Rational, evidence-based, non-materialist model of mind-brain interaction

[Bernardo]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Every measurement apparatus is conscious?

The idea is that interactions cause measurement:

Measurement in quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

~~ Paul

This is tricky. If you define measurement as collapse of the wave function (i.e. the end of superposition), then interaction between two systems in superposition only conflates their superposed states; nothing collapses. According to the mainstream Many-Worlds interpretation (MWI), indeed nothing collapses. But in our partricular branch of parallel universes, things 'look as though' they have collapsed because all other superposed states exist in other universes (!). (talking about contrivance...)

Another more operational, but philosophically insufficient idea, is decoherence. Here we assume that the measurement apparatus is not in superposition, and is much larger than the quantum system being measured. So when they interact, the superposed states of the microscopic quantum system 'leak' and get 'diluted' into the classical state of the macroscopic measurement apparatus, so it looks like collapse has happened. Naturally, this idea doesn't answer how the measurement apparatus ever became classical to begin with, so it doesn't solve any philosophical problem.

Penrose's objective collapse interpretation is that superposition does end upon measurement, because of gravitational forces once the system becomes large enough. Most physicists discard this though.

So, ultimately, if you really want to explain how the superposition of states in a quantum system ends, and the system becomes classical, without accepting an infinite and ever increasing amount of non-provable parallel universes, you have to give consciousness the ultimate role in collapsing the wave function; anything else only conflates superposed states and doesn't explain anything. This is my personal position.

But I don't want to derail the thread with the measurement problem... so none of what I argued so far requires this particular solution to the measurement problem.

[Bernardo]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

You know for a fact that the Groblacher experiments kill Many Worlds?

Hmm let me comment on this. You are implying that I said the Groblacher results kill MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation). This is false. Please read my original post again. What I said was that proponents of MWI are on record arguing against the validity of the Bohm formulation (pilot waves as global hidden variables). But, given the Groblacher results, the Bohm formulation seems to be one of the few ways out left to rescue Realism. So if you believe the MWI guys, it looks yet more difficult for realism.

None of this means that the Groblacher results defeat MWI as an interpretation. For instance: For all I know, there are parallel universes of experience, all in perfect accordance with Idealism.

Get your logic straight there.

[Michael Larkin]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

The idea is that interactions cause measurement:

Thought so. You can't do it: "cause measurement" implies measurement, and measurement makes no sense without the concept of consciousness.

[fls]

Originally Posted by fls

I'm not sure I'm putting this question the right way, but can something be said to be an ontology if it offers no constraints on epistemology?

Linda

I thought about this a bit and a better way to ask it is, given that we are referring to a collection of experiences in any case, can something be said to be an ontology if it offers no constraints on that collection of experiences? Idealism seems to be the same as a description of our experiences.

Linda

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by fls

I thought about this a bit and a better way to ask it is, given that we are referring to a collection of experiences in any case, can something be said to be an ontology if it offers no constraints on that collection of experiences? Idealism seems to be the same as a description of our experiences.

Linda

Do you mean if an ontology is consistent with whatever possible observations we can make of the world?

[Michael Larkin]

My own view is that the telos has to do with the achievement of a broad field of self-reflective awareness. In what follows I will use my own terminology, which I used before in this board and which I define in the articles I will link below.

Self-reflection entails a trade-off: For there to be self-reflection, consciousness has to 'fold in' on itself so it can become aware of its own awareness (i.e. the 'filtering' or the 'localization' that I talk about in the paper that started this thread). From an egoic point-of-view, awareness without awareness-of-awareness is as 'unconscious' as something that has never been in awareness (if you don't know that you know something, is it any different than not knowing that something?). But this 'folding in' of consciousness has the 'side-effect' of limiting its own field of awareness through a kind of 'obfuscation'. This could be analogous to how a whirlpool, which is water folding in on itself, limits the movement of the water molecules in a stream. The ideal scenario would be a whirlpool the size of the entire stream; i.e. self-awareness of everything, without limitation. That may be the telos. I elaborated on this here:

Metaphysical Speculations: The brain as a knot of consciousness
Metaphysical Speculations: Categories of consciousness
Metaphysical Speculations: Subject, object, and instincts

Yes, I think there is, though it is not the ego.

This is very similar in essence to what I tried to explain above!

Golly, Bernardo. Honestly, I can't see that what you said was essentially same as what I did. This may be because I'm a bit dense, and if so, you'll have to forgive me. But maybe I'm not the only one and it will bear a little more explanation?

