Proof that consciousness lives outside the laws of physics (1 Viewer)

[Uncle Gizmo]

On browsing this recently resurrected thread I Recalled a recent article. Physicists have come up with mathematics which combines the quantum theory, time travel and free will. If a time traveller went back to COVID patient zero and prevented patient zero from getting covid, then events would organise themselves to make sure that patient ZERO was replaced with a new new patient zero, very lightly the actual time traveller !!

Physicist comes up with maths to show that time travel is possible

Time travel with free will is logically possible in theory.

metro.co.uk

 

[Jon]

Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

Determinism is like calculating the odds on an event after it's happened. You can't do that. Read Feynman, Six Easy Pieces.

Drill down to quantum mechanics, subatomic particles and so forth, and the laws of physics are still at work. The argument here is not about whether or not you can predict and measure with 100% certainty where particles will end up, but rather that you do not overcome the laws of physics personally. You are indeed made up of and are operating under the laws of physics yourself, including your brain which makes decisions on what to do.

Incidentally, although the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says you cannot predict the precise location of something on the subatomic level, on the macro level with the aggregation of a large number of particles, you can predict with an extremely high level of accuracy the location of the object. But I feel this is unrelated to whether or not someone can personally overcome the laws of physics.

Edit: Heisenberg has already been discussed in this post:

Proof that consciousness lives outside the laws of physics

Except that according to Heisenberg, that is not true. According to all studies of the nuclear physics of radioactive decay, that is not true. You are casting this in a strict causality model that doesn't apply to atomic-level positioning and other properties. Spontaneous pair production in...

www.access-programmers.co.uk

 

[The_Doc_Man]

OK, we keep coming back to "overcoming the laws of physics." But what do you do if consciousness is merely following laws of physics we have not yet discovered? Who CARES about the QM issues at the lowest level of the brain? We no more care about low-level connectivity than we care about that butterfly in Argentina from about 30 years ago.

Let's try this as a (poor) analogy. In the late 1990s/early 2000s there was an Alpha computer which could run any of Tru64 (UNIX), Windows, or OpenVMS. Yet the wiring was always the same. The instructions at the low level of CPU operation always operated the same when executed. It was the data of the Operating System and other programming that decided what the computer did in a given situation. The hardware in those three cases was IDENTICALLY THE SAME. The disks (long-term memory) holding those O/S loads was the same, though what was written on the disks was not the same. Some things that the Alpha did would be highly similar. (There are only a few ways to drive a disk or tape unit.) Some things would be wildly dissimilar. (Web browsers, databases, virtual demand paging, file utility programs, etc.)

If you limit yourself to trying to examine busses and circuits (computer equivalent of neural pathways), you always come up with the same answer, yet their overall behavior would depend on which of the three O/S loads you had requested. Programming in a computer is a second-order characteristic of the computer and depends on its past. That is, the hardware is nature, but the programming is nurture. I suggest that looking for free will has the same problem. Looking for the seat of free will in the physical wiring of the brain (e.g. which nerve connects to which sensory organ) is a wild-goose chase because you are looking in the wrong place. It is what is in the computer's memory (or the person's memory) that determines actions.

We talked about brain-dead people. If the thing that led to brain death wasn't physical destruction of nerve cells, then while on a respirator, their hardware is intact. But they have no consciousness. Do they have free will? Because all the hardware is there, has blood flow, and has the nervous system required to support activity. But nothing is happening. Why? Because that second-order phenomenon called consciousness isn't in play. I suggest that free will lies in the domain of consciousness.

Whatever the brain (or the computer) does at a given time doesn't depend on the hardware. It depends on the software. Which means that looking for a violation of the laws of physics is doomed to failure because the underlying brain biochemical hardware CAN'T violate the laws of physics. But with the chance of having different "software loads" in place, you can still get alternate behaviors. The computer copper or other metal wiring CANNOT violate the laws of physics, because it won't run without them. Yet computers can do different things. Is this because it is what is in their active memories (that is the closest analog we can get to consciousness) that determines activity?

Our problem is that we don't actually know how consciousness works - but we believe that it DOES work. (In fact, the ability to ask the question suggests the existence of consciousness. "I think, therefore I am.") So what does that mean in practical terms? It means that our question of "free will" requires us to understand something we don't yet fully understand. How does a thought become a memory? How do we later act on that thought that we remember in some way? These questions show us that we don't understand that second-order human phenomenon called "consciousness." We are feeling around in the dark in a labyrinthine maze where the old "follow the left wall" rule isn't available.

Earlier, @Jon, you asked about my response that, in essence, if you made a decision that you thought was made through free will, I said you could not know whether it was actually free will or determinism. The same would be true if it had been made via determinism. If you continue down the path of determinism ignoring the idea that free will is not to be found in the neural wiring of the brain, you would NEVER be able to know because your proof isn't there. It is elsewhere. (In my not often humble opinion, of course.)

