Challenge to debunkers: Can you prove hallucinations are generated inside brain :-)

[Tor]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

As I understand it, one of Stapp's ideas is that a conscious entity can influence a QM system by the frequency with which he/she/it observes the system. Frequent observation acts to keep the wave function in one particular eigenstate.

Would I be right to say that he doesn't really go into the nature of the conscious entities in question?

David

Yes it's all question of frequency and timing. Once the right intended response after a probing (the response would be a pattern in the brain) is given, the frequency of probings (process 1 actions) are increased to invoke the quantum Zenon effect, which hold that pattern in place long enough to be actualized in a way (and the entire chain starts unfolding, from for example intending to lift your arm to actually doing it). If you don't get the intended response you just let it go. No zenon effect, no action. I think it fits nicely of my own experience of how my mind/body works. But I also think that it's only a first step towards a proper theory of it all.

About these conscious entities... The way I view Stapp's work is in two steps. First is his own process description based on orthodox QM. This is what I feel is most firmly grounded in physics and my own intuition about things. And I don't feel the need for anything more than this.

Second is his use and integration with Whitheadian philosophy. I personally don't feel the need to delve much on this, and it is undoubtedly the most speculative part of his work. As I understand it, he himself also separate these two, and views the Witheadian part as an additional perspective.

Anyways, he views nature as basically psychophysical before he introduced the Witheadian stuff. What he calls process 0 is what would be most comparable to what we would view as the essence of our minds/consciousness (including intention, attention, self-awareness etc). It is what guides the potentialities to actualities in a way that makes us have free choices, not deterministic ones.

What is this process 0? To me it is an open question, but I have my own perspective based on what I know from empirical research (psi, Stevenson and peers etc).

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Tor

About these conscious entities... The way I view Stapp's work is in two steps. First is his own process description based on orthodox QM. This is what I feel is most firmly grounded in physics and my own intuition about things. And I don't feel the need for anything more than this.

.

BTW, I think it is Zeno (he of the paradox!), not Zenon (the noble gas)!

I am never sure if Stapp's first step is exactly orthodox QM. The reason is that in orthodox QM you use a 'measuring apparatus' (assumed to be classical) - such as a photomultiplier tube - to make a measurement. In EPR (say) a conscious scientist can decide how to set the apparatus, and therefore which measurement to make, but the measurement is made by the apparatus. However in his explanation of consciousness the measuring apparatus seems to have become consciousness itself!

Stapp's work sometimes seems a bit verbose, and I find it hard to be sure what new elements he is injecting into the conventional picture.

David

[Tor]

Originally Posted by mszlazak

Oops, that was bad wording on my part. I didn't mean to imply the Stapp's process 0 conscious "Self" was the only speculation that is not implied by QT and my points don't require it to be the only speculation. Moreover, after this initial speculation Stapp adds even more speculation and neither of these are testable! Stapp has to avoid the anthropocentric nature of QT with this add-on conscious "Self", so he then takes the "Self" away by embedding it all in Whitehead's process philosophy. The bafflement of Leibniz's mill has really led him astray!



Tor, thanks for reminding me again about Stapp's processes. You're correct in describing them but this still does effect anything else I've said.

Stapps arguments, like the one from "free-will", are wrong and misguiding and that's probably why he speculates about the need for this "process 0" being "tacked on" to QT. After all, QT doesn't logically require it and he knows it.

Plain old fashion materialistic determinism or mechanistic determinism is compatible with a free-will worth having, one that allows us to have moral choices and thus be responsible for them. I guess this wasn't apparent to him or he really wants something more like a substance dualists self and that kind of self is not a scientifically testable hypothesis.

