Materialism and Consciousness.

[Gothmog]

OK we've established that you believe the universe to be non-deterministic... again.

Now I will say that I agree that for some interpretations of QM the universe becomes non-deterministic... again.

Now I will ask for your definitions of the words materialism and science... again.

if your saying that anything that is scientific that directly refutes materialism is in fact supporting materialism then your talking nonsense

This is exactly the type of nonsense I am refering to. To understand what you mean here I need to know what you think materialism is, and what science is because by the standard definitions this quote make no sense whatsoever.

 

[Ayatollah So]

So read the link itself or you wont have a clue what this stuff is about.

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/QuanCon.html

Biology Cycles and Quantum State Cycles.
The Biology Cycle:

The Biology Cycle is based on Stuart Hameroff's viewpoint, and is very similar to it. ...

Hameroff's viewpoint is interesting and seems to be worth a serious look (by people who understand it a lot better than me ) but at this point it's simply a hypothesis, as far as I can tell. Do we have any solid evidence that the microtubules are performing vital work that controls muscle movements, for instance? Or that there is brain-wide quantum coherence?

Supposing that Hameroff's account is consistent with what's known about the brain - that only makes it a possibility, not a proven fact.

 

[Sidhe]

Gothmog since I got my definition of Materialism from you I suggest you write what you think it is and as for science I suggest you go look in a dictionary because that is my definition.

 

[Sidhe]

According to Apoorva Patel in his paper Quantum Algorithms and the Genetic Code, quant-ph/0002037: "... Enzymes are the objects which catalyse biochemical reactions. They are large complicated molecules, much larger than the reactants they help, made of several peptide chains. Their shapes play an important part in catalysis, and often they completely surround the reaction region. They do not bind to either the reactants or the products ... for example, enzymes can suck out the solvent molecules from in between the reactants ... It is proposed that enzymes play a crucial role in maintaining quantum coherence ... Enzymes provide a shielded environment where quantum coherence of the reactants is maintained. ... For instance, diamagnetic electrons do an extraordinarily good job of shielding the nuclear spins from the environment ... the coherence time observed in NMR is O(10) sec, much longer than the thermal environment relaxation time ( hbar / kT = O(10^(-14) ) sec) and the molecular collision time ( O(10^(-11)) sec ), and still neighbouring nuclear spins couple through the electron cloud. ... Enzymes are able to create superposed states of chemically distinct molecules. ... Enzymes are known to do cut-and-paste jobs ... (e.g. ... methylation, replacing H by CH3, which converts U to T). Given such transition matrix elements, quantum mechanics automatically produces a superposition state as the lowest energy equilibrium state. ... Delocalisation of electrons and protons over distances of the order of a few angstroms greatly helps in molecular bond formation. It is important to note that these distances are much bigger than the Compton wavelengths of the particles, yet delocalisation is common and maintains quantum coherence. ...".\

This bit gives an insight into what I was talking about with DNA mRNA processing. But I'm afraid it is only inference as I can't find the original paper although you can take it as red that mRNA use this principle too as well as the enzymes when changing. U to T via methylisation is a reference to Uracil to Thymine, which are of course RNA building blocks.

I found this more interesting, as it is coroberation of my assertion that DNA uses QM principles to more efficiently process itself.

Hameroff's viewpoint is interesting and seems to be worth a serious look (by people who understand it a lot better than me ) but at this point it's simply a hypothesis, as far as I can tell. Do we have any solid evidence that the microtubules are performing vital work that controls muscle movements, for instance? Or that there is brain-wide quantum coherence?

Supposing that Hameroff's account is consistent with what's known about the brain - that only makes it a possibility, not a proven fact.

He does give possible effects of such effects of QET in the brain at the bottom of the page. I would be surprised when looking at this stuff if you could conclude anything else but that QM plays a role in conciousness, how significant is yet to be determined.

I'm no expert in Quantum Mechanics but I suspect both I and perfect could help if you have a question if nothing else I work with in a medical physics dept with a few PhD's in physics floating around. I could in five minutes contact a cloeague of mine who has a PhD in physics if there's anthing I can't handle. So ask away...

 

[Gothmog]

Sidhe, here's materialism: "Materialism is the philosophy that fundamentally all things are made of matter and all phenomena are the results of the interactions of matter."

and here's science: "branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws"

So science is inherently a search for materialistic expanations to natural phenomina.

Can you grasp that if you feel QM is a branch of science then anything that is the result of it falls by definition under a materialistic explanation of the world?

Can you grasp that when you say materialism is crap, or dead, or whatever - you are saying that science is crap, or dead?