 

[Jon]

A few things to unpack there! For the question of whether a brain dead person has free will or not is that they don't. Their brain is dead, has no activity and can therefore not make any decisions. But in any case, it might be a mute point because if the preordained argument holds, then it doesn't matter whether they are dead or alive, they still do not have free willl. Their state of aliveness or deadness becomes irrelevant.

I think when you try to compare a hardware/software analogy to the brain, you can lead yourself astray. Why? Because in the brain, experience modifies the hardware (connections), while in a computer system, they are static. Only the software can change, by storing data and so forth. Therefore, they are not analogous.

[Side thought...perhaps DNA is a form of software. Or would it be hardware?]

Looking for the seat of free will in the physical wiring of the brain (e.g. which nerve connects to which sensory organ) is a wild-goose chase because you are looking in the wrong place. It is what is in the computer's memory (or the person's memory) that determines actions.

The persons memory IS the physical wiring of the brain. It is the analogy of a computer hardware/software system that is causing the confusion here.

If consciousness is following laws of physics that we have not yet discovered, then that is a bit like the argument of proving a negative. You can't. Prove to me that there are not fairies at the end of the garden that only some other mystical entity can see, and you can't see those either. You can't prove it, just like you can't prove that consciousness exists (if indeed it does) as an entity following different physics and is outside of the brain. Instead, everything starts from evidence. Show me the evidence!

"Software loads" are still just atoms and particles. They are no different from that point of view to hardware. It is our own paradigms that can distort our understanding by thinking of hardware and software as different. They are the same: particles. And these particles (in both the software and hardware) follow the laws of physics, whether that is the Heisenberg Principle, probabilistic Quantum Mechanics or standard Newtonian physics.

Our problem is that we don't actually know how consciousness works - but we believe that it DOES work.

Here is something we can agree on. The brain is exceedingly complex. I believe myself that we have free will. Yet as I have stated before, my feelings on this jar with the logic of determinism. It is a paradox to me for which I have no answer.

If you continue down the path of determinism ignoring the idea that free will is not to be found in the neural wiring of the brain, you would NEVER be able to know because your proof isn't there. It is elsewhere.

I agree that without proof of something you cannot say it exists. You can speculate of course. But for determinism to be false, it appears to me that there must be some third party that operates outside the confines of the laws of physics. Thus, God exists. @Isaac, that ones for you.

But I don't believe in God either. So, I am left with proving the existence of God, or a soul, yet believing in neither. My religious fervour has overtaken me. Since I choose to ignore these pieces of evidence, it shows that I am operating irrationally. Is this because I have no free will to be rational? Now that makes sense to me!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The persons memory IS the physical wiring of the brain. It is the analogy of a computer hardware/software system that is causing the confusion here.

No. Biochemically, a memory-laden cell is the same neural connection before and after memory was laid into it.

"Software loads" are still just atoms and particles. They are no different from that point of view to hardware.

No, they are INFORMATION, which relates to the ORIENTATION of the media that carried the information. Technically, 1's and 0's on a magnetic medium are quantum-level spin-flips.

But for determinism to be false, it appears to me that there must be some third party that operates outside the confines of the laws of physics.

Or that it operates in a way that is outside of the physics and biochemistry of simple nerve-to-nerve interactions.

Despite your objections to my computer hardware-related analogies, I return again to the networking ISO model in which the physical link layer always does the same thing (push data across a wire from point A to adjacent point B), but something outside of that layer can choose different subsequent actions (going to point D or point E?). The programming that we use is - so far - highly deterministic, but you can't easily isolate the effects from the lower levels unless you figure out the totality of the messages coming across the network so that you can see routing and sequencing and a presentation layer message. I'm simply saying that looking at nerves and brain wiring is looking at the trees when you need to comprehend the forest. AND since we don't understand the way that forest works yet, it is hard for us to understand it.

Suppose you were tapping into a network, listening in, and DIDN'T KNOW THE PROTOCOLS! Would you be able to understand it? Probably not. Yet the network would still operate. Understanding is not a prerequisite for existence. We are in the situation of seeing the physical link layer (of the brain) but not knowing the protocols. We could guess that a network exists - but if we don't understand it, does that eliminate a hypothetical discussion thereof?

My point is that free will doesn't reside in that neural layer that we see in autopsies. It is the organized information of consciousness (and for the sake of discussion, I presume my consciousness IS organized) where free will must exist. It is not found in isolated neural transactions, but in the totality of organized consciousness. This is a case where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and yet never breaks laws of physics. That is because the applicable laws involved are philosophical in nature. We CANNOT break the laws of physics, but we certainly can follow laws that we don't realize we are following. (Hypothetical question: When Clunk the caveman falls off a cliff, does he realize he is following the laws of gravity? Ignorance of the law is no excuse!)

