Tegmark: Consciousness is a state of matter

[Magical Realist]

Question: why does something being an illusion mean that it doesn't exist, rather than merely not existing as perceived?

You're saying then that consciousness exists, not as a real consciousness of anything, but as an illusion of being conscious of anything?

A mirage exists (as a distortion of light) even if what is perceived (a pool of water, or whatever it may be) does not.

The mirage exists but what the mirage is of doesn't exist. If consciousness is a mirage, then everything we are conscious of is an illusion, including matter. We are left in a vicious circle of an illusion that invalidates
the very basis on which it is supposedly generated. A solipsism of illusional being.

 

[Yazata]

"Thanks to the work of a small group neuroscientists and theoretical physicists over the last few years, we may finally have found a way of analyzing the mysterious, metaphysical realm of consciousness in a scientific manner.

Hasn't psychology been trying to 'analyze consciousness' in a scientific manner for better than a century?

The latest breakthrough in this new field, published by Max Tegmark of MIT, postulates that consciousness is actually a state of matter.

Since ancient times, life in general and consciousness in particular have been imagined as being substantial, some kind of mysterious metaphysical... stuff.

I guess that a newish trend (it isn't really all that new, since double-aspect theories have been around for generations) is to try to imagine consciousness not as a separate spiritual substance, as an etherial gas from a 'higher plane' that sometimes animates otherwise inert lumps of matter here in the physical world, but rather in terms of additional not-conventionally-physicalistic qualities that physical matter supposedly can possess that manifest in the right circumstances or when perceived the right way.

As for me, I remain unimpressed. I continue in my damnable suspicion that trying to image conscousness in substantial terms is probably a conceptual mistake and will turn out to be a dead-end.

 

[Spellbound]

Hasn't psychology been trying to 'analyze consciousness' in a scientific manner for better than a century?



Since ancient times, life in general and consciousness in particular have been imagined as being substantial, some kind of mysterious metaphysical... stuff.

I guess that a newish trend (it isn't really all that new, since double-aspect theories have been around for generations) is to try to imagine consciousness not as a separate spiritual substance, as an ethereal gas from a 'higher plane' that sometimes animates otherwise inert lumps of matter here in the physical world, but rather in terms of additional not-conventionally-physicalistic qualities that physical matter supposedly can possess that manifest in the right circumstances or when perceived the right way.

As for me, I remain unimpressed. I continue in my damnable suspicion that trying to image consciousness in substantial terms is probably a conceptual mistake and will turn out to be a dead-end.

Reality is consciousness.

 

[sculptor]

Hasn't psychology been trying to 'analyze consciousness' in a scientific manner for better than a century?... .

yes
doggedly and dismally.

 

[Magical Realist]

Hasn't psychology been trying to 'analyze consciousness' in a scientific manner for better than a century?



Since ancient times, life in general and consciousness in particular have been imagined as being substantial, some kind of mysterious metaphysical... stuff.

I guess that a newish trend (it isn't really all that new, since double-aspect theories have been around for generations) is to try to imagine consciousness not as a separate spiritual substance, as an etherial gas from a 'higher plane' that sometimes animates otherwise inert lumps of matter here in the physical world, but rather in terms of additional not-conventionally-physicalistic qualities that physical matter supposedly can possess that manifest in the right circumstances or when perceived the right way.

As for me, I remain unimpressed. I continue in my damnable suspicion that trying to image conscousness in substantial terms is probably a conceptual mistake and will turn out to be a dead-end.

I'm not so sure Tegmark means to suggest consciousness is a substance like matter. He is suggesting it is a STATE of matter, like the phases of solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. This is more in line with consciousness being an emergent property of matter. A sort of property pluralism I guess.

 

[Spellbound]

I'm not so sure Tegmark means to suggest consciousness is a substance like matter. He is suggesting it is a STATE of matter, like the phases of solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. This is more in line with consciousness being an emergent property of matter. A sort of property pluralism I guess.

Reality is consciousness.

 

[Yazata]

It isn't science, it is religion.

I guess that it's physicists speculating about philosophical problems. Everybody is free to do that. The question then is why other people whould take their speculations seriously. These particular speculations look like an appeal to authority to me, based on Tegmark's and Tononi's positions as physicists at major universities. Presumably they do have arguments that (hopefully) support their slightly outlandish conclusions, but we don't really know what they are at this point.

And the scientific test to find whether this is true or false, is...........?

Right. If these theories lead to testable predictions, and if those tests succeed, then we might be on to something.

But (without having read their papers) I get the impression that lots of questions are being begged.

