Quantum Physics, The Spiritual, Consciousness, Higher Powers

[jgh7]

Quantum physics is filled with strange and spooky (as Einstein put it) observations and theories. Many new age interpretations have linked this as evidence of a higher power existing, as quantum particles themselves being conscious, as the universe itself being sentient, and other spiritual ideas.

The majority of the scientific community dismisses this as new age jibber jabber. But I'd like to open up the floor to both sides to give their arguments for whether or not quantum physics is linked in any way to the spiritual/religious/supernatural.

Let's not butt heads to the point of entanglement though.

[Divine Insight]

On the flip side we do not assume carbon is inherently alive to explain life in carbon based life forms we just need to understand how carbon functions in carbon based life forms.

Likewise we do not need to assume energy is aware in order to explain awareness in organisms or things derived from energy that show themselves to be aware. We just need to better understand how energy relates to said awareness.

I would disagree with your use of the term "likewise" here.

To begin with, have we truly explained "life"? In fact, can we even truly define what we mean when we say "life"? The last I've heard even biologists often have debates over how to define "life".

Also, can we consider something to be "alive" if it's not having an experience of any kind?

In other words, let's say that we have a "Zombie", or an android that we have built that can mimic human behavior but isn't truly sentient? Should we say that these things are "alive"?

Is a brain dead human body "alive"?

In other words, explaining biological "machines" in terms of the atoms they are made up of doesn't require anything more than the physics that I had already listed:

~~~~~~
Standard Physics

1. Gravity
2. Electromagnetism
3. Weak nuclear force
4. Strong nuclear force

We can even toss in some quantum mechanical principles such as:

1. The Pauli Exclusion Principle
2. The fact that Bosons can occupy the same space at the same time.
~~~~~

All of the above can explain a "Biological Machine".

There is no problem until that machine actually becomes "aware" of its own existence. Only then are the above physics principles insufficient for the explanation.

This is why I suggest that your use of the term "likewise" above is inappropriate.

We don't need to claim that a carbon atom is "alive" in order to explain the evolution of biological machines. In fact, there's no need for a carbon atom itself to satisfy whatever "definition" we end up assigning to "life". A carbon atom itself would not need to satisfy that definition.

But clearly there is a difference between mere "life" and "awareness".

Is a Tree "aware"? I think you would agree that a tree is "alive". Whether it has any awareness is anyone's guess. Does a tree "feel" the wind, or "experience" the rain, etc.? In other words, is a tree having an experience?

If not, then the above physics can explain a tree with no problem. And you don't need to claim that carbon atoms are "alive".

But the moment a tree (or any biological machine) become "aware" that it exists, now we have a problem!

Only because there is no longer anything in the our basic physics list that can explain that phenomenon.

How do you get "awareness" out of the following:

~~~~
Standard Physics

1. Gravity
2. Electromagnetism
3. Weak nuclear force
4. Strong nuclear force

We can even toss in some quantum mechanical principles such as:

1. The Pauli Exclusion Principle
2. The fact that Bosons can occupy the same space at the same time.
~~~~~

I can see how you can explain a tree.

Or even an entire "zombie human".

As long as that human isn't "aware" that it exists there's no problem. You could have a billion zombie (i.e. biological robots) running around and explain them all using the above physics.

But the moment those biological robots become AWARE that they actually exist and they are having an experience, then suddenly there is NOTHING in our physics list that can explain how that could be.

So there is a huge difference between explaining the existence of a biological machine, and explaining the existence of a biological machine that actually KNOWS that it exists.

What is it that "knows" it exists?

It's not made up of anything that capable of knowing anything.

All it's made up of is:

~~~~

Standard Physics

1. Gravity
2. Electromagnetism
3. Weak nuclear force
4. Strong nuclear force

We can even toss in some quantum mechanical principles such as:

1. The Pauli Exclusion Principle
2. The fact that Bosons can occupy the same space at the same time.

~~~~~

What in this list has can explain how something could "know" that it exists?

I can see where the things in this list could explain a zombie robot. But not a fully sentient one that actually knows it exists and is having an experience of exiting.

