Freedomain Radio

(Edition: Second Draft. Added word count: 2400.)

First, I'd like to ask for a couple of courtesies.

If you don't agree with anything in the following post, stop right there, don't bother reading the rest, and ask me about it. I suggest asking specifically because it will keep you focused on what you want me to respond with, and I just respond better to questions. Of course if you don't want me to respond, then I suggest you boldly assert something mindbogglingly ignorant, because otherwise you will fail in your goal.  

In case I wasn't clear, an example. A refutation could be, instead of a bald statement that I'm wrong, a question asking me to explain how my logic doesn't conflict with some piece of evidence I seem to have overlooked.

Every step of the proof is necessary for every following step, so if you find a flaw in one there's really no point in reading the rest.

 

Abstract: If you have consciousness, then the brain cannot be causally closed under known physical law. I propose a new idea to restore causality, and propose a mechanism whereby the brain can couple with this idea. This mechanism could be built and tested today.

If my theory is true, it can explain a wide variety of previously mysterious phenomena, such as; free will; determinism; imagination and creativity; why crowds can be statistically predicted to some degree, why consciousness evolves; why it evolves easily; why AI hasn't been working; the list goes on and includes both easy and hard problems of consciousness.   

 

• A.1 Causality is true. (Math works and there are no miracles. This theory will be a rocks-fall-down theory.)
  

What causality truly means is that everything can be predicted, at least to some extent, at least in theory. An object not subject to causality would literally be able to do anything, because otherwise you would be able to predict something that it would not do.

To disprove causality, you would have to find a spontaneous process, or somehow prove that a causeless event would still be restricted from spawning arbitrary amounts of energy, either directly or by happening ad infinitum. Said another way, events are defined by their causes; they must be consistent. A spontaneous event would have none of the restrictions normally provided by physical law. 

Notably, stochastic processes are a weakening, but not a violation of this principle. Also, because of Godel, causality does not apply to axioms or to things like the Big Bang. These things must happen for no reason, or they would be inconsistent.

I would also like to note here my No Infinities Principle. If physics is indeed describable by math, then no physical quantity can reach infinity. A physical law with an infinity is meaningless because it is inconsistent. This also means nothing can be infinitesimal. The NIP is equivalent to causality and to the fact that physics can be described by math.

Because of this, the brain can logically be in three states; causally closed under known law; causally closed under new law; causally open under all physics. I will now eliminate the impossible options.

• B.1 Assume the brain is causally closed under known physics.
• 2. You have consciousness. (You want to deny that?)
• 3. Every output of the brain can be simulated in isolation.
  

The brain, like a computer, has only three attributes (at the important particular conceptual level); input, linkage or processing, and output. Obviously the brain cannot produce novel inputs. Similarly, we know that the brain cannot produce novel outputs. If the output is physically impossible without a brain, then it will be physically impossible with a brain. The only possible difference is the linkage or processing. However, the processing is arbitrary. If you can design a computer that can cause a particular output, then you can program it to deterministically link it with an arbitrary input. Regardless, only the outputs are even relevant to my proof.

• 4. The isolated outputs cannot be conscious.
  
• 5. These outputs cannot do anything new by being put next to each other. (Otherwise you have events that can tell when other events are nearby.)
  
• 6. Therefore a computer can output everything a brain can.
• 7. Therefore consciousness has no consequences.
• 8. Concepts with no consequences are physically invalid.
  
• 9. Consciousness does not exist.
  
• 10. Therefore assumption (1) leads to a contradiction, and is untrue.
  
• (Do kindly check for logical errors, it's faster than checking for factual errors.)
  

The full evidence for this, especially #3 and #5, is very full. I'm not going to go into all of it now because I want this post to be under 10 000 words. They basically all boil down to the fact that you evolved, so we know that consciousness is a net fitness advantage, but here we are assuming we can describe everything in the brain causally with known physics. This assumption inevitably means that consciousness does nothing, and we have a contradiction. Go ahead and throw anything that the brain is supposed to be able to output at me, and I will describe how it can be done physically. However, there's a loophole in this; completely new phenomena in physics.

• C.1 Assume the brain is causally closed under new physics.
• 2. Assume the new law is causal.
• 3. The new law is equivalent to situation (B) above, and thus assumption(2) is inconsistent.
  
• 4. Assume the new law is not causal.
  
• 5. This assumption is inconsistent with (A).
• 6. New physics cannot explain consciousness. (Law of excluded middle.)

You could, if desperate, propose a law that can't be described by math, which could, if discovered, modify (A) through some mind boggling fashion without actually falsifying it.

• D.1 Assume consciousness cannot be explained by physics.
  

Once the impossible has been eliminated, whatever remains, however improbable...