Can you grasp that the only things excluded by materialism are supernatural explanations? The same things excluded by science?

Can you grasp that if QM proves non-determinism, then that is a materialistic explanation for non-deteminism?

 

[Sidhe]

yeah but what I'm saying is not materialism is dead but using it to explain conciousness is pointless because of reason A,B and C so materialism is dead in this thread.

And since materialism needs the definative, such as if we have such and such a protein sequence it must have been caused by in materialism. When science says nothing has any causal relation not even in the past, then that science acts do throw doubt on materialism itself, and if that's the case you have to redefine exactly what you mean by materialism and if that's the case you can't really use it in that definition without saying but nothing in our past present or future in anyway indicates anything about whatever moment of time you chose to look at now.

So if I see A and say it is caused by material data b from experiments over the past twenty years, then I am in fact full of it, because the actual representation of what you see now need not necessarily be indicative of anything that happened at any time precisely so your data may be eroneous and by definition so are your conclusions.

And if you look at say the fact that QM brings chaos into the equation in conciousness then you have evidence of free will, not conclusive but enough to show that it exists, if it then exists you can say materialism cannot explain the conciousness ergo materialism is useless when trying to explain the conciousness. WHich is pretty much what I said in my first few posts, but it's taken this long to produce any scientific and thus philosophical logic/proof.

You can blame google for that, and that's the first time I've ever had reason to question google as the supreme and mighty ruler of the internet. Amen.

Essentially nothing is 100% correct any more and without rigid definition and rigid proof then materialism tends to fall apart when used to explain conciousness. So we can't use it alone to determine what conciousness is. We need also Psychology, thoughts ideas and concepts outside of the purely physical or material.

 

[Gothmog]

Great! It seems we're making some progress here.

Not only did you help me understand what you mean by materialism, but you didn't resort to insulting me either! We'll see how long that lasts...

It seems that you are rejecting the ability of science to explain reality here:

So if I see A and say it is caused by material data b from experiments over the past twenty years, then I am in fact full of it, because the actual representation of what you see now need not necessarily be indicative of anything that happened at any time precisely so your data may be eroneous and by definition so are your conclusions.

Is that a reasonable interpretation of this quote?

Then you say

And if you look at say the fact that QM brings chaos into the equation in conciousness then you have evidence of free will, not conclusive but enough to show that it exists, if it then exists you can say materialism cannot explain the conciousness ergo materialism is useless when trying to explain the conciousness. WHich is pretty much what I said in my first few posts, but it's taken this long to produce any scientific and thus philosophical logic/proof.

First, I think what you are saying is that QM brings non-determinism into the macro world if chaos penetrates from there to here? Remember that chaos is totally deterministic given perfect knowledge of initial conditions.

Second, that is not evidence of free will, but of non-determinism and so the possibility for free will within a materialistic framework.

So if you say QM+chaos is the foundation of your argument for free will, then it is a materialistic argument.

But if you say that materialism cannot explain consciousness, then you are essentially agreeing with cg that we have a supernatural component.

 

[Sidhe]

I wouldn't say that ideas thoughts concepts we're materialistic but we have to take account of them, so I'd say psychology itself is not materialistic because it is an art not a science and therefore there are no absolutes or proofs.

I say having non determinist future past or present and that nothing from one moment to the next can ever be accurately predicted or guessed at, and everything is probabilistic is an example of free will in that, nothing from one moment to the next is either dependant or predictable of what happens next or what happened in the past. This smacks of free will to me. I can do anything at all and I will never know how it affects anything precisely and nothing precisely can say how it will be affected. Is this not free will?

"Free Will" is a term for a capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.

I see no conflict with my definition above and the definition of free will?

"determinism" philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.

as we said before it destroys this.

Great! It seems we're making some progress here.

Not only did you help me understand what you mean by materialism, but you didn't resort to insulting me either! We'll see how long that lasts...

It seems that you are rejecting the ability of science to explain reality here: Is that a reasonable interpretation of this quote?

yep nothing is certain even scientific theories must be repeated many times before we come close to what is certain.

This is even more true in the QM world where unpredictable and odd things happen, particularly when talking about quantum conciousness. as there is both a physical biological component and a quantum one and a thought which misinterpritation could effect rather than just a single component as is usually the case in experiment.

You must admit that QM would be a good explanation for random thought or inspiration or creativity, it certainly would help to explain things like Deja vu too. Specualtive but I'd say worthy of research.