Determination vs. free will cannot be settled until we know the higher layers of the brain's internal protocol. I merely hypothesize that since you can't find free will in the firing of neurons, that EITHER it doesn't exist OR that we don't yet know where it DOES exist. If we consider consciousness, that doesn't appear to be directly related to the firing of neurons either, yet we believe consciousness exists. I offer the second-order property of consciousness as the place where free will exists if it exists at all. In fact, there is no theoretical limit to whether consciousness is a 2nd order effect or an even higher order manifestation of brain activity. But somewhere in that manifold, Jon, your free will exists if it exists at all.

 

[Jon]

No. Biochemically, a memory-laden cell is the same neural connection before and after memory was laid into it.

There must be a misunderstanding of what I mean by the wiring. I've covered how it works in a previous post, and explicitly stated what my definition of wiring is. You can see it in my third sentence, shown in the quote below from my previous post.

When you stop doing something, the connections between neurons weaken, thus making that behaviour less likely. It is a chemical process. These connections between neurons are what I refer to as the wiring. Consider them a road network. A prominent behaviour might be what we call an A road in the UK: wide and busy, with lots of traffic. A little used road is a B road. If no one goes down that A road, over time it will atrophy to a B road. This helps us forget things, form habits, break habits and so on.

The priority of the memory is based on the neural connections. The stronger the connection, the more likely you are to remember. It is why people revise for exams. Repetition strengthens the wiring. There is also an evolutionary basis for why traumatic events cause deep wiring instantly. They are to protect us. You don't want to forget something that could reduce our chances of survival, so it gets ingrained and this deep wiring takes much longer to atrophy. It is like doing 1000 revisions all at once, so strong is there impact.

The term relevant to all this is neuroplasticity:

Neuroplasticity is central to learning. It is essential to remember that learning is a function of memory encoding and consolidation, which, in turn, are processes that change the brain physically.

Souce: https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/learning-and-memory/0/steps/112023#:~:text=Neuroplasticity is central to learning,that change the brain physically.

Also, it this is covered here too:

Memory is the reactivation of a specific group of neurons, formed from persistent changes in the strength of connections between neurons.

Source: https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain-basics/memory/how-are-memories-formed

If you have a link to something that says that memory does not alter neural connections I would be interested to see it! But these references above seem to suggest that indeed my original statement was correct.

If you accept what the Queensland Brain Institute says, then since it is the opposite of what you originally believed, does it therefore alter your argument in any way?

I think some of our differences in perspective revolve around me looking at the micro level vs you looking at the macro level. However, I do stress that the macro level is built from the micro level, and if at the macro level you make a decision using free will, you therefore have to have overcome the forces at the micro level. Why? Because at the micro level there are laws of physics at work. What goes on is preordained, through Newtonian and Quantum mechanical processes. How can you make a decision when at the point of making that decision everything that happened before on a micro level led you to that decision point? What you think at that moment is a direct consequence of what your brain state was a microsecond before. And so on all the way back to the Big Bang.

Side note: I looked up how long the free will debate has been going on for and its thousands of years!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Side note: I looked up how long the free will debate has been going on for and its thousands of years!

I doubt the two of us will answer the question, then. I need to research something before continuing this line of argument. However, I am convinced that "Free Will" doesn't arise from micro-level forces. Like the high-level gas laws, consciousness comes about from something for which we don't currently know the laws. But they won't violate physics when we discover them.

 

[Jon]

The fact there are so many different perspectives on this, and that there are lots of different models on the free will debate that philosophers adhere to suggests that perhaps it is indeed some kind of paradox. I argue against there being free will, whilst believing I do have free will. However, with the Christmas holidays here, I will leave you with a little Christmas carol I came up with, or at least the prompts to generate it using ChatGPT!

 

[Isaac]

It's a sprightly but somewhat bumbling iambic. Yet, I enjoy seeing chatGPT's outputs from you @Jon

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I'm going to leave a couple of references here. My contention is that consciousness is an emergent property, and it would appear that I'm not the only one to think that way.

Emergence

Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative | Cognitive | Developmental | Language | Individual differences | Personality | Philosophy | Social | Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology | Statistics: Scientific method · Research methods ·...

psychology.fandom.com

Systems biology | Modeling, Simulation & Analysis

Systems biology, the study of the interactions and behaviour of the components of biological entities, including molecules, cells, organs, and organisms. The organization and integration of biological systems has long been of interest to scientists. Systems biology as a formal, organized field of

www.britannica.com

Emergence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If consciousness IS, in fact, an emergent property of the brain then it DOESN'T MATTER that the low-level functions are biologically or chemically predetermined; looking for free will at that level is incorrect because consciousness isn't there. It is in the emergent levels of brain function. Therefore, you cannot say that consciousness would appear to violate laws of physics because you don't know the path to consciousness. If you cannot explain consciousness in detail, you cannot talk about what laws it follows or violates. That is a "cart before the horse" type of discussion.