So I reject you use of the term "likewise". Describing a biological machine is not the same as describing how a biological machine can know that it exists.

That's the problem I'm having.

And I confess, that there may be a secular answer.

It could somehow come down to awareness being some sort of "emergent property" of a complex state of electromagnetic activity and analog neural networks that somehow create a "feedback loop" that give rise to some sort of conscious entity that can know that it exists.

But my point is that it's not at all clear how that could possibly happen.

We need to also be very careful when we use the term "emergent property". Because human conscious awareness would be the FIRST AND ONLY time we would need to rely on this idea.

There are no other cases of "emergent properties" that can't be explained using:

~~~~~~~

Standard Physics

1. Gravity
2. Electromagnetism
3. Weak nuclear force
4. Strong nuclear force

We can even toss in some quantum mechanical principles such as:

1. The Pauli Exclusion Principle
2. The fact that Bosons can occupy the same space at the same time.

~~~~~

Even a complex computer evolving from scratch can be explained with all of the above. There is no need to bring in any ideas of "emergent properties".

Even complex electronic logic circuits can all be explain using basic physics.

But "awareness"? I don't think so.

Or at least I can't see how that can be explained using the basic laws of physics. There's just nothing in there that would explain it. Electromagnetism is about the best shot we got. But even that would be hard to use to explain how anything could actually become "aware" that it exists.

What is it that has "become aware"?

The electromagnetism?
The computer algorithm?
The analog neural network itself?

That's pretty much what Marvin Minsky's book was all about yet his book doesn't even suggest an explanation for how an analog neural network could become aware of itself.

I confess that I read his book hoping to find the answer to that question.

And I guess I should be somewhat embarrassed that I was disappointed that he didn't answer the question.

Silly me! If Minsky could have answered that question we'd HAVE THE ANSWER and he would have been world famous for having given it to us.

None the less he did provide us with tons of great ideas on how to build AI.

[Neatras]

Also, can we consider something to be "alive" if it's not having an experience of any kind?

In other words, let's say that we have a "Zombie", or an android that we have built that can mimic human behavior but isn't truly sentient? Should we say that these things are "alive"?

Throwing in my two cents, but if it's capable of mimicking human behavior, then it will also imitate the learning capacity of living beings. Which means it's collecting data, storing it, and accessing it or modifying behavior based on the presence of data. This implies a physical storage and persisting, though perhaps imprecise and faulty, method of responding to stimulus. In this way, what reason would you have for declaring it not truly sentient? It would have all the hallmark traits human beings do, though perhaps expressed using different physical components than the ones we're familiar with.

To summarize: I feel like this is a failed analogy. I believe if you wish to counter this, you're going to have to go further in-depth and specify how sentience can be imitated without being "experienced." If sentience can exist as a spectrum of possible states, and any being or machine can closely approximate one such state, then it may not be the exact same kind of sentience, but instead a variation of whatever sentience can be expressed as.

Limiting the universe to only being able to produce one "kind" of consciousness is rather small-minded, I would think. There's nothing inherently special about consciousness that requires us humans be bearing the sole expression of it.

[Divine Insight]

Limiting the universe to only being able to produce one "kind" of consciousness is rather small-minded, I would think. There's nothing inherently special about consciousness that requires us humans be bearing the sole expression of it.

First off, I haven't personally endorsed the idea that humans are the only animals that have conscious experience.

I personally believe that my cat is having an experience as well as me. If this is true then we can rule out the need to have language or to even think about things in any complex abstract way.

I imagine that many animals are actually having an experience. Including things like birds. Possibly even insects. Although by the time we get down to insects the intelligence starts dropping off quite rapidly.

I even "imagine" that a worm is actually having an experience. Of course I could be wrong, but it's easy to imagine that the worm is actually having some sort of experience. But the time we get down to plants, it's more difficult to even imagine that plants are having an experience, but it's not impossible to at least "imagine". But clearly that question is going to need to remain open.

Still, I think it would be hard to convince most people that animals like dogs and cats aren't having a conscious aware experience of this life.

