The Evidence for Collective Consciousness
Offline Below is a link to a "YouTube" video furnished by the "GlobalOnessProject." Here parapyschologist Dean Radin discusses the results of an ongoing experiment to test for what effect, if any, that the collective "attentiveness" of a group of human beings may exert on random number generators. The experiment is fairly simple. Can the attentiveness of a group of people change what is intrinsically a random and disorderly process into one that exhibits order? The theory is that the more human beings who participate, the greater the effect. I think the results provide evidence that minds are "entangled" and can be forged to form a collective consciousness. The implications for both science and religion should be obvious.
Now, I have learned from past experience that there are more than a few individuals on this forum who suffer from ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder). That's unfortunate, because this disorder prevents you from not only achieving a long enough attention span to watch a simple video but also from making a major contribution to the collective consciousness. Truly, you have my sympathy. However, for the purposes of this thread, I must insist that you at least attempt to muster up enough energy to watch the video in its entirety before you embark on your drive-by tour, flinging snide comments as you pass by. It's only 9 minutes and 47 seconds long! Yes, I realize from your perspective that this is entirely too long. However, I have FAITH in you and TRUST that you will find the necessary focus to meet this duanting challenge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnvJfkI5NVc
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
I would say there is no such thing as "weak" emergence or "strong" emergence. There is only emergence. The distinction between the two seems a bit like the distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution, when in fact neither exists: there is only evolution. Both distinctions state that there is some magic complexity barrier that keeps one from becoming the other. (As an aside, "strong" emergence also smacks vaguely of Behe's irreducible complexity.)
For instance, there's Paisley's strawman about how materialists believe "consciousness emerges from insentient bits of matter in motion." This is simply not the case; the current understanding of intelligence is far more complex than that, involving several more levels of emergence. This is similar to expressing disbelief in genetics simply because you can't derive the behaviour of DNA directly from the properties of quarks.
Just as "macro" evolution is simply a series of "micro" evolutions, so "strong" emergence is nothing more than a series of "weak" emergence. In reality, it's still just plain old emergence. The distinction between the two is one of epistemology, not ontology.
As for reductionism: I think there is a distinction betwen epistemology and ongology there, as well. We are most certainly made up of quarks, and yet we cannot describe ourselves in terms of quarks. Yes, we are more than the sum of our parts. But that is no surprise: things don't combine in summation, they combine exponentially. It is fairly trivial to determine how three quarks will combine. It is far less trivial to determine how 30 quarks combine. It is epistemically impossible to go from X number of quarks to human.
And yet it is ontologically certain that I am made up of X quarks. The fact that you can't derive that from the quarks makes this no less certain.
That is the strawman with which we are presented. Consciousness can't be epistemically derived from those insentient bits of matter, certainly. That doesn't mean consciousness isn't built solely from those insentient bits of matter.
Anyway, I was mostly just responding to the unspoken acceptance of strong and weak emergence. I don't believe there is a distinction. Nor do I believe one can make an ontological argument for the distnction. So far the arguments I've seen have all been epistemic in nature. A "philosophy of the gaps," if you will.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
It starts with the fact that spacetime is constantly changing due to quantum fluctuations at or near the Planck scale.
By the way, quantum indeterminism is not your only problem. Materialism cannot account for quantum entanglement or a nonlocal universe.
That the structure of consciousness is fractal has been known to mystics from time immemorial.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
For a strictly-causal, materialistic description of entanglement, check out the recent works of Joy Christian. Basically, it's a disproof of Bell's Theorem. Christian even proposes an experiment.
By the way, overcoming lack of experimental evidence is not your only problem. Dualism cannot account for the alteration of consciousness due to phsyical alteration of the brain.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
That is irrelevant to what I was discussing there, namely that the 9/11 data is neither a good data match nor does it support precognition in any meaningful way. The FACT that the event which by any measure had arguably the biggest impact on global consciousness over the whole period of the test so far produced such a poor match is a serious problem for the hypothesis. It isn't just the fact that the deviation from randomness preceded the event itself that is a problem, it has been shown that small changes in the correlation parameters remove any match signal altogether.
The reliance of the hypothesis on comparing signals over a large number of events which are inherently imprecisely defined in significance and magnitude is still a problem, and by definition involve a strong subjective component for selection (we are talking about mental states after all when we refer to 'consciousness' after all) makes it almost impossible to ensure that some subtle selection bias is not present.
The probability of the event occurring in any given time interval is determined, the fact that the event is going to occur at all is determined by the prior energy state of the system, the actual timing is unpredictable but matches the statistics of an ideal pure random variable. Nothing in this is incompatible with scientific naturalism, and in no way points to anything dualistic or supernatural. There would only be an issue if it departed from such statistical behavior, as is hypothesized in the GCP analysis.
'Free' will choices or decisions are still determined by the state of your mind, including all the other thoughts, feelings, desires, sensory input, etc, at the time, otherwise it makes no sense. IOW you still have to demonstrate that there are decisions or choices that are not so determined, ie not based on other mental states or events.