 

[WillJ]

This summary is only palatable because, once again, the language is flawed. You did not react to the enviroment in the way the language means, you did not consider things, you did not work in things. This sounds all nice because the subject of these phrases is 'me' - and that immediately inspires my vision of myself acting freely in my mind - when a much more accurate subject would be 'the collection of effects of prior causes'.

Yes, I'm a collection of effects of prior causes. So what? You might as well as say the shirt I'm wearing isn't a shirt, just a collection of effects of prior causes. The facts are right; the logic isn't.

If, hypothetically speaking, I had no causes---I just popped out of nowhere, with no possible explanation---I would not feel like any more of an individual.

The only idea that results from your philosophy (to me at least) is this: I have nothing more than a window on the world. That is what consciousness is: powerless viewing.

No, like Ayatollah said, I act too. Come to think of it, I have no idea how you draw that conclusion from what I said.

Now, how can anyone beleive that all the time? Or, how can you go from your premises to your beliefs to a worldview different than that?

Huh?

 

[Sidhe]

@Will

CG perfections et al's arguments recieve even shorter shrift than you've given them in modern philosophy. And anyway they've got to come to terms with my evidence, they won't of course I've asked them to read it but I have very little hope they'll look into these links any more than perfection would. The position of ignorance is easier to maintain if you deny - Oh and I will explain anything you can't understand about the experimentation - The discussion has moved on, read Gothmogs posts, they are more up to date or ayatlolahs. Not CG et als there blindly stumbling around atm in a primitive philosophical environment. Wait they'll find out where philosophical debate lies atm, or they'll chose to deny it either way rest assured what your saying is far more "right" than what they are saying or intimating.

 

[El_Machinae]

nothing from one moment to the next is either dependant or predictable of what happens next or what happened in the past. This smacks of free will to me.

Isn't this the opposite of free will? If you have no idea what will result from your action, how can you say that you chose the consequence or even the action?

Any lack of information regarding consequences reduces the moral culpability of an action, I'm sure.

 

[Sidhe]

nah cmon that's not what I meant and you know it all I meant is that your actions aren't defined by the material. Your actions will indeed often result from rational thinking rather than inherently random consequences, but what the non deterministic throws up is the ability simply to chose to disregard the material programming(this is more evolutiionarily viable than the materialistic anyway) QM doesn't automatically lead you to disregard your programming it just throws up more options that aren't deterministic or "materialistic" in the sense I defined and thus increases the options.

This is at heart is what "free will" is the ability to chose not based on what you are programmed to do just more fluidly on what is thrown up by inspiration which is IMO non materialistic in that it has no definitives, i.e material a will lead to action a, but material a that has a chaos inherent in it that will give you a choice between the programmed and the chaotic and you might chose either.

 

[WillJ]

@Side:

Your post came as a surprise to me, since by periodically glancing at your posts, I had figured that you and I disagreed on some crucial points (the meaning of materialism, how determinism relates to free will, and some other things), but I didn't bother reading your posts for full comprehension or debating the issues with you, since I was busy enough with the discussion with CG.

If you really do agree with me (which I still doubt---I'll check things out later ), then, well, good for you. At any rate, I think your criticism of CG (and maybe Perf too, I wouldn't know) is rather unfounded.

 

[El_Machinae]

QM doesn't automatically lead you to disregard your programming it just throws up more options that aren't deterministic

Ah, I see, similar to what I was saying about quantum effects allowing some intuition.

But, if the QM triggers a sequence of neurons - aren't the neurons then materialistically bound to complete the circuit, and perform that thought? There's still no choice, as far as I can see.

 

[Sidhe]

No and for the reasons given under the links about studies into conciousness. And for my own justifications based on Einsteinian time theory. And because of the Chaos the Copenhagen inerpritation throws into conscious thought. Go back and look at the stuff on the two slit experiment.

Chaos in the sense of the original greek meaning which I also explained.

 

[Sidhe]

@Side:

Your post came as a surprise to me, since by periodically glancing at your posts, I had figured that you and I disagreed on some crucial points (the meaning of materialism, how determinism relates to free will, and some other things), but I didn't bother reading your posts for full comprehension or debating the issues with you, since I was busy enough with the discussion with CG.

If you really do agree with me (which I still doubt---I'll check things out later ), then, well, good for you. At any rate, I think your criticism of CG (and maybe Perf too, I wouldn't know) is rather unfounded.

well in any philosophical debate there will be disagreement, but when you say something I agree with I will agree. as for those guys sometimes the only way to get people to read what you write is to prod them as they have been blatantly ignoring it and plaguerising it at the same time for about 20 pages: very quantum

 

[Perfection]

There are some wierd brain effects that can be explained from experimentation into qm theory. I suggest you don't want to read it in full because it makes you look stupid.