So I certainly don't limit this to humans. And I personally don't even necessarily limit it to a "brain" as we know it. Because I'm willing to consider that plants could be having some sort of experience. Perhaps the early "nervous systems" is the key here.

But still, would the "nervous system" itself being having this experience? It just not clear exactly what it is that is actually having the experience.

(sorry for mixing up your quotes, but I felt like responding to your last point first.

Throwing in my two cents, but if it's capable of mimicking human behavior, then it will also imitate the learning capacity of living beings. Which means it's collecting data, storing it, and accessing it or modifying behavior based on the presence of data. This implies a physical storage and persisting, though perhaps imprecise and faulty, method of responding to stimulus. In this way, what reason would you have for declaring it not truly sentient? It would have all the hallmark traits human beings do, though perhaps expressed using different physical components than the ones we're familiar with.

To summarize: I feel like this is a failed analogy. I believe if you wish to counter this, you're going to have to go further in-depth and specify how sentience can be imitated without being "experienced." If sentience can exist as a spectrum of possible states, and any being or machine can closely approximate one such state, then it may not be the exact same kind of sentience, but instead a variation of whatever sentience can be expressed as.

Well, there are a couple of things here:

First off is sentience a "behavior" or an "experience".

I think we need to recognize the difference between these two things.

It may very well be possible to "simulate" sentient "behavior" without the simulating machine actually having any experience at all.

As an example. Let's imagine that it is discovered how to create true sentience and this requires an analogy neural network. This is quite different from how a digital computer works. And it may very well be possible that what makes a sentient being "aware of it's sentient behavior" is this analog neural network.

Now imagine that we program a digital computer to behave in precisely the same way that a sentient entity behaves. If it's true that true sentient awareness requires the analog nature of a neural network, then the digital simulation of that same behavior will not be "true sentience". In other words, the digital computer that is simulating the sentient behavior won't be having a genuine sentient experience.

So it may very well be possible to simulate sentient behavior without creating true sentience.

Just because we are able to simulate a behavior is no guarantee that we have created precisely the original condition.

So it may simply be impossible to create true sentience using a digital computer that has memory and a CPU because that setup simply doesn't work to produce true sentience. But it could still potentially mimic or simulate the same "behavior".

So from the outside it would appear to be sentient, but from the inside there's "nobody at home".