Quantum approaches to consciousness are likely "dead-ends" or steps backward and I've posted why in another thread and below:

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

To quote Stapp himself:

In the Whiteheadian ontologicalization of quantum theory, each quantum reduction event is identified with a Whiteheadian actual entity/occasion.
Each Whiteheadian actual occasion/entity has a “mental pole” and a “physical pole”.
There are two kinds of actual occasions. Each actual occasion of the first kind is an intentional probing action that partitions a continuum into a collection of discrete experientially different possibilities. Each actual occasion of the second kind selects (actualizes) one of these discrete possibilities, and obliterates the rest.
According to this Whiteheadian Quantum Ontology, objective/absolute actuality consist of a sequence of psycho-physical quantum reduction events, identified as Whiteheadian actual entities/occasions.
These happenings combine to create a growing “past” of fixed and settled “facts”.
Each “fact” is specified by an actual occasion/entity that has both a physical aspect (pole) and a physical aspect (pole), and a region in
106
space-time from which it views reality. I take the physical pole or aspect of the actual occasion to consist of a physically/mathematically described input and a physically/mathematically described output. The physical input (output) is precisely the part of the physically described state of the universe that localized, just before (after) the jump, on the front boundary of the standpoint region associated with the actual occasion.
The mental pole also consists of an input and an output. The mental inputs and outputs have the ontological character of thoughts, ideas, or feelings. The mental inputs are drawn primarily from the mental outputs of the prior occasions, and the mental output of the current occasion is the bud of experience created by/at this current event or occasion.
The process by which the mental and physical inputs are combined to produce mental and physical outputs involves, according to Whitehead, aspects identified as appetites, evaluations, and satisfactions. Thus idea-like qualities are asserted to enter into the dynamics of the basic process that creates the actual occasions, and hence reality itself.
The paradigmatic example of an actual occasion is an event whose mental output is an addition to a human stream of conscious events, and whose physical output is the actualized neural correlate of that mental output. Such events are “high-grade” actual occasions. But the Whitehead Quantum Ontology postulates that simpler occasions that have lower-grade outputs also exist. Thus the Whitehead/Quantum ontology is essentially an ontologicalization of the structure of orthodox relativistic quantum field theory, stripped of any anthropocentric trappings, but supplied with an internal creative process that makes ideas dynamically effective. This approach takes the physically described and psychologically described aspects of contemporary orthodox relativistic quantum field theory to be exemplars of the elements of a general non-anthropocentric ontology.
This putative understanding of the way nature works is only an outline, the details of which can be filled in when new more incisive data that need to be accommodated become available. The theory is not implied by the currently available empirical data, but it gives a rationally coherent way to accommodate: (1), “the element of wholeness … completely foreign to the classical physical principles” noted by Bohr; 107
(2), the “buds of perception” noted by James; and (3), the concordance with findings of western philosophy discussed by Whitehead.

So the way I see this isn't that consciousness or self is removed by involving Whitheadian process philosophy. Rather that it isn't any longer a human centered view, but a general aspect of nature. One could speculate about a omnipresent Self of some sort that is filtered through each one of us, so that in a way our mental aspects are more like individual drops in the ocean (mini selves that are integral parts of the large one).

About process 0, no it isn't logically required. But process 1 is. And I agree with Stapp that process 0 is an intuitive addition to give process 1 a source. I do believe that our intuitions about our free will and consciousness are real, and I find it natural to tie this with something like Stapp's process 1 and 0.

As to determinism of any kind being compatible with a truly free will or consciousness, here I completely disagree. That is like saying that no free choice gives you free choices. It is not my definition of free will. And from such a view there can be no basis to have moral choices, because there are no true choices at all.

As to the views of Stapp being testable, I think they are. The whole range of psi experiments and research into other rogue phenomena are, in my view, much more compatible with the basics of Stapp's work than that of materialistic views. I found reading Irreducible Mind enlightening in this regard. Of course, if you completely deny that there exists any good evidence for psi (or the phenomena discussed in the above mentioned book) and you truly believe that your consciousness is an illusion (which I find an utterly strange belief), than I understand that you don't rule in favor of Stapp's work.

[Tor]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

BTW, I think it is Zeno (he of the paradox!), not Zenon (the noble gas)!

I am never sure if Stapp's first step is exactly orthodox QM. The reason is that in orthodox QM you use a 'measuring apparatus' (assumed to be classical) - such as a photomultiplier tube - to make a measurement. In EPR (say) a conscious scientist can decide how to set the apparatus, and therefore which measurement to make, but the measurement is made by the apparatus. However in his explanation of consciousness the measuring apparatus seems to have become consciousness itself!