• 2. Consciousness is still causal.
• 3. The brain is conscious through a nonphysical means.
• 4. Proposal: The brain is in contact with a separate reality.
  

I call the new reality vacuum two or vacuum2. It is an orthogonal reality to our own, while it shares our laws of logic and other transphysical concepts, and of course parts of the brain, it is otherwise distinct.

• 5. Vacuum2 is causally linked to the brain.
  
• 6. Vacuum2 has a set of rules for the consistent interaction of consciousness, and thus satisfies causality.
• 7. The brain is causally closed under physics plus vacuum2.
  

Notably, physics is best described as a consistent set of rules for the interaction of energy. Without such a set, interaction is in fact impossible, because contradictions do not exist. Thus vacuum2 must have a similar set of rules. Also, if vacuum2 is to not violate causality, it must be incapable of violating any physical law. The vacuum2 must contain no energy, nor be able to act on energy except in a 'God of the gaps' kind of way.

 

If the brain is causally open under physics, there must be some component in particular that is causally open.

I will now show you the conceptual blueprint for such a component. I call it a mind node. You could also call it a soul circuit. (Anti-sightrhyme!) Hypothesis: if you attach this component to a computer, which has I/O devices and memory, the system will become conscious. You could test this hypothesis today.

Parts:

• Decoherence unit
• Interpreter/feedback device

The decoherence unit contains a particle with multiple possible states, each of which has, at rest, an equal probability upon collapse. I imagine a pentagon containing a charged particle, a five-state system with a 20% at each vertex, but anything stochastic works. The decoherence unit can also raise the voltage at the vertices, biasing the collapse. The decoherence unit simply measures its non-pseudo-random result and passes the result to the interpreter, then resets the particle. The interpreter takes this input and performs a calculation - a deterministic transformation. It has a stochastic result, because of the dependence on the pentagon. The interpreter uses this result to modify itself and the decoherence unit, changing the interpretation of the various states and changing the bias on the pentagon.

As such, by the second step, the pentagon's probabilities have stacked, and the interpreter's interpretation is slightly stochastic. During the second execution, the feedback will change it all again. The pentagon's probability equation looks, mathematically, exactly like that of a truly random event. The stochastic effects in the interpreter will, with a suitable equation, never settle into equilibrium, allowing the result of running the mind node to be arbitrary. And because encoding schemes are arbitrary, (the encoding is exactly like a name and need only have the proper associations) it can drive the attached computer in literally every possible way, producing every possible output.

I'll now explain the mathematical description of true randomness.

A truly random event does not satisfy the No Infinities Principle, isn't causal, and cannot be satisfactorily described by math. Let's go through the derivation.

Imagine the one-slit experiment. As electrons diffract off the edge of the slit, it forms a Gaussian distribution on the photoplate. There is a line, directly in front of the slit, where the average electron will strike. But what if the average was itself stochastic? If the average jittered around?

That's simple enough. The average of the average would remain in the center of the photoplate. Now let that second average itself vary. I find it easiest to imagine it oscillates back and forth. So the average line is jittering, and also waving slowly (in the breeze?). It would look like the Gaussian was jittering around and also moving back and forth. Naturally we can still define the third level average. And so on.

There's a good reason we don't actually see this, which I can tell you about if you're curious.

As such, while predictability drops progressively as we go up the levels, for any finite series of averages the event is still somewhat predictable. However, if you do, mathematically, an actual infinite progression of moving averages, then predictability drops to zero and you have a truly random event.

As an example of what that would look like, imagine again the one-slit experiment, except this time imagine that the electron's arrival position is truly random. We will shoot one electron at a time and calculate the average.

At first, it looks just as the regular one slit experiment does. Single points scattered a bit. However, we quickly realize that the average isn't settling down. In fact it seems to move at random itself.

We take the position of the first electron, and we say, "According to our measurements, the electron has a 100% chance of arriving here." For the second, it drops to 50%, but the halfway position is the average 100% of the time. If we shoot another pair, we get another average. It's not particularly related to the first one, so we average the averages and get a level two average. Then we shoot another pair of pairs. The level one and level two averages are not related, so we do a third average. And so it pyramids up.

Notice that, physically speaking, an average can always be calculated. It simply always moves.

 

This behavior is exactly the behavior that the mind node will display. As a result, on the basis of the physical interactions, a mind node is equivalent to true randomness. We learn from physics, such as by studying the wave equation, that any two phenomena that appear the same are in fact the same. Thus, the mind node is causally open under physics.

There's two interpretations here. Either the mind node represents an axiom, an assumption of the universe, or causality is maintained in a novel way. (Or causality is broken and we have a hell of a lot of explaining to do.)