"Consciousness can be understood as a state of matter called "perceptronium" that can be differentiated from other kinds of matter (solids, liquids, gasses)"

Ok... television reception can be understood in terms of 'states of matter' called "television receivers" that can be differentiated from other kinds of matter (solids generally, liquids, gasses). So is "perceptronium" really just a pretentious way of saying "nervous system" or "brain" (and whatever analogous information processors might be capable of doing roughly the same things)?

The underlying question seems (to me anyway) to be whether consciousness is really a substance, a kind of stuff (identifying consciousness-substance with brains seems wrong somehow, so let's call it "perceptronium" as if that makes things clearer) or whether consciousness is something that physical systems (whether we call them brains or "perceptronium") do, actions that they perform.

In the latter (event as opposed to substance) model, our task would then be to elucidate the kind of information processing tasks associated with consciousness in such a way that every objective or subjective description of consciousness that's capable of being put into words can be explained, along with why there seems to be an ineffable residue such as the the reason it's impossible to explain how red looks to a blind man. (We aren't there yet, it's a research program.)

The former (substance as opposed to event) model seems more prone to simply treating things like phenomenal qualities or self-conscious awareness as ontological givens, treating them as otherwise inexplicable properties of either spiritual substance or the subjective/psychological aspect of matter itself.

"Tegmark's paper doesn't get to the point where we can suddenly say what causes or creates consciousness".

If that's so, and I'm sure it is, then what is he telling us that's interesting or new?

 

[Sarkus]

You're saying then that consciousness exists, not as a real consciousness of anything, but as an illusion of being conscious of anything?

I haven't mentioned anything about consciousness at this stage. I'm merely asking why do you think that something being an illusion means that it doesn't exist, rather than merely not existing as percieved.

The mirage exists but what the mirage is of doesn't exist.

That is what I said, yes.

If consciousness is a mirage, then everything we are conscious of is an illusion, including matter. We are left in a vicious circle of an illusion that invalidates
the very basis on which it is supposedly generated. A solipsism of illusional being.

Perhaps, but as stated, I have not yet said whether I think consciousness is illusory or not... I am merely questioning your apparent view that illusory equates to not existing, rather than merely not existing as perceived.

As far as it relates to consciousness, I think it would depend, as do all these things, on what one considers consciousness to be.
I don't think it leads to a vicious circle nor any invalidation - it merely leads to a different understanding of what we consider consciousness to be, but everything above the level of consciousness (i.e. that relies on consciousness for meaning) remains as is, remains consistent, irrespective of what our view on the illusory nature of consciousness may be.

 

[Sarkus]

Reality is consciousness.

You've said that.
Twice.
Are you ever actually going to post an actual argument, or contribute to a discussion beyond merely posting a quote from Langan (or somebody else about Langan's work)?

 

[sculptor]

perhaps
Consciousness is living in the past, present, and future simultaneously.

Then,'"living in the present"-"living in the moment"(to the exclusion of the other 2) would preclude being "conscious".

(anecdote) as an artist: That state of being without conscious thought is something we strive for, and comes rarely at first. When it does come, magic happens, time dissolves: It is just the hands and the clay and a sense of wonder. And more and better work gets done in those few moments than in 3 hours of struggle.

 

[Magical Realist]

I haven't mentioned anything about consciousness at this stage. I'm merely asking why do you think that something being an illusion means that it doesn't exist, rather than merely not existing as percieved.

That was the context of your analogy. Why did you provide the mirage analogy if your didn't mean it to apply to consciousness being an illusion? Are you saying consciousness ISN'T an illusion now?

Perhaps, but as stated, I have not yet said whether I think consciousness is illusory or not... I am merely questioning your apparent view that illusory equates to not existing, rather than merely not existing as perceived.

Why the evasion? Is consciousness illusory or not?

 

[Spellbound]

You've said that.
Twice.
Are you ever actually going to post an actual argument, or contribute to a discussion beyond merely posting a quote from Langan (or somebody else about Langan's work)?

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 independent?

http://www.dreamviews.com/science-mathematics/151489-perceptronium-quantum-theory-consciousness.html


The Fourier transform (English pronunciation: /ˈfʊrieɪ/), named after Joseph Fourier, is a mathematical transformation employed to transform signals between time (or spatial) domain and frequency domain, which has many applications in physics and engineering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform

A signal as referred to in communication systems, signal processing, and electrical engineering "is a function that conveys information about the behavior or attributes of some phenomenon".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(electrical_engineering)

where:

A, the amplitude, is the peak deviation of the function from zero.
f, the ordinary frequency, is the number of oscillations (cycles) that occur each second of time.
ω = 2πf, the angular frequency, is the rate of change of the function argument in units of radians per second

, the phase, specifies (in radians) where in its cycle the oscillation is at t = 0.
When

is non-zero, the entire waveform appears to be shifted in time by the amount

/ω seconds. A negative value represents a delay, and a positive value represents an advance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_wave

Consciousness relates reality to perception.