Stapp's work sometimes seems a bit verbose, and I find it hard to be sure what new elements he is injecting into the conventional picture.

David

Yes it is Zeno, my mistake

I think Stapp by orthodox means the von Neumann-Heisenberg quantum framework.
He says that the whole Schroedinger evolution part (process 2) evolves all the way to include our physical bodies. In this way all of the universe is described by process 2 (including the measuring device). Then the process 1 partitioning bit is needed to do it's probing on our nervous system (particular our brain) because it is the action that in effect partitions the whole state of the universe (choses the basis). Then the Zeno effect comes into play to when we decide which one of the possibilities that are fed back to us (via the process 3 choice of nature) we should focus on. That which we focus on becomes locked an unable to change. In a way it becomes truly actualized.

I think it is much better that you read his work for yourself if you haven't already. My understanding is not complete, and I may be saying things that Stapp himself don't actually mean. But I do believe I understand the basics.

And yes, I too feel that Stapp's work is too verbose. Even his new book (Mindful Universe) which is also meant for non-physical scientists/philosophers suffers a bit from this. But it is possible to get much from it anyway.

[Open Mind]

David raised the subject of 'schizophrenia', which is coherent example of something modern day psychiatry views as being purely due to brain malfunctioning, a viewpoint based on hallucinations not matching our physical world, which according to the materialist's paradigm means evidence of 100% false delusions... however ....

..... as indicated in the dream telepathy controlled lab experiments (and in fact any successful telepathy experiment), it doesn't matter if such hallucinations only slightly match our physical reality, if these are shared with another mind to any degree beyond statistical chance measurement, we have to seriously consider that *some* 'schizophrenic' hallucinations may be 'virtually real' and not necessarily a disease generated solely by the physical brain.

The controversial subject of 'possession'
To confuse matters, when most people think of 'possession' today, they imagine a horror film scene with Christians grasping crucifixes in fear, holy water splashed everywhere, praying frantically for satan to be exorcised from some crazed violent person, usually with demented organ music in the background in some dimly lit location....... one almost expects comedian Dave Allen to emerge from the possessed body with a funniest of punch lines So let's put those religious, film and comic images to one side and ask a very serious question .....

*If* telepathy exists (and the evidence for weak on average telepathy is compelling unless one demands a constantly repetitive effect) ...... can one mind adversely affect another? The answer is most probably yes.

Are there logical reasons why telepathy would be commonly weak or borderline effect in most people?
Yes is the answer. Debunkers in the past have taken pot-shots at telepathy for not evolving to be strong evolutionary advantage ... this is fallacious argument...... because perfect 100% telepathy would lead to a loss of sense of individuality and individuality is clearly a major component of 'self' in consciousness, a sense of self essential for competitive survival on earth.

This could be one (along with several other) good reasons why the physical brain evolved to filter out telepathy and why it is found commonly weak or erratic in most parapsychology trials.

Psychiatrists may counter that brain damage/changes in cases of schizophrenia are the only cause, however with the hypothesis the brain is a filter of a creative external consciousness, any disruption of the brain filtering is arguably likely to increase hallucination when the mind is detached from the physical senses and from any other 'shared' sense of reality. Nor can schizophrenia be solely predetermined from birth, as there are cases of only one of a pair of identical twins being affected by the condition.

Reincarnation?
If the physical brain evolved to shut down telepathy for several good reasons, we also have to consider that telepathy may be a mechanism closely linked to accessing our own private memories that are not necessarily stored within the brain (until science proves otherwise). In fact we could speculate much further and suggest consciousness is split by incarnating into a physical brain, the physical brain shuts of past memory (and the memories of others) as unwanted intrusions and a new individual consciousness splits off from a prior one i.e. Reincarnation (but not quite in the eastern religious sense). This might also explain why the often claimed 'collective unconscious' is unconscious and not consciously accessed while functioning through a brain

[David Bailey]

There might be another possible reason why ψ is weak for humans - bearing in mind that it would seem to be much stronger for dogs and cats, if Sheldrake's work is to be believed. I wonder if prey animals with ψ give themselves away to carnivores and get eaten - survival of the fittest at its most basic!