Once hooked up to a computer, a memory and I/O system, the mind node has the ability to remember past results and to to interact with the world. Naturally the true randomness allows things like imagination and creativity, complete unpredictability, and various other advantages that seem evolutionarily beneficial.

 

In short, the mind node is consistent with every feature of consciousness we are familiar with, as directly opposed to the proposition that the brain is causally closed under physics, yet still conscious. I will mention the most important and try to keep it short.

A single mind node is the quantum of consciousness. It would take a large collection to let vacuum2 affect the brain significantly. Since at least one neuron must have a mind node, and all neurons (at least cerebral neurons) are the same, then it seems that every single neuron is a mind node. If a couple billion mind nodes produces human consciousness, it may be hard to detect the consciousness of a single mind node.

Also, this unfortunately only allows free will, it does not prove it. Under (D) free will becomes the proposition that one of the axioms of vacuum2 is that we can make choices. Determinism becomes the idea that vacuum2 is rigidly causal the way physics is. Note that these propositions are not distinguishable based on any physical proof, because naturally they're in vacuum2 and physics does not apply.

Stef's disproof of Gods in general falls apart of course, but it's okay because you can easily construct a new one based on the fact that vacuum2 shares our laws of logic. God is logically inconsistent. Unfortunately it may allow a new definition of God.

The basic property of physics is that it is objective. This is in line with the goals of science. The basic property of vacuum2 is that it is subjective. This is the only way it can explain consciousness. (If it's also objective then it reduces to situation (C) and we're back to proposing that its subjective.) This has a huge pile of interesting consequences.

 

There are as I mentioned before, a ton of other events that suddenly make sense if a mind node is an acausality machine. But perhaps I should await criticism before I go into all of them, yes?

Alan:

Imagine the one-slit experiment. As electrons diffract off the edge of the slit, it forms a Gaussian distribution on the photoplate. There is a line, directly in front of the slit, where the average electron will strike. But what if the average was itself stochastic? If the average jittered around?

That's simple enough. The average of the average would remain in the center of the photoplate. Now let that second average itself vary. I find it easiest to imagine it oscillates back and forth. So the average line is jittering, and also waving slowly (in the breeze?). It would look like the Gaussian was jittering around and also moving back and forth. Naturally we can still define the third level average. And so on.

There's a good reason we don't actually see this, which I can tell you about if you're curious.

Your pentagon model is quite ingenious.  Although, please tell me about this progression of averages.  It would seem you've neglected the fact that one can only measure the position of the photoplate itself to a non-zero uncertainty.  Thus, all progression of averages is skewed by an additional relative error, and it is not the case the the sum of two gaussians is itself necessarily gaussian, correct?  So when you follow the progession, you never reach what you say is a truly random event?

Alan:

There are as I mentioned before, a ton of other events that suddenly make sense if a mind node is an acausality machine. But perhaps I should await criticism before I go into all of them, yes?

Perhaps I am jumping ahead here and curious about the goal.  While I will for the moment say stochastic interaction, as we have discussed so far, is not essential for either the deterministic and/or free will philosopher's paradigms, we can say that regardless of its applicability to brain cells it does bridge the gap between the causality determinists maintain, and the nondeterministic conclusions the philosophers maintain.  As you have said, it allows free will but does not prove it.  I ask all the people who are concerned about this, is that not a step in the right direction?  Since if both sides retain principles of both objectivity and choice, and there is correspondence with the scientific method, are we not on the verge of ontological reunification?  Or is it too early to open the Champagne?

 

RestoringGuy:

Your pentagon model is quite ingenious.

Thanks! I truly appreciate you taking it seriously!

RestoringGuy:

Although, please tell me about this progression of averages.  It would seem you've neglected the fact that one can only measure the position of the photoplate itself to a non-zero uncertainty.  Thus, all progression of averages is skewed by an additional relative error, and it is not the case the the sum of two gaussians is itself necessarily gaussian, correct?  So when you follow the progession, you never reach what you say is a truly random event?

Yes, two Gaussian add up to another Gaussian. Physically this means that for the average to jitter noticeably, it would actually have to somehow be random on a longer time scale than individual arrival events, which would mean the electrons weren't responsible. However, mathematically speaking the average of the average can be contemplated. 

I'm not sure why the error is important. It means that the exact event is uncertain, but you can still plot the average of the measured location. Unless you're thinking about how the error means there aren't an infinite number of distinguishable locations on a finite photoplate?

Still, the photoplate thing is mostly for demonstration, to try to help pin down what I mean. It's an analogy and will eventually break down if you push it hard enough. 