 

[Sarkus]

That was the context of your analogy. Why did you provide the mirage analogy if your didn't mean it to apply to consciousness being an illusion? Are you saying consciousness ISN'T an illusion now?

I'm trying to understand your line of argument that suggests that if consciousness is an illusion then the universe does not exist.
So I raised the analogy to try to better understand your argument.
You seem to agree that a mirage exists while what we perceive it to be does not exist. So I am questioning why, when you apply the same line to consciousness, you conclude that the universe would not exist. Or is it merely that the universe does not exist as perceived.

Why the evasion? Is consciousness illusory or not?

I don't think it is illusory: our perception of our consciousness does not run contrary to our understanding of physics etc.
But I am not sure that considering consciousness to be illusory leads to the conclusion that the universe does not exist and thus negates the notion of it being illusory, as you seem to do.

 

[Sarkus]

Consciousness relates reality to perception.

Care to explain the relevance of, or expand on (i.e. add your own thoughts to) the first quote to this thread (given that the subsequent quotes are just attempts to explain what a Fourier transform is, what a signal is, and what a sine wave is)?
Soon you're going to be posting quotes to define every word you type.

 

[Magical Realist]

I'm trying to understand your line of argument that suggests that if consciousness is an illusion then the universe does not exist.
So I raised the analogy to try to better understand your argument.
You seem to agree that a mirage exists while what we perceive it to be does not exist. So I am questioning why, when you apply the same line to consciousness, you conclude that the universe would not exist. Or is it merely that the universe does not exist as perceived.

If consciousness is a mirage, then what it appears to be a perception of does not exist any more than the water of a mirage exists. Consciousness of the universe would equate to a mirage of the universe. The universe MAY exist anyway, much as say a mirage may be covering over a real pool of water with an illusion of water. But there's no way we'd be able to know it.

I don't think it is illusory: our perception of our consciousness does not run contrary to our understanding of physics etc.
But I am not sure that considering consciousness to be illusory leads to the conclusion that the universe does not exist and thus negates the notion of it being illusory, as you seem to do.

To be an illusion means to be a false representation of something. If consciousness is an illusion, then that the universe exists is a false representation of it. A mere appearance with no substance. That is how an illusory consciousness means the universe existing is an illusion.

 

[Sarkus]

If consciousness is a mirage, then what it appears to be a perception of does not exist any more than the water of a mirage exists.

Indeed - what it appears to be does not exist, but what it is does exist.

Consciousness of the universe would equate to a mirage of the universe. The universe MAY exist anyway, much as say a mirage may be covering over a real pool of water with an illusion of water. But there's no way we'd be able to know it.

But some would argue that we can not know such an objective reality, regardless of whether consciousness is illusion or not. So your argument refuting the illusory consciousness also applies to anyone who holds that an objective universe can not be directly perceived. That does not mean that the universe does not exist.
So we can do what we always do and require a consistency between what we do perceive and what we can explain. I.e. it ultimately doesn't matter if it is illusory or not, as what matters is the consistency of what stems from it.

To be an illusion means to be a false representation of something. If consciousness is an illusion, then that the universe exists is a false representation of it. A mere appearance with no substance. That is how an illusory consciousness means the universe existing is an illusion.

Why would it be a "mere appearance with no substance"? The mirage of the water has substance, even if it isn't what it perceives to be.
You also seem to have drifted away from arguing that this would mean the universe would not exist: "Then there's no universe. No bodies."

 

[Magical Realist]

Indeed - what it appears to be does not exist, but what it is does exist.

That's like saying a mirage of water means the water exists. No it doesn't. It means the water we think we perceive does not really exist. There is nothing behind the appearance TO exist. It is empty, insubstantial and non-referential. Hence if consciousness is an illusion then what we are conscious of, which is basically the universe, would be illusory too and so not real. You DO grasp the meaning of illusion don't you?

"An illusion is something that isn't real. It may look real, but it's actually fake — just a crafty construction or fantasy. Like the old rabbit-out-of-the-hat trick practiced by magicians around the globe."---http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/illusion

But some would argue that we can not know such an objective reality, regardless of whether consciousness is illusion or not. So your argument refuting the illusory consciousness also applies to anyone who holds that an objective universe can not be directly perceived. That does not mean that the universe does not exist.

If you believe consciousness is real and not just an illusion, then it follows that what it is conscious of is real also. Hence the advantage of dualism that acknowledges the dual reality of consciousness and matter--of mind and physicality. Attempting to reduce one to the other only results in it all being an illusion where nothing is real.