 

[Jon]

That is if consciousness actually exists. I do kinda feel that consciousness exists as an emergent property of the brain. But for me, this consciousness is a feeling and awareness based on the building blocks of the brain, which as far as I can tell are based on the known laws of physics, hence the predetermined argument. This feeling of consciousness does not mean it is a separate entity, but rather just a byproduct of our neural architecture.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

This feeling of consciousness does not mean it is a separate entity, but rather just a byproduct of our neural architecture.

Ah, but when I get up in the morning and before my first jolt of caffeine, I don't HAVE that feeling of consciousness. Perhaps your confusion is because you forgot to account for morning stimuli.

 

[Jon]

I asked the AI for some ideas on coffee names to do with conscousness. They are very good!

 

[Jon]

I couldn't resist...

 

[AccessBlaster]

My thought is the mind and body are organic and fall under the laws of physics, the consciousness or awareness is outside the mind and is in conflict with the mind and body. In my thinking, it is not organic as we know it. It's the "supernatural" aspect that everyone tries to deny or affirm. It's the hidden element hiding in plain sight.

 

[Jon]

I would imagine if someone is of religious inclination, they are more likely to believe that consciousness exists in the ether, since they already believe in supernature. Perhaps it inhabits the realm of souls, that drift and sustain beyond the death of the body.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I would imagine if someone is of religious inclination, they are more likely to believe that consciousness exists in the ether, since they already believe in supernature. Perhaps it inhabits the realm of souls, that drift and sustain beyond the death of the body.

I didn't mention religion. Supernatural is attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

 

[Jon]

I see supernatural as something that encompasses what is outside of scientific understanding, and religion falls within that. Both don't require tangible evidence, or at least don't have evidence that would satisfy from a scientific viewpoint. So I feel that if someone believes in one thing that does not require tangible evidence, then there is a reasonable chance that their belief systems are quite flexible and allow for unscientific viewpoints.

 

[Mike Krailo]

One thing that is absolutely true whether you believe it or not...

You will know who and what you really are the moment you leave your body.

Until then, there is only the accounts of those who did and survived and the accounts are extraordinary. Instead of wallowing in scientific ramblings of the physical universe or our bodies (hardware), take a look at all NDE's that have been occurring all over the world. The very essence of human beings is spiritual in nature. Unfortunately, many of us cannot believe it because we're too focused on the physical world from our own puny perspective. No one comes back from a real NDE not knowing their true nature. Don't take my word for it. Get it from someone that has been studying it for over a half century.

Dr. Bruce Greyson

It then becomes apparent that maybe there is a true independence of the body and spirit/soul/you. Maybe we are all connected together in the spiritual way whether we believe it ourselves or not. I refuse to see my fellow human beings as just meat bags with feelings.

 

[Isaac]

I believe two things are paramount to explaining the resistance of some against the spiritual:

1. Confusing Science with Spiritual. Thinking that science can answer non-science questions, which begins with the mistaken belief that science is "everything". Science is just science. It is not everything. Another thing this crowd doesn't know or would like to ignore is the reality that even within science, there are things which are deemed "likely true", but not repeatable, and that don't lend themselves to experimentation. There are all kinds of Truths, on subjects like what happens when a person is given x-amount of heroin or meth to what people will do under torture (etc. etc), that science simply will not experiment on, or cannot experiment on, but that doesn't make them any less obvious or true, and it doesn't make the anecdotal evidence any less persuasive--it just means it cannot be easily repeated or organized into a study.
2. Strong bias against the supernatural, which works a person's entire life to devise means of self-deception. Inside of a man are two things: A knowledge of God, and a force working to deny God. The knowledge of God is evident the first time you are mean to someone when you are 8 years old, and realize what you did was wrong. In fact, the very existence of humankind's assumption that there IS 'right' and 'wrong' contains the intrinsic premise that some force external to himself must define 'right' and 'wrong'. If it didn't, then there couldn't be right or wrong - it's just impossible. And even the most progressive liberals on planet earth believe in Right and Wrong - they simply believe they have discovered the most recent (recent means accurate to a liberal) version of it. When you go a lifetime trying to deny something, it's very easy to find the evidence to do so. I see people trying harder to disprove God than it is to believe in God.

I believe in God because so many factors make it to where I would need far MORE faith to not believe in Him than to believe in Him.
I am a person of little faith, therefore I believe in God