What I'm actually getting at is to consider the actual math of a full infinite progression of averages. And indeed, any finite series collapses into a single average. However, we can agree that predictability drops as we add more averages, yes? Consider any particular point, X. Level 0: 100% of being at X. Level 1: 50% chance of being at in level 0, therefore 50% chance of being at X. Level 2: 30% chance of being in level 1, and therefore 15% chance of being at X. Level 3; 50% chance of being in Level 2, and so 7.5% chance of being at X.

As we add more averages the probability of being at any particular point drops. An infinite series would not collapse because the probability of any particular result drops to basically zero. A function covering the entire number line at equal depth of 1/∞ may have been derived from a Gaussian, (or any other envelope) but it's also a constant function.

I use the method of averages derivation to try to show what such an event would be measured as in physical space, if it were possible. This is important because the event should be nonexistent, as it has effectively a 0% probability. Or, probability is meaningless for a truly random event. To know if it occurs anyway, we have to know what it's supposed to look like.

Even if it turns out that I'm wrong, it would still be good to find out why exactly a pentagon wouldn't work. I am concerned that I've made a mistake somewhere in the math describing the pentagon, but a quick experiment would sort that out.

I still think that the assumption that the brain is causally closed rules out consciousness. 

RestoringGuy:

Perhaps I am jumping ahead here and curious about the goal.  While I will for the moment say stochastic interaction, as we have discussed so far, is not essential for either the deterministic and/or free will philosopher's paradigms, we can say that regardless of its applicability to brain cells it does bridge the gap between the causality determinists maintain, and the nondeterministic conclusions the philosophers maintain.

 Are you saying that stochastic phenomena bridge the gap between determinism and free will? I'm a bit confused about the last few bits of your post, that's why if I've answered the wrong question here.

I suspect that the reason the determinism-free will debate is so eternal and acrimonious is that both sides are ignoring valid evidence. You'll notice I use both determinism and the existence of choice is my proof. Nevertheless it doesn't rule out either, but simply proves that neither have been irrefutably falsified, yet.

Alan:

Yes, two Gaussian add up to another Gaussian. Physically this means that for the average to jitter noticeably, it would actually have to somehow be random on a longer time scale than individual arrival events, which would mean the electrons weren't responsible. However, mathematically speaking the average of the average can be contemplated. 

I'm not sure why the error is important. It means that the exact event is uncertain, but you can still plot the average of the measured location. Unless you're thinking about how the error means there aren't an infinite number of distinguishable locations on a finite photoplate?

The two Gaussians have different standard deviations.  So your infinite progression of averages will hit a floor of standard deviation which is nonzero, right?  This is important, because it seems to me there are some assumptions here that neglect the uncertainty principle.   Causal closure is still able to be maintained without any of our results vanishing to zero.  Maybe a black-hole singularity can vanish as such, I don't know these things.  But it would seem in our world we can't build this progression toward a zero-limit, even in the average measurements of position or momentum.  That is not to say we cannot get close enough for your pentagon to function as a good approximation.  What do you think?

Alan:

Are you saying that stochastic phenomena bridge the gap between determinism and free will? I'm a bit confused about the last few bits of your post, that's why if I've answered the wrong question here.

I suspect that the reason the determinism-free will debate is so eternal and acrimonious is that both sides are ignoring valid evidence. You'll notice I use both determinism and the existence of choice is my proof. Nevertheless it doesn't rule out either, but simply proves that neither have been irrefutably falsified, yet.

I agree completely.  Yes, it bridges the gap.  I have learned the determinists are not troubled as much by stochastic phenomena as they are by the notion that atoms simply aren't good enough.  They feel like Lego-people asked to believe in a Play-Doh world.  But the stochastic phenomena, like the sun-centered solar system, give causality a new perspective which is completely and simultaneously void of the supernatural and the superhuman.  Consciousness is found as stochastic leverage in structure.  Yes, causality and choice have not been falsified, but neither needs to be falsified in order for (1) determinism to be vanishingly unlikely, and (2) free will to be constrained by purely natural causes of atomic action.  If these two conclusions were accepted by both sides, then we would be well on the way to whatever truths emerge from a unified philosophy.

From La Wik,

Not all random variables have a standard deviation, since these expected values need not exist. For example, the standard deviation of a random variable which follows a Cauchy distribution is undefined because its E(X) is undefined.

 

So if you're worried about Gaussian I"ll just use something else.

Regarding black holes, there's a mass called the Planck mass where a particle has enough energy to form its own black hole, making more accurate measurements impossible.

Well, I'm not sure where you're going with the uncertainty principle. Where I suggest you go is to ask if the photoplate needs to be infinite or not, and yes it does. For measured probability to hit zero the particle must have hit an infinite number of different spots, and therefore for calculated probability to hit zero it must have an infinity of spots it can probably hit.