You've got this metaphor of the whirling vortex folding in on itself so that it can be aware that it is aware. I was assuming that referred to the ego, and that the vortex dissipated on death. And if that were the case, we'd be back to the whole stream, so to speak, with life being pointless and, seemingly, nothing having been learnt or constructed, however one wants to put it. Maybe just ultimate consciousness having amused itself with a brief foray into a virtual reality game?

So are you saying that the "vortex" is actually the real, non-egoic self? Or rather, a combination of ego with that, which doesn't dissipate on death even though the ego does? Seeing as you, like me, think we have individuality that survives death, and you don't mention anything else than the vortex metaphor, and seem to agree on what the purpose is, this is all I can think of.

[Bernardo]

Originally Posted by Michael Larkin

You've got this metaphor of the whirling vortex folding in on itself so that it can be aware that it is aware. I was assuming that referred to the ego, and that the vortex dissipated on death.

True; and true.

Originally Posted by Michael Larkin

And if that were the case, we'd be back to the whole stream, so to speak, with life being pointless and, seemingly, nothing having been learnt or constructed, however one wants to put it.

Maybe the whole thing is a nested fractal 'fold' with many hierarchical levels: folds within folds. If the brain is a visible projection of one level, when the brain dissolves your awareness simply 'jumps' to the next level up (another, perhaps less tight fold), which may entail broader awareness but less focused self-reflectiveness. And so on. But I have no direct, objective evidence for this speculation.

Originally Posted by Michael Larkin

Maybe just ultimate consciousness having amused itself with a brief foray into a virtual reality game?

Maybe. But maybe there is a more substantial point to folding up consciousness this much. Maybe there are certain modalities of thought and self-reflection that are impossible in any other way.

Originally Posted by Michael Larkin

So are you saying that the "vortex" is actually the real, non-egoic self?

No. I think the vortex corresponding to a brain/body system is the visible image of the ego-personality. But there might be another, meta-vortex, invisible to the ego, that corresponds to a form of individuality that is not quite the ego.

Originally Posted by Michael Larkin

Or rather, a combination of ego with that, which doesn't dissipate on death even though the ego does?

See above.

Originally Posted by Michael Larkin

Seeing as you, like me, think we have individuality that survives death, and you don't mention anything else than the vortex metaphor, and seem to agree on what the purpose is, this is all I can think of.

Nested vortices within vortices

[fls]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

Do you mean if an ontology is consistent with whatever possible observations we can make of the world?

Yes.

Linda

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by fls

Yes.

Linda

If there were some possible observations we could make which either verified or were inconsistent with a hypothesis, then that hypothesis would be a scientific one rather than a metaphysical or ontological one, would it not?

Of course normally even scientific hypotheses can be rendered consonant with empirical discoveries by the judicious use of auxiliary hypotheses. So we can't ever verify anything, even assuming the validity of induction.

So in the context of QM the option is always open to save a consciousness-independent reality by elaborate hypotheses. This does not mean to say such an approach is reasonable.

It seems to me there can be a slight overlap between ontological/metaphysical hypotheses and scientific hypotheses.

[eveshi]

Originally Posted by Bernardo

Self-reflection entails a trade-off: For there to be self-reflection, consciousness has to 'fold in' on itself so it can become aware of its own awareness (i.e. the 'filtering' or the 'localization' that I talk about in the paper that started this thread). From an egoic point-of-view, awareness without awareness-of-awareness is as 'unconscious' as something that has never been in awareness (if you don't know that you know something, is it any different than not knowing that something?). But this 'folding in' of consciousness has the 'side-effect' of limiting its own field of awareness through a kind of 'obfuscation'. This could be analogous to how a whirlpool, which is water folding in on itself, limits the movement of the water molecules in a stream. The ideal scenario would be a whirlpool the size of the entire stream; i.e. self-awareness of everything, without limitation. That may be the telos.

The idea that (illusory) individuality may be a side-effect of consciousness' endeavor to become self-aware is an interesting one. However, one thing I don't understand about philosophies that hold the view that there is some sort of ideal state of mind, and that it is the goal of existence to reach this state, is why this state has to be reached in the first place and isn't already present.

Why isn't the universal consciousness already self-aware? Why aren't people already in Nirvana? Why aren't people already aware of their oneness with Brahman etc.? Why does consciousness have to go through imperfect states (where it is deluded, suffering etc.) at all before it can reach the ideal state? Has it always been in an imperfect state and simply not yet reached its goal to break out of this state? Or was there a time where is was not in an imperfect state, but in the ideal state? If so, what could possibly have been its reason to abandon the ideal state in favor of an imperfect and deluded state?

Any ideas? (This is a question to all, not only to Bernardo.)

Btw: Great discussion, guys.