As I said above, there is no scientific evidence that free will not 'illusory', either - It ultimately is not a coherent concept as anything other than a feeling. Your view is at least as much an opinion as mine.
This corresponds pretty closely with my view, and is patently NOT absurd:
Yes, it would be absurd to assert that "consciousness emerges from insentient bits of matter in motion simply when a certain complexity level is achieved", especially when you use the word 'simply'. The emergence of consciousness is extremely far from simple. That is the point. Only a very specific type of complex structure will support consciousness.
The path by which such intuitively unexpected properties emerge from from progressively more complex systems of simpler elements is itself typically complex, typically requiring something analagous to the evolutionary algorithm ie, random variation + selection.
Not particularly relevant to my response - there are a whole range of theories which are neither strictly reductionist nor dualistic.
For the Nth time, irrelevant observation, since my view is not materialism in the way you appear define it.
Note my previous comment.
You perceive vaccillation, as you attempt to fit my claims into one of your pre-conceived categories, not recognizing that my world-view is, in terms of your categorization of the range of theories and possible world-views, "none of the above". I will admit to some movement as I try to find a way to express my PoV in a way that you might actually understand.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Show us a reference that supports that statement. Actually the theory discussed does not assert or imply that consciousness is fractal, anyway.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Said much better than I ever could. Damn me and my focus on the liberal arts!
I'm sure that the 'strong versus weak emergence' thing *did* come from Behe, or one of his clones.
The rest of this post:
Pure
fucking
gold.
This is why I love coming here. I learn something new almost every time.
Thanks. I'm glad it came out coherently. I was suffering from my second sequential night of insomnia when I wrote that.
I did make one glaring mistake, though, that I should correct now: I should really have also mentioned leptons, or used fermions and bosons instead. But "quarks" has suck a great sound.
That the structure of matter is quarks has been known to the ravens from time immemorial.
(See, because ravens make the "quark" noise, and Paisley said... oh, never mind.)
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
And we're back. One more time around the merry-go-round? Why not?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
The "paisley" pattern or design is most-likely derived from the mystical expriences associated with shamanism (probably the most primitive and ubiquitous form of religious practice). The colorful pattern permeated the psychedelic art of the counterculture movement of the 1960's.
The subsequent digital revolution ushered in a new era of psychedelic art when it was discovered that computer generated fractals bore a striking resemblance to the psychedelic visual experience. Indeed, Timothy Leary himself called the computer generated fractals the "new LSD."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Not quite proof they truly understood the concept of a 'fractal', but arguable. Doesn't really demonstrate that they thought "structure of consciousness is fractal", let alone prove that that assumption is actually true.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
The problem is that they are making unsubstantiated assertions, implying that they do know.
The key word in your response is "hypotheses."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I have no idea what debate you've been following here, but I've been following the one where the unsubstantiated assertions are coming from the dualist camp, not the physicalist camp.
You say "Simply saying that consciousness emerges when some level of complexity is achieved is tantamount to magic."
I say "Bullshit."
What was I saying 'bullshit' to? Your use of the term 'magic', when what others are talking about is 'unknown.'
Uh, yeah. I know it's a fucking hypotheis dipshit. It doesn't have enough evidence to be a scientific theory yet; at some point it may, but... honestly I don't know what you're trying to do. Make it seem like your position is stronger because the physicalist side has a bit of data and some ideas, while you just have some ideas? Make it seem like I was trying to hide something?
Neither makes your case stronger- it just makes you look petty and stupid.
Agreed. I am fairly confident that the shamans didn't understand the concept of fractals in mathematical terms. And I doubt if any of the Harvard professors experimenting with LSD in the 1960's undertood the concept either (Benoit Mandelbrot didn't actually coin the term until the mid-1970's). However, that really wasn't my point. My point was that mystics have visually experienced in altered states of consciousness what can undoubtedly be described as fractal geometry. This feat was accomplished without the aid of computer graphics. (Keep in mind that I made the comment in regards to the CDT theory, which postulates that the substrate of the universe may be fractal in nature.)
That being said, the belief that the structure of consciousness (or the divine mind) is in some sense mathematical is ancient (e.g. Platonic forms).
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
That is a pretty meaningless statement. Do you mean that some aspects of consciousness show some degree of regularity? Because that applies to virtual everything that is not totally 'formless'.
Platonic idealism is a total fallacy. It has misled thinkers for millennia.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
It has a fractal aspect. This should not be miscontrued to mean that it is completely deterministic.
Cantor was a platonist (as most mathematicians are). And his set theory (which is actually a form of theology) forms the basis for modern mathematics.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
The thrashing sound you hear is Paisley spinning his definitions again.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I can't remember if anyone has pointed out this continuing fallacy of composition.
"An informal fallacy in which an inference is mistakenly drawn from the attributes of the parts of a whole to the attributes of the whole itself" (Copi, Cohen 2005)
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
A propos of my last comment: Platonic idealism is an example of something that manages to be a fallacy as a whole, and is itself composed of fallacies. Not