Obviously you can't ever build an infinite plate, and even if you do it by magic, you can't set up a particle so that it can hit the whole thing.

I don't think this is a problem for the pentagon because I don't believe there's any reason it can't indefinitely create more information, and also it doesn't have to actually reproduce the infinitesimal probability calculation, it only has to reproduce the results (or in this case, derivation) of such a calculation.

Regarding it being good enough. Yes! If I'm wrong, then what I've designed is causal but is also an evolution simulator. In principle it can find a solution to any problem you put to it.

Therefore, even if it's not a causal loophole, we just need to build it and then figure out how to ask it how consciousness arises.

Regarding stochastic phenomena. If stochastic leverage allows free will, doesn't that mean that electrons have free will?
 

Alan:

Abstract: If you have consciousness, then the brain cannot be causally closed under known physical law. I propose a new idea to restore causality, and propose a mechanism whereby the brain can couple with this idea. This mechanism could be built and tested today.

    First off, I'd like to apologize for my somewhat biting response to your initial post.  My tolerance for theists is quite low and perhaps a condescending response was not the best way to continue the discussion.

    My issue with your proof lies in the disclaimer quoted above.  What about the human brain keeps it from being quantified and measured according to physical law?  I believe the science of neurology is dedicated to just that.  Also, since our brain (like the rest of our body) is comprised of elements that we consider reasonably common, and have learned to predict with a slight margin of error, why can't our brain be treated as causal?  What about the human brain makes it immune to the laws of physics?  In other words why do you need to restore causality when causality already exists?

     The only reason that you would see cause for the expenditure of such a large amount of intellectual energy and time into something that is quite clear already is that you are trying desperately to find a need for a god.  Since you have not yet said whether or not you believe in a god, I can only assume that you do based upon your posts as well as your signature "when you wound a soul it bleeds fear".  I think the real issue for you is not whether or not humans have a biological capability for "free will" but whether or not your god exists at all.  I think this thread threatens your belief system by contradicting one of the cornerstone principles of Christianity, which is that humans possess "free will".  The reason that this is an issue for Christians is because without free will, there would be no justification for sending all of those poor misguided "souls" to hell.  Since you no doubt believe that there is a heaven and that if you make the right choices you will be going there some day, you must also believe that if you make the wrong choices you will go to hell.  In a deterministic universe whether you will go to heaven or hell is already decided, and the entire basis of Christian moral theory is shattered. 

    If I am wrong and you are not a theist, I apologize.  However if I am right and you are a theist I suggest you examine your religion more closely, so that you might see it for the colossal fraud that it is.  

 

TimothyLeary:

My tolerance for theists is quite low

 arent you into buddhism?

(1200 words including quotes) 

TimothyLeary:

First off, I'd like to apologize for my somewhat biting response to your initial post.  My tolerance for theists is quite low and perhaps a condescending response was not the best way to continue the discussion.

Apology heartily accepted! Aside, perhaps it would not be stretching too far to conclude that you'd normally not want to continue the discussion?

TimothyLeary:

     The only reason that you would see cause for the expenditure of such a large amount of intellectual energy and time into something that is quite clear already is that you are trying desperately to find a need for a god.

Not god in particular, but you're right that I didn't just think this up one day. Instead, I'm trying desperately to explain qualia.

TimothyLeary:

  Since you have not yet said whether or not you believe in a god, I can only assume that you do based upon your posts as well as your signature "when you wound a soul it bleeds fear".

Understandable. However, that's 'soul' in Stef's usage of the word. If you have a problem you should take it up with him.

TimothyLeary:

I think the real issue for you is not whether or not humans have a biological capability for "free will" but whether or not your god exists at all.

Actually, determinism threatens my first axiom: "Trust Your Senses." I sense I have free will. Determinism threatens me because the only way I can tell my senses are corrupt is...my senses, and that's a contradiction I cannot resolve. I would have to give up my truth-seeking.

TimothyLeary:

I think this thread threatens your belief system by contradicting one of the cornerstone principles of Christianity, which is that humans possess "free will".  The reason that this is an issue for Christians is because without free will, there would be no justification for sending all of those poor misguided "souls" to hell.

I can think of one, actually. Basically, use the justice system analogy. While currently we punish someone because they are responsible, we could instead punish someone because otherwise our punishment disincentive loses credibility. In a determinist universe magically including hell, if you don't actually send souls to hell it is no incentive to act morally, and thus would have no effect.

TimothyLeary:

Since you no doubt believe that there is a heaven and that if you make the right choices you will be going there some day, you must also believe that if you make the wrong choices you will go to hell.  In a deterministic universe whether you will go to heaven or hell is already decided, and the entire basis of Christian moral theory is shattered. 

