A Matter of Consciousness
"What is so remarkable is that we are answering deep philosophical questions with physical measurements." —Saul Perlmutter "What is so remarkable is that we are answering deep physical questions with spiritual understanding." —Sādhaka Mātra MINING AND UNDERMINING PERCEPTRONIUM (OR WHO’S STORING THE MIND?) The venerable physicist Max Tegmark recently ventured an explanation for consciousness, clippily cleping it Perceptronium, a particle posited on the observation that everything new we have discovered of late is a matter of physical arrangement in space –quantum or otherwise. It is true that scientific theory is based on observation. Only, what we cannot observe directly –the senses and intellect being what they are and the universe being what it is– we have resorted to measuring the effects observed of whatever we assume we are observing –and this via various technological means. And that is the crux of the problem –whereon we hope to nail the latter on the head, only to find thereupon our theories agonizingly crucified. Now ignorance is excusable when self-avowed or in a child blissfully unaware of the existence of such; yet, when it presumes to be in the vanguard of knowledge and that there be no other authority to date as advanced, while understandable in that so much of humanity would seem 1 to be thus afflicted, it must nonetheless, for the good of humanity, be called out for what it is: to wit, pride. 1 There exists a panoply of minds from time immemorial who have indicated a better and wiser comprehension, which anyone, scientist or not, can verify. Only such comprehension for verification demands a certain investment –say– that Perceptronium or other energetic entity as valid, if not more so, a venture wherein most humans, entrenched in present professions they are loathe to quit, are equally loathe to invest. Nonetheless, we might simply examine the ambulatory efficiency of this toddling theory to see how far it waddles on its own… and if it quacks. Now, this is not the first time in history that atomism has raised its cocky head. We have copious material from India, Persia, Greece, and Rome, but to name a few hoary seats of learning, examining and drawing conclusions, some whereof impressively more solid and advanced than present day ones–and all without the technology we have had at our disposal.2 So let us begin to examine the terrain. Science has to date confirmed that there is evolution, ever proceeding from the simple to the complex; it has also confirmed that consciousness exists and, within each kingdom, has also followed a similar –if not the same– path of development. What is more, it would seem that the physical vehicle would seem to be adapted to the particular needs of the “animus” inhabiting each vehicle. Here again, there is general accord. Now, many seem to think that such evolution is but a fluke of nature –meaning, such methodicity is simply a bell curve tolling for you and for me. 1 Not to be too harsh on the Professor: it is entirely possible that he was never properly introduced to the true facts of Life. Unfortunately, the results are the same. 2 We have finally arrived at various versions of a string theory to explain matter; and yet pundits from at least the first millennium BCE in India have discoursed on the existence of guṇas: three entities at the basis of all matter, each possessing its distinctive quality and vibration. To top it all off, the basic meaning of guṇa in Sanskrit is “string”. The difference between “three” and “six” basics can be explained between, say, positive and negative charges. 2 That in itself would be to grossly ignore the vector thus far traced. Such blindness in itself is a danger.3 On the other hand –or lobe, as the case may be– should we admit to a trend in consciousness –if for no other reason than we witness it in our own growth and in children around us– such a steady increase over time and species would indicate that there be a higher consciousness operative; and, as it has not stopped with lower life forms, it may well not now stop with us. Thus, that “trend” would appear to constitute the fruit, if not the being, of a yet higher consciousness –who may or may not be privy to our own and –given its superiority therein– have better understanding than we of those consciousnesses below it. Here some may interject, “That may well be. But we shall not bother our self-sufficient heads about it: we have enough cramming our brains as it is.” Such remains to be seen. What is self-evident is that evolution exists; and consciousness exists; and some would also infer thereby an increasing urge –if not will– in both: in order for consciousness to evolve, there need be an evolution in form. Yet form in itself has no need, much less reason, to evolve. Therefore the push towards evolution lies with and in consciousness, matter, a less evolved form of energy, furnishing the vehicle. And knowledge thereof gives a certain beauty to it all. And who in one’s right mind can ignore beauty? Certainly not mathematicians! This in itself gives answer to the question Tegmark poses: In this paper, we will pay particular attention to what I will refer to as the quantum factorization problem: why do conscious observers like us perceive the particular Hilbert space factorization corresponding to classical space (rather than Fourier space, say), and more generally, why do we perceive the world around us as a dynamic hierarchy of objects that are strongly integrated and relatively 3 Anyone with such symptoms should immediately seek out the help of a qualified psycho-oculist to treat this galloping occultoma of the mind’s eye before it develop into full-fledged eclipsomania and devour all but the victim’s ego. 3 independent? While it is true that forms radiating are perceived because of the nature of forms receiving, such transmission notwithstanding requires recognition. No matter on its own is far enough evolved to accomplish that on a human level (“conscious observers like us perceive”). The short answer is that we as autonomous entity, as well as the biological sub-forms comprising our vehicle have all experienced and continue to experience such a “dynamic hierarchy of objects… strongly integrated and relatively independent”. Only, each can only experience that hierarchy according to one’s level of evolution, which not only explains the differences between kingdoms, species, etc., but also within them. For, as well we have learnt, not everyone sees eye to eye. In a footnote at the beginning, he says: Neuroscience research has demonstrated that long-term memory is not necessary for