So being able to simulate a behavior is no guarantee that you've recreated the original condition.

~~~~~

Let's take this a step further and consider that the above conclusion is true. Let's assume that only an analog neural network can create true sentience but a CPU running a program in memory cannot.

Why might this be the case?

What in physics could explain why one situation creates true sentience and the other does not?

Well, again if we look at our list of known physics it's not going to help much. However, if we consider that energy itself may be the thing that is actually able to have an experience then this may explain why an analogy neural network will produce true sentience where a digital CPU running a step-wise program in memory cannot.

I'll leave it to you to think of reasons why that might be the case, only because I'm beat and I need to go to bed and temporarily shut down my own sentience for a while.

[Neatras]

Let's take this a step further and consider that the above conclusion is true.

And if I say let's not? In the past you've said many things, some of which I disagree with. And usually when we have a disagreement, it stems from what you start to "consider" using your assumed conclusions. But entertaining these ideas has a crucial side effect on human cognition, one I think you're aware of.

Primacy.

Wherein the first presented argument is given undue credence. It gives the air of plausibility and is actually the foundation behind which confirmation bias inserts itself into the mind, acting as a wall against all secondary and tertiary arguments that conflict with the first given.

The simplest way I can demonstrate that primacy is in effect is by presenting the contrasting argument: that it's not a neural network that is necessary for sentience, but rather any being capable of storing, recalling, and utilizing information to construct behavioral patterns.

In this respect, computers carry a particular "form" of sentience you and I cannot experience.

What if we take this conclusion as truthful, and pursue its philosophical underpinnings? But I suspect you're not willing to go down that road, because you'd much rather direct our attentions toward the avenue of thought you're either more comfortable with, or more proud of presenting.

I understand I'm digressing from the topic at hand, but I want this to be a demonstration of how much I dislike using debate tactics to manipulate an argument in a predetermined direction without actually giving others the means to have agency in the discussion. And I do sincerely mean manipulation in the most benign way, as you have never demonstrated or even shown the capacity for malice.

If you want to rebuke me, I would like you to at least acknowledge that this debate up until your last post has not been about the consequences of sentience, but rather the analysis of the conclusions you're attempting to wave away as "accepted for argument's sake." "Assuming my conclusion is true, why is this true?" when the conclusion is what is being analyzed is not how I like to spend my debates, because it means that my own interest in challenging the conclusion is ignored for a potentially pre-scripted argument of a different nature.

[Divine Insight]

If you want to rebuke me, I would like you to at least acknowledge that this debate up until your last post has not been about the consequences of sentience, but rather the analysis of the conclusions you're attempting to wave away as "accepted for argument's sake." "Assuming my conclusion is true, why is this true?" when the conclusion is what is being analyzed is not how I like to spend my debates, because it means that my own interest in challenging the conclusion is ignored for a potentially pre-scripted argument of a different nature.

Once again, I would like to begin with an apology for responding in a different order to your post by mixing up the order of your quotes.

I only do this because it makes more sense to me in my reply.

To begin with I'm not considering this thread to necessarily be a "debate". At least not at this point because it hasn't yet been established that two or more people are actually "debating" for two or more specific conclusions.

So I'm not attempting to "argue" that my thoughts in this thread necessarily lead to the only possible conclusion, and I am open to alternative ideas. But only if those alternative ideas can be "fleshed-out" to some degree in more depth to give further support for why they should be seriously considered.

So I'm totally open to the idea that sentience can be created via a digital computer that runs a CPU executing sequential commands from memory. The only problem I have with this at this time is that I have thought about this for many years and I can't see how that could ever be made to work. This doesn't mean that someone else couldn't offer a potential explanation for how it would work, but unless they do, they don't really have anything to offer.

My approach leads to further observations that offer at least some possible explanations for how sentience arises and what it actually "is".

So this is why I offer this avenue of approach. It's not that I'm necessarily "ruling out" the digital computer becoming sentient (although I have done that for myself). But I am still open to hearing how someone thinks it might be made to work. If you can offer that, I'm all eyes.

Let's take this a step further and consider that the above conclusion is true.

And if I say let's not? In the past you've said many things, some of which I disagree with. And usually when we have a disagreement, it stems from what you start to "consider" using your assumed conclusions. But entertaining these ideas has a crucial side effect on human cognition, one I think you're aware of.

Primacy.

Wherein the first presented argument is given undue credence. It gives the air of plausibility and is actually the foundation behind which confirmation bias inserts itself into the mind, acting as a wall against all secondary and tertiary arguments that conflict with the first given.

But putting forth unproven premises and hypothesis is how all research and investigation is done is it not? We need to at least propose an idea before we can see where it leads.

That's all I'm doing. I'm not suggesting that this necessarily has to be the absolute truth of reality. I'm simply saying, "Let's accept this as a true postulate and see where it leads".

I think this is how Albert Einstein achieved most of his work. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is how all scientists work. They begin with an assumption, and then see where it leads.