    If I am wrong and you are not a theist, I apologize.  However if I am right and you are a theist I suggest you examine your religion more closely, so that you might see it for the colossal fraud that it is.  

Yeah, if I have a religion, it's certainly not Christianity. Christian philosophy is a search for validation, not a search for truth. But if you look at my responses...you may notice something interesting. For the most part, your perception of my emotions was accurate, and only your interpretation was off. (This is also explained by vacuum2.)

I was raised in one of those weird new-age cults, specifically Right Use of Will, which does have a God, and even includes Christ, but doesn't have heaven or hell. (Instead it has 'the Godhead' and 'the Gap' but they have nothing to do with the afterlife.) I have been systematically disproving tenets of RUoW for basically my entire life. A few years ago I finished it because I decided that even if their God exists, I don't like him.

So anyway, to the main thrust... 

TimothyLeary:

    My issue with your proof lies in the disclaimer quoted above.  What about the human brain keeps it from being quantified and measured according to physical law?  I believe the science of neurology is dedicated to just that.  Also, since our brain (like the rest of our body) is comprised of elements that we consider reasonably common, and have learned to predict with a slight margin of error, why can't our brain be treated as causal?  What about the human brain makes it immune to the laws of physics?  In other words why do you need to restore causality when causality already exists?

Why do you need to restore causality?

If the brain is causal, then we can reproduce all its components in isolation and show there is no need to invoke consciousness to explain their behavior. They don't magically become different processes by being put next to each other. Therefore, if the brain is causally closed then there is no physical consequences of consciousness.

That would mean that consciousness doesn't physically exist. 

Are you conscious? If so, we've proven, through physicalism, that there's more to life than physics.

Alternatively, if we can't reproduce the processes in isolation, that means there's some specific effect we can test for to prove consciousness. Some combination is the 'pixie dust' that produces consciousness. However, there's no output we can't simply program a robot to repeat over and over. Therefore such a definition of consciousness is inconsistent.  

As an example of this, when someone gets angry, they become more aggressive, shout, wave their arms. Their heart rate goes up and they release chemicals. None of this is impossible to program into a robot. It is only the experience of anger that we cannot program. Indeed, how would we even go about looking for a way to do it? Science? Which one?

But in case you doubt, which is very understandable, let me do it again. 

Let me ask; did you evolve? Evolution rarely creates, and certainly never conserves, features that do nothing. 

There are particular areas in the brain that generate consciousness. The brain can function at least to some level without them. (The levels that can't function are a coincidence of wiring, as we can prove there's no need to invoke consciousness to reproduce them in isolation.)

Therefore evolution has 'intentionally' produced a structure that creates consciousness, but I've proven that if the brain is causally closed then consciousness has no physical consequences and cannot add to evolutionary fitness.

So, option (B), we evolve consciousness but it doesn't do anything. Therefore, physics isn't causally closed because something is causing consciousness to arise.

Option (D) we evolve consciousness and it does do something. Therefore, physics isn't causally closed.

Is there any possibility I haven't considered? 

Therefore, we don't even have to understand the brain very well to know that it proves physics is causally open. I find it more palatable to posit trans-physics than to try to modify causality or explain it away, as those are the only alternatives left.

Now, with just the abstract proof the idea is suspect. People have proven lots of wrong things, because we keep failing to think up all the possibilities. However, I have also designed an abstract circuit that is contradiction in causality. It can reproduced in isolation and it is the 'pixie dust' that produces physically acausal events, and presumably consciousness. You could build this circuit today, and I can guess at the components in the brain that make it up. My theory is not only plausible, but testable.  

Further, if the abstract circuit was somehow impossible it would tend to create more contradictions. Instead it generally explains things, such as why AI isn't working, why you need to sleep, why a person with a severed corpus callosum has two consciousnesses, and so on.

I hope that answers your question. If not, I eagerly await more. 

Alan:

So if you're worried about Gaussian I"ll just use something else.

Please bear with me.  You are relying on a collapse of averages, and now want to introduce the non-normalizable distributions, or ones where standard deviations cannot converge?  Sorry, in a well-meaning way I will have to "call your bluff" on this one. Even if you do this and attempt your collapse in reciprocal space, collapsing some momenta to zero or what have you, you are still measuring these things using instruments and from a moving platform -- the Earth.  The best you can do is take your first order apparatus, measure its results with a second order apparatus, and I suspect you will require an infinitely large apparatus long before zero is reached and pure randomness is achieved.