consciousness. However, even extremely memory-impaired conscious humans such as Clive Wearing are able to retain information for several seconds; in this paper, I will assume merely that information needs to be remembered long enough to be subjectively experienced — perhaps 0.1 seconds for a human, and much less for entities processing information more rapidly. Memory is simply a retrieval process, when the machine accomplishing is faulty or becomes so through misuse, wear and tear, this does not mean that the experience stored by the experiencer is lost, only that is not available at this lower level. This is also further proof that consciousness is on a higher level. There is a problem however following: “I will assume merely that information needs to be remembered long enough to be subjectively experienced.” Here, as we are dealing with flashes and recognition, “subjectively experienced” is fully admissible when referring to a human or other form of life; but an object (i.e., matter) cannot, by definition, be subject, meaning: a living entity subject to experience. We can stack a machine with a whole galaxy of information and mechanical procedures to allow it to imitate motion. Yet no amount of information constitutes knowledge. And no 4 amount of involuntary motion transmogrify an automaton into a human. This is fine learning procedure for children to play thus with dolls. But to pursue such a path as an adult, we should find the primrose all too soon to fade. In his very first table describing Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory (IIT), it is stated: Substances that store or process information can be viewed as novel states of matter and investigated with traditional physics tools. And further on: What about “perceptronium”, the most general substance that feels subjectively self-aware? If Tononi is right, then it should not merely be able to store and process information like computronium does, but it should also satisfy the principle that its information is integrated, forming a unified and indivisible whole. There is already a confusion in language: touting perceptronium both as matter and a substance, when substance is what underlies matter and remains extant after matter has disappeared. And to deem such matter self-aware is to reduce one’s own self-awareness. Agreed that words fall fast afoul of pedestrian usage trampling underfoot pristine meaning. Still, it does not give personal license to persist in such demeaning desecration. Words can be sacred… should ever we have occasion to use them that way. This is not to say that the goal of discovering the nature of consciousness is not admirable, only that the direction and therefore effort so far are misplaced. The longer one persists therein, the more are time and energy wasted–unless one count that the price of such discovery. My hope is that we will ultimately be able to understand perceptronium as yet another state of matter. Just as there are many types of liquids, there are many types of consciousness. However, this should not preclude us from identifying, quantifying, modelling and understanding the characteristic properties shared by all liquid forms of matter, 5 or all conscious forms of matter. Take waves, for example, which are substrate-independent in the sense that they can occur in all liquids, regardless of their atomic composition. Like consciousness, waves are emergent phenomena in the sense that they take on a life of their own: a wave can traverse a lake while the individual water molecules merely bob up and down, and the motion of the wave can be described by a mathematical equation that doesn’t care what the wave is made of. Something analogous happens in computing. Alan Turing famously proved that all sufficiently advanced computers can simulate one another, so a video-game character in her virtual world would have no way of knowing whether her computational substrate (“computronium”) was a Mac or a PC, or what types of atoms the hardware was made of. All that would matter is abstract information processing. If this created character were complex enough to be conscious, like in the film The Matrix, then what properties would this information processing need to have? When he says “all conscious forms of matter”, it is true, all forms of matter are to a degree conscious; only that consciousness is far below that of living entities. This is a confusion of natures. It is, in effect, the equivalent of postulating a mental homunculus that we somehow manufacture and yet have watch us–or at least give us the impression of witnessing our thoughts and actions. Now if we are the intelligence, then there is no need that our consciousness have one; and if our consciousness have no intelligence then how is it able to be so aware? And, if it is simply a handy feat of smoke and mirrors, a sort of witness consciousness bearing false witness, what be its evolutionary purpose? And if consciousness be this energetic matter, then what, pray tell, is conscience? Wave interference? Funnily enough, the problems of autonomy, eigenvalues, hierarchies and comparable mathematical conundra are solved –or, rather, dissolve– in the very real world, where Consciousness as an Energy is found operative –nurturing even– at all levels or, perhaps more properly, in all dimensions, 6 and already available as we progress beyond the limits of reason to our higher destination. 4 Moreover, as we reach the apocosm of this line of Evolution, our own very nature of corporality changes to that of quantic light.5 So. Before our son of Ultron file for mining rights in behalf of his robotics industries, he had best procure himself a sample of Perceptronium and assay this elemenopium. Otherwise, the outfit he has promised to make for his emperor from this stuff may simply go out for a spin on its own. 4 See Evolutionary Spiritualism, Ch. XIII: “Superhuman Evolution” Swāmī Rāmānanda Brahmacārin, 1952. 5 As hard as this is for the rational mind to believe, we are nonetheless presented historically with such examples, as well as a precise description. See Evolutionary Spiritualism, Ch. XIV: “Love: The Final Consummation” Swāmī Rāmānanda Brahmacārin, 1952. For a brief technical explanation, see “Self-Service”, Sādhaka Mātra: http://www.academia.edu/12258681/Self-Service_Complete_Article_ 7 |
Skill OneSed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusant doloremque laudantium, totam rem.
|
Skill TwoSed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusant doloremque laudantium, totam rem.
|
Skill ThreeSed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusant doloremque laudantium, totam rem.
|