It might also explain why people tend to fear anything spooky - being near a person with strong ψ might have been extremely dangerous.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Is this proposed external mind supposed to be naturalistic, or is it in some sense supernatural?

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Is this proposed external mind supposed to be naturalistic, or is it in some sense supernatural?

~~ Paul

Hello Paul. May I rest in peace indeed!

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Is this proposed external mind supposed to be naturalistic, or is it in some sense supernatural?

~~ Paul

Greetings Paul, I remember you from Randi's forum years ago, good to see you here.

I don't think these traditional terms are necessarily that meaningful. Let me hypothesize the brain/body is evolving via physical natural selection, much as we understand it. Lets say consciousness in general is evolving through a type of splitting of consciousness (into minds) by the brain filtering out telepathy/past memory leading to a new sense of individuality by linking/forming new memories. Let's say upon physical death, telepathy and access to past memory can increase but the person retains their sense of individuality due to memories unique to one's own earth experience.

Feel free to shoot at that Paul. But lets not go down the Occam's Razor route. Occams Razor cannot be legitimately used to say the brain is generating consciousness/imagination/hallucination because no one knows how to program or model or even mimic consciousness (at least yet). Getting a computer to 'feel' conscious like a human does, would be an incredibly complex program, so how can one say it is a simpler solution than an alternative?

I would say speculation is perfectly acceptable in this area. And of course any hypothesis needs to make testable predictions or it doesn't lead anywhere particularly useful.

[mszlazak]

Originally Posted by Tor

To quote Stapp himself:



So the way I see this isn't that consciousness or self is removed by involving Whitheadian process philosophy. Rather that it isn't any longer a human centered view, but a general aspect of nature. One could speculate about a omnipresent Self of some sort that is filtered through each one of us, so that in a way our mental aspects are more like individual drops in the ocean (mini selves that are integral parts of the large one).

About process 0, no it isn't logically required. But process 1 is. And I agree with Stapp that process 0 is an intuitive addition to give process 1 a source. I do believe that our intuitions about our free will and consciousness are real, and I find it natural to tie this with something like Stapp's process 1 and 0.

As to determinism of any kind being compatible with a truly free will or consciousness, here I completely disagree. That is like saying that no free choice gives you free choices. It is not my definition of free will. And from such a view there can be no basis to have moral choices, because there are no true choices at all.

As to the views of Stapp being testable, I think they are. The whole range of psi experiments and research into other rogue phenomena are, in my view, much more compatible with the basics of Stapp's work than that of materialistic views. I found reading Irreducible Mind enlightening in this regard. Of course, if you completely deny that there exists any good evidence for psi (or the phenomena discussed in the above mentioned book) and you truly believe that your consciousness is an illusion (which I find an utterly strange belief), than I understand that you don't rule in favor of Stapp's work.

Tor, for the most part you're just repeating and elaborating what I've said about Stapp! Yes, the "Self" is removed and replaced with the "self" and before humans or even primitive life we get the "micro-self" of dust and dirt to get mind-dust, etc. I wonder how mind-dust understands about orthonormal basis and helps pick them out? Nothing from QT really deals with the problems of consciousness, it just makes things worse, and Stapp's book is really about updating Whiteheads process philosophy so it's compatible with QT! In addition, the section I quoted on the "Bafflement of Leibniz's Mill" should start making you question this consciousness/QT stuff.

Two other issues.

Free-will, in the sense of having moral choice, is either complatible with determinism or it's not. If it's not then this leads you to the irrational position that your actions are independent of your desires, feeling or beliefs! It's only through determinism that you can have a free-will worth having. You'll have to resolve is if materialism, naturalism or mechanism is adequate to fully explain consciousness. I think they are!

Second, if you believe that paranormal experiments and case studies show the effects they intend to show and then think these somehow solve the problems of consciousness/mind/brain then think again! Remember that these experiments and reports are all third person data (third person data includes verbal reports)! Now go back and ponder testablity and what is not testable when it comes to the issues of mind and consciousness!

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