Alan:

I don't think this is a problem for the pentagon because I don't believe there's any reason it can't indefinitely create more information, and also it doesn't have to actually reproduce the infinitesimal probability calculation, it only has to reproduce the results (or in this case, derivation) of such a calculation.

If it's OK with you, I would like to explore your pentagons again, since they are compelling and quite remarkably help this discussion.  Perhaps I was too hasty with disregarding the possibility of an "exact" mind-node connection.  While each vertex can induce a stohastic bias using voltage (you've used that as an example), one must remember the voltage itself is like an "input" into the node and is itself a distribution,not a simple number!  In my mind, I hear you ask "what difference does that make, if a node with simple scalar-biased voltages can precisely match the behavior of distributions by way of laws of averages?"

Quite right.  The two are the same in just this one instance.  A node IN ISOLATION with distributed voltages will behave identical to the simpler node you have in mind with "determined" bias.   But the matter changes dramatically when two nodes, say pentagons A and B, are linked because now you have to take into account joint statistics.  Pentagon A might be held by statistics to have an affinity to match pentagon B's outcome, thus you can have the pentagon-analogue of symmetric (and antisymmetric) wavefunctions in temporal-concert with some "quantum mechanical phase" if you wish.   Never can two statistical pentagons -- linked by distributions -- be simply taken as "connected" by a deterministic propagation of the vertex-bias.  So there is a brand new emergent outcome attached to many kinds of pentagon pairings.  It is an objective outcome which is repeatable (in the expectation sense) and causal, yet not a phenomenon which can be decomposed into deterministic process or even from combined statistics of a simpler numbers of isolated polyhedra even with inputs and outputs joined.

In summary, I cannot speak very well on the matters of religion, but I have to agree partially with TimothyLeary, that we have a means to explain our minds as purely causal phenomena and have good reason to do so using biology as a template.  But at the same time, your pentagons when looked at in the light of quantum statistics, seem helpful in putting the final nail in the coffin of determinism, and actually (to me anyway) make stochastic causality and its tendency for increasing innovation (and consciousness too) more inescapable and not less.

 

I have rearranged your post for a bit so that fast answers are first and longer answers are after. I do this because I would find it helpful if it were done to me.

RestoringGuy:

But at the same time, your pentagons when looked at in the light of quantum statistics, seem helpful in putting the final nail in the coffin of determinism, and actually (to me anyway) make stochastic causality and its tendency for increasing innovation (and consciousness too) more inescapable and not less.

Well, if it turns out that my logic is flawed and consciousness doesn't contradict physicalism, then yes a pentagon is still the quantum of consciousness, and we can empirically test that tomorrow. If the story ends there then determinism will most certainly be nailed.

However, that would lead me to conclude that experience, qualia, just kind of come from nowhere. This is in line with my logical disproof of physicalism, so it seems contradictory to me. Perhaps you could straighten my logic out?

RestoringGuy:

The best you can do is take your first order apparatus, measure its results with a second order apparatus, and I suspect you will require an infinitely large apparatus long before zero is reached and pure randomness is achieved.

Yes, I said that.

The photoplate thing is an analogy and will break if you push it hard enough.

However, mathematically you can still contemplate a random event, with an average, where the average is itself random but has an average, and so on.

Having done so you can imagine what such an event might look like. Yes, with any finite measurement it won't actually reveal the full randomness. However, it would still have characteristic behaviors unique to true random events. Basically, the measured average would diverge instead of converge. Also, the calculated chance of any future event would depend on every other event already measured - the precise opposite of normal probability calculations.

Pentagons should display both properties. 

I'm repeating myself. This is why I suggest you ask questions, it helps me find out where our inconsistency is. Otherwise I have to guess. 

For example, "Why doesn't this just prove that such an event is impossible?" Your ideas seem a lot more interesting than that, but I'm sure you get the idea. Unless you're fine with me repeating myself and guessing. I suppose I should also try to reciprocate, and ask you questions. I shall try to do so for the remainder of my answer.

RestoringGuy:

If it's OK with you, I would like to explore your pentagons again, since they are compelling and quite remarkably help this discussion.

No, I hate it when people find my ideas compelling.

RestoringGuy:

Perhaps I was too hasty with disregarding the possibility of an "exact" mind-node connection.  While each vertex can induce a stohastic bias using voltage (you've used that as an example), one must remember the voltage itself is like an "input" into the node and is itself a distribution,not a simple number!  In my mind, I hear you ask "what difference does that make, if a node with simple scalar-biased voltages can precisely match the behavior of distributions by way of laws of averages?" (Midquote edit: Good show, I do ask that!)