I'm not going to proclaim later than we had accepted this original assumption as an absolute truth that can never be denied. That would clearly be wrong. It's just a postulate that I am proposing to see where it leads. Not a conclusion I am demanding before I see where it might lead.

The simplest way I can demonstrate that primacy is in effect is by presenting the contrasting argument: that it's not a neural network that is necessary for sentience, but rather any being capable of storing, recalling, and utilizing information to construct behavioral patterns.

In this respect, computers carry a particular "form" of sentience you and I cannot experience.

What if we take this conclusion as truthful, and pursue its philosophical underpinnings? But I suspect you're not willing to go down that road, because you'd much rather direct our attentions toward the avenue of thought you're either more comfortable with, or more proud of presenting.

Well there are two things here:

One is simply this. If you would like to postulate that a digital computer can carry a particular "form" of sentience that you and I cannot experience, you would need to at least offer some reason why you believe that to be the case, or how that postulate would be "useful" for advancing your science or philosophy.

In other words, how does that assumption support or contribute to your "model" in any way? What does that assumption "explain"? In what way has it moved your understanding of human sentience forward?

If you can answer those questions then you have my full attention.

But if you're going to postulate this for no apparent reason then I have to ask why you even bother postulating it at all?

So it's not that I'm not willing to go down that road. I just don't see where there is any road to go down. Where does that road lead?

If you can answer that, then I'll be more than happy to take a walk down that road with you.

I understand I'm digressing from the topic at hand, but I want this to be a demonstration of how much I dislike using debate tactics to manipulate an argument in a predetermined direction without actually giving others the means to have agency in the discussion. And I do sincerely mean manipulation in the most benign way, as you have never demonstrated or even shown the capacity for malice.

Well, I thank you very much for observing that I hide my malice very well.

But seriously, we're all naturally going to offer ideas that we feel have at least some merit. And like I say, if you feel that the idea that a digital computer that runs sequential instructions using a CPU and memory could "explain" how sentience can occur, then I would be more than happy to hear those explanations. In the meantime I feel that an analog computing device has a far better chance of explaining sentience because of its analog nature. It doesn't process information sequentially one instruction at a time. Instead it processes potentially an unlimited amount of information simultaneously. This feature allows this type of computing machine to itself become a larger "Standing Wave Pattern" of conscious awareness. And that is the KEY feature that separates it from a digital sequential CPU-based computer.

There are also other features to the analogy computing device as well. For example, there is no need to even represent information as strings of 1's and 0's. In an analog device there is no need to "convert" between analog and digital information because the analog computer is already analog. It doesn't require digital representations of information as strings of on and off states.

So the difference between an analog computer versus a digital computer are dramatic to say the least. They are two entirely different ways of processing "information". In fact, the very notion and meaning of "information" takes on a whole different meaning. In a digital computer all "information" is represented as strings of bits of 1's or 0's. Whereas in an analog computer there is no "digital representation" of information. Instead, the "information" is the actual analog input and its direct effect on the analog computing device.

Just as a note, I imagine our brains are actually a combination of both "digital" and "analog" computing. Our brains probably do store, or do some calculations, using some "digital techniques". But that's most likely a very small part of what our brains do. The vast majority of the brain most likely processes as an analog computer.

In any case, I also wanted to address the purpose of this thread according to the OP:

From the OP:

But I'd like to open up the floor to both sides to give their arguments for whether or not quantum physics is linked in any way to the spiritual/religious/supernatural.

If the purpose of this thread is to give arguments for how a person feels that "quantum physics" might be linked in any way to the spiritual/religious/supernatural, then why should I be interested in "debating" with someone who wants to argue that sentience can arise from a digital computing machine?

Unless, of course, they are going to continue on to show how sentience in a digital computer can be explained via "quantum physics".

I believe a link between "quantum physics" and sentience in an analog computer can be made.

And so that's why I present this avenue of thought.

In fact, I have much more to offer on this idea.

But I just want to make it clear that it's not that I'm unwilling to consider sentience in a digital computer. All I ask is that if a person is going to suggest this, then they should also offer some further explanation for how they feel this actually works.

I haven't done that yet for the analogy scenario, but that's where I was headed.

[Goat]

Quantum physics is filled with strange and spooky (as Einstein put it) observations and theories. Many new age interpretations have linked this as evidence of a higher power existing, as quantum particles themselves being conscious, as the universe itself being sentient, and other spiritual ideas.

The majority of the scientific community dismisses this as new age jibber jabber. But I'd like to open up the floor to both sides to give their arguments for whether or not quantum physics is linked in any way to the spiritual/religious/supernatural.

Let's not butt heads to the point of entanglement though.

The first question to ask would be 'why should it be'? It seems to me that many people use the unknowns about Quantum mechanics to justify the unknowns about spirituality. That is sort of a false equivalency.