentiated subject from its point of view.

Another way of thinking about this is a system of systems. Reality just is one big system and subjects are sub-systems within the system. They are all one super system but individual sub-system will view the rest of the system as external from their pov.

>> How do you solve the combination problem that takes subjects from "consciousness"?

On this view, subjects don't combine but rather divide. That's a rather crude way of saying that this background field of consciousness differentiates into subjects (and sub-subjects).

>> If consciousness is external reality, why do we look back and see "matter"? Why not see consciousness as it is? Why not just have consciousness look back against its self?

When a subject perceives reality it does so in the manner outlined by Strawson. As we've discussed, this is the most direct perception can ever hope to be:

Stimulus X evokes change X1 in the organism.

Simply put, we can't perceive reality as it really is. Perception is a process of exquisitely complex state changes occurring to the organism when it encounters various external stimuli.

This is how sub-systems perceive other sub-systems within the super system.

"In the tenth century, Ibn al-Haytham initiated the view that light proceeds from a source, enters the eye, and is perceived. This picture is incorrect but is still what most people think occurs, including, unless pressed, most physicists."​

What is the nature and properties of the neutral substrate? Consciousness?

The problem and the power of UT and UM is the same as those with the idea of God. Infinitely creative ex nihilo and "simple" (without any parts), a neutral substrate that brings consciousness into being. Similarly, this pure consciousness is somehow capable of division into subjects and of providing an illusion of material, e.g. extension in space. So it looks like you have posited entities that conveniently have just the properties you need but no more.

 

[Soupie]

What is the nature and properties of the neutral substrate? Consciousness?

The problem and the power of UT and UM is the same as those with the idea of God. Infinitely creative ex nihilo and "simple" (without any parts), a neutral substrate that brings consciousness into being.

I don't know what all properties UT has. I would say that it is unbounded. It just is potential.

We could say that a field of undifferentiated matter/energy just existed. We could say that a field of undifferentiated consciousness just existed.

Fine. Let's start from there. We can. Some do.

However, I feel that we must ask: why does such a field exist, whether it's the energy/matter one or the consciousness one.

I think the concept of UT is an elegant answer. I'm not suggesting that only consciousness emerged/evolved from this background.

Who knows what else may exist beyond consciousness? Phenomena that we are completely experientially, perceptually, and conceptually unaware of.

So this background didn't just conveniently give rise to consciousness, but at the very least it gave rise to consciousness.

it's also possible that the question "from whence came this undifferentiated field of consciousness" is a category error. Mayhaps it always was and always will be. The first and the last. Alpha and omega.

Similarly, this pure consciousness is somehow capable of division into subjects and of providing an illusion of material, e.g. extension in space.

These are the same questions quantum physicists are trying to answer.

So it looks like you have posited entities that conveniently have just the properties you need but no more.

I posit that reality has at least the properties needed for it to be as it is. Perhaps the core property of this reality is that it be self-sustaining.

I think that core property gets us very very far.

 

[smcder]

I don't know what all properties UT has. I would say that it is unbounded. It just is potential.

We could say that a field of undifferentiated matter/energy just existed. We could say that a field of undifferentiated consciousness just existed.

Fine. Let's start from there. We can. Some do.

However, I feel that we must ask: why does such a field exist, whether it's the energy/matter one or the consciousness one.

I think the concept of UT is an elegant answer. I'm not suggesting that only consciousness emerged/evolved from this background.

Who knows what else may exist beyond consciousness? Phenomena that we are completely experientially, perceptually, and conceptually unaware of.

So this background didn't just conveniently give rise to consciousness, but at the very least it gave rise to consciousness.

it's also possible that the question "from whence came this undifferentiated field of consciousness" is a category error. Mayhaps it always was anl be. The first and the last. Alpha and omega.


These are the same questions quantum physicists are trying to answer.


I posit that reality has at least the properties needed for it to be as it is. Perhaps the core property of this reality is that it be self-sustaining.

I think that core property gets us very very far.

"I posit that reality has at least the properties needed for it to be as it is. Perhaps the core property of this reality is that it be self-sustaining.

I think that core property gets us very very far."



You can go as far as you like ... ;-)

 

[smcder]

I don't know what all properties UT has. I would say that it is unbounded. It just is potential.

We could say that a field of undifferentiated matter/energy just existed. We could say that a field of undifferentiated consciousness just existed.

Fine. Let's start from there. We can. Some do.

However, I feel that we must ask: why does such a field exist, whether it's the energy/matter one or the consciousness one.

I think the concept of UT is an elegant answer. I'm not suggesting that only consciousness emerged/evolved from this background.

Who knows what else may exist beyond consciousness? Phenomena that we are completely experientially, perceptually, and conceptually unaware of.

So this background didn't just conveniently give rise to consciousness, but at the very least it gave rise to consciousness.

it's also possible that the question "from whence came this undifferentiated field of consciousness" is a category error. Mayhaps it always was and always will be. The first and the last. Alpha and omega.


These are the same questions quantum physicists are trying to answer.


I posit that reality has at least the properties needed for it to be as it is. Perhaps the core property of this reality is that it be self-sustaining.

I think that core property gets us very very far.

I'm just not seeing anything yet in these ideas that hasn't been worked out more fully in other places:

The god of the philosophers
The "Ergod"
Theology of many religions