Quite right.  The two are the same in just this one instance.  A node IN ISOLATION with distributed voltages will behave identical to the simpler node you have in mind with "determined" bias.   But the matter changes dramatically when two nodes, say pentagons A and B, are linked because now you have to take into account joint statistics.  Pentagon A might be held by statistics to have an affinity to match pentagon B's outcome, thus you can have the pentagon-analogue of symmetric (and antisymmetric) wavefunctions in temporal-concert with some "quantum mechanical phase" if you wish.   Never can two statistical pentagons -- linked by distributions -- be simply taken as "connected" by a deterministic propagation of the vertex-bias.  So there is a brand new emergent outcome attached to many kinds of pentagon pairings.  It is an objective outcome which is repeatable (in the expectation sense) and causal, yet not a phenomenon which can be decomposed into deterministic process or even from combined statistics of a simpler numbers of isolated polyhedra even with inputs and outputs joined.

Nice! I wasn't very good at QM because of my first professor. He can be described as a demon from hell without inconsistency. (Neglecting the nonexistence of hell, of course.) So, not only may one pentagon lead to consciousness, but if it's hard to tell we can try with small arrays. Is that a correct prediction?

Still, you may be able to isolate the pentagons sufficiently, in which case they probably are so isolated. Otherwise, wouldn't just this sort of coupling occur all over the place, not just in pentagons?

Alan:

Well, if it turns out that my logic is flawed and consciousness doesn't contradict physicalism, then yes a pentagon is still the quantum of consciousness, and we can empirically test that tomorrow. If the story ends there then determinism will most certainly be nailed.

However, that would lead me to conclude that experience, qualia, just kind of come from nowhere. This is in line with my logical disproof of physicalism, so it seems contradictory to me. Perhaps you could straighten my logic out?

It is perhaps that I am considering a "componentwise" reduction as incompatible with proper analysis of the physical world, and you are, in a less generalized way, considering it as incompatible with consciousness.  So our difference is that I maintain consciousness can be physical with an appropriate minimum level of machinery.  Consider that even your "purely random" variables require minimum machinery.  Once written on paper, a number is no longer random, is it?  It becomes determined.  If it turns out you rewrite exactly same number again, you (probably!) cannot say you did so by the same stochastic procedure. So there is clearly a physical specification in the matter, and reduction to a "simpler" procedure is impossible.

Alan:

Nice! I wasn't very good at QM because of my first professor. He can be described as a demon from hell without inconsistency. (Neglecting the nonexistence of hell, of course.) So, not only may one pentagon lead to consciousness, but if it's hard to tell we can try with small arrays. Is that a correct prediction?

Sadly, the physics profession, having been state-funded, has tried like crazy to make QM a living nightmare for students.  We are guided by these crooks and Hollywood to tell us what to make of quantum experiments, and we are left with the false bifurcation into teleportation fantasies or a misapplied skepticism retreating to Newton's laws.

Alan:

Still, you may be able to isolate the pentagons sufficiently, in which case they probably are so isolated. Otherwise, wouldn't just this sort of coupling occur all over the place, not just in pentagons?

It does.  But like joint statistics, there may be a "critical mass" (say an 80 kg robot!), but measured in "pentagons" and not actual mass.  Perhaps you need 32000 pentagons for a philosopher, or maybe 27 pentagons for a politician.

 

The Sheriff:

TimothyLeary:

My tolerance for theists is quite low

 arent you into buddhism?

Buddhism has nothing to do with the belief in any sort of god or deity.  It's a set of practices that, if done correctly, will lead you to enlightenment.  The Buddha is not a deity but a teacher, he was simply the founder of a school of thought.  Therefore being Buddhist is not the same as being a theist.  Do you understand? 

Alan:

If the brain is causal, then we can reproduce all its components in isolation and show there is no need to invoke consciousness to explain their behavior. They don't magically become different processes by being put next to each other. Therefore, if the brain is causally closed then there is no physical consequences of consciousness.

That would mean that consciousness doesn't physically exist. 

Are you conscious? If so, we've proven, through physicalism, that there's more to life than physics.

    Simply because the human race with its limited capabilities cannot reproduce and test something in isolation, does not mean that the object being tested is not causal.  I think to assume that the scientific capabilities of humanity are the end all be all of knowledge is quite short-sighted considering how limited our knowledge of physics has been up to now.  As I have said previously in this thread, consciousness does not necessarily necessitate free will.  I submit that consciousness is simply a tool that our brain has developed so that we may be aware of our own physical and mental condition.  Being aware of our own condition enables us to remedy that condition if necessary.  Consciousness, like every other component of our physical bodies, is a survival tool, nothing more.  Therefore consciousness does in fact physically exist.  Of course there is more to life than physics but since physical laws govern everything in existence, those laws can if fact be used to quantify and predict everything in existence, even something so complex as our brain.