Nah, I had class in a half hour, and didn't particularly want to read a whole lot.

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/QuanCon.html

You take Tony Smith as an authority?

A man without a physics degree who claims affiliation with presitigious instituion of The Lowndes County Historical Society?

Why should I trust this apparent wackjob who epsoses many viewpoints contrary to mainstream science (such as his paranoia over Eta Carinae or peak oil)?

Maybe there was a reason Cornell didn't accept his books...

Perhaps you could find someone who appears within the bounds of human sanity.

 

[Sidhe]

Nah, I had class in a half hour, and didn't particularly want to read a whole lot.

You take Tony Smith as an authority?

A man without a physics degree who claims affiliation with presitigious instituion of The Lowndes County Historical Society?

Why should I trust this apparent wackjob who epsoses many viewpoints contrary to mainstream science (such as his paranoia over Eta Carinae or peak oil)?

Maybe there was a reason Cornell didn't accept his books...


Perhaps you could find someone who appears within the bounds of human sanity.

No but then he didn't perform any of these experiments his sources are from professors and physisists who produced papers either in scientific journals or is referenceing articles in scientific media. And since the other link their is from the university of Arizona where most of this research was carried out I'd place it higher on my list of who I'd believe than you any day of any week.

Perhaps you could find someone who appears within the bounds of human sanity.

Pysician heal thyself.

If your indicative of the scientific world God help it, the decoherence stuff is in fact the same research that I was talking about done by NASA so I supose your going to tell me their not credible too? Are you honestly that ignorant? Because you come across as very dilusional, the fact is the quantum impinges not only on enzymes and DNA but on the brain itself, you can argue that his conclusions are bs, but you can't argue that the effects aren't there especially as regards decoherence unless you want to make a stand that NASA and three of the worlds most preeminant biologists are full of it.

Some people are just stupid, some ignorant. Good luck with that

 

[Perfection]

No but then he didn't perform any of these experiments his sources are from professors and physisists who produced papers either in scientific journals or is referenceing articles in scientific media. And since the other link their is from the university of Arizona where most of this research was carried out I'd place it higher on my list of who I'd believe than you any day of any week.

Where' the university of Arizona research, I haven't seen it yet.

 

[Gothmog]

Sidhe wrote:

wouldn't say that ideas thoughts concepts we're materialistic but we have to take account of them, so I'd say psychology itself is not materialistic because it is an art not a science and therefore there are no absolutes or proofs.

So you don't believe that thoughts are the results of neural processes (perhaps including QM effects).
You feel that there is some supernatural component.
That's fine, I see no evidence but I can't rule it out altogether.

I say having non determinist future past or present and that nothing from one moment to the next can ever be accurately predicted or guessed at

IMO, this is a huge overstatement and basically dismisses science altogether. Obviously many things can be accurately predicted, otherwise science wouldn't be so very useful. You just have to be clear about your knowledge of the physical system and your ability to state the initial conditions - that's what limits predictability. There are very few systems of human interest where uncertainty reigns, even decoherence is predictable.

and everything is probabilistic is an example of free will in that, nothing from one moment to the next is either dependant or predictable of what happens next or what happened in the past. This smacks of free will to me. I can do anything at all and I will never know how it affects anything precisely and nothing precisely can say how it will be affected. Is this not free will?

No, it's not. You are describing a completely non-deterministic universe, but not free will. Free will, in the sense we've been discussing, implies the ability to make a choice free from outside influences. That is, to make a choice based on more than your physical body and the sum of your experiences. So even if a choice has some QM component, that would make it probabilistic or even random, but not free.

Again, I'm not excluding the possibility of materialistic free will, I just don't see the need for it to explain human actions. So in my bacteria example, bacteria employ enzymes the same as we do; DNA the same as we do; make choices between competing stimuli same as we do. There are plenty of simple organisms that have memory, awareness of time, and a neural net. What makes us special in this context? Why would it only be us with this 'free will'?

If free will does exist, why has no one been able to design a single experiment to show it exists?

I just think that free will at this point comes down to a question of first cause. I can't rule it out, like I can't rule out God. But if someone would simply make a testable prediction based on the hypothesis of free will, then I could test it. In the case of free will, like God, no testable prediction about its existence has withstood the scrutiny of the scientific method. So I see no need to include it in my worldview as anything more than idle speculation and/or personal revelation.

You must admit that QM would be a good explanation for random thought or inspiration or creativity, it certainly would help to explain things like Deja vu too.

Perhaps, but that's different from free will. I also don't see any need to throw Deja vu in there, do you really think we see the future?