So we can do what we always do and require a consistency between what we do perceive and what we can explain. I.e. it ultimately doesn't matter if it is illusory or not, as what matters is the consistency of what stems from it.

But if consciousness is an illusion, then consistency is an illusion as well. So we are still trapped inside a solipsistic illusion or a dream where nothing is real.

Why would it be a "mere appearance with no substance"? The mirage of the water has substance, even if it isn't what it perceives to be.

No..the mirage AS water has no substance. It is an appearance of water, not the substance of water.

You also seem to have drifted away from arguing that this would mean the universe would not exist: "Then there's no universe. No bodies."

Then let me restate it: If consciousness is an illusion, then what we seem to be conscious of, such as the universe and bodies, is illusory as well, and so is not real. Is that clear enough?

 

[Sarkus]

That's like saying a mirage of water means the water exists.

No, it's not like saying that at all. It is like saying that what we perceive does exist, but that it is different to what we perceive. We perceive water, but what actually exists is a distortion of light that gives the appearance of water.

No it doesn't. It means the water we think we perceive does not really exist. There is nothing behind the appearance TO exist. It is empty, insubstantial and non-referential. Hence if consciousness is an illusion then what we are conscious of, which is basically the universe, would be illusory too and so not real. You DO grasp the meaning of illusion don't you?

I do grasp the meaning:
" an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience.
a deceptive appearance or impression.
a false idea or belief." - oxforddictionaries.com

"noun
1. something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality.
2. the state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension.
3. an instance of being deceived.
4. Psychology. a perception, as of visual stimuli (optical illusion) that represents what is perceived in a way different from the way it is in reality.
5. a very thin, delicate tulle of silk or nylon having a cobwebbed appearance, for trimmings, veilings, and the like.
6. Obsolete. the act of deceiving; deception; delusion." - dictionary.com

As such the illusion still exists - just not as perceived.
The universe still exists even if consciousness is an illusion - it would just be different than we are conscious of.
If you want to argue that this means that the "universe is not real" or even, as you have previously stated, that this means the universe does not exist, then on this we differ.

"An illusion is something that isn't real. It may look real, but it's actually fake — just a crafty construction or fantasy. Like the old rabbit-out-of-the-hat trick practiced by magicians around the globe."---http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/illusion

If you're going to quote definitions, at least use a reputable source, such as an actual dictionary.

If you believe consciousness is real and not just an illusion, then it follows that what it is conscious of is real also.

No it doesn't. Otherwise our interpretation of our senses (i.e. that which we are conscious of) would be infallible, and we know that is simply not the case. You could be conscious of a banana on a table, only to later realise that it was a novelty phone made to resemble a banana.

Hence the advantage of dualism that acknowledges the dual reality of consciousness and matter--of mind and physicality. Attempting to reduce one to the other only results in it all being an illusion where nothing is real.

It might result in something, but not in it "being an illusion where nothing is real": reality exists, it is just a matter of whether it exists as we perceive it or not.

But if consciousness is an illusion, then consistency is an illusion as well. So we are still trapped inside a solipsistic illusion or a dream where nothing is real.

Why solipsistic? Why would consistency be an illusion? The illusion of consciousness (if it is an illusion) is not in what it does but in the way it works and how it is arrived at - i.e. under the hood the operation might not be as it is perceived to be. Everything above the level of consciousness (i.e. that which relies on consciousness) is utterly unaffected by whether it is illusory or not.

No..the mirage AS water has no substance. It is an appearance of water, not the substance of water.

I know - and the mirage is not water, so for you to argue about the mirage AS water is a straw man. The mirage exists, though, being that which gives rise to the disturbance and distortion of light.

Then let me restate it: If consciousness is an illusion, then what we seem to be conscious of, such as the universe and bodies, is illusory as well, and so is not real. Is that clear enough?

It's clear, but I disagree, as I have indicated, that your conclusion follows your premise. You claim the illusion has no substance, is not real, does not exist... yet magicians on stage do not suddenly disappear when we recognise their magic as a mere illusion. Mirages don't suddenly disappear when we recognise them for what they are. Optical illusions don't suddenly become non-illusory when we recognise their illusory nature. There IS substance behind them. They DO exist. Just not necessarily as perceived.
And on this we seem to differ.

 

[Spellbound]

Care to explain the relevance of, or expand on (i.e. add your own thoughts to) the first quote to this thread (given that the subsequent quotes are just attempts to explain what a Fourier transform is, what a signal is, and what a sine wave is)?

Of course. It is real.

 

[Spellbound]

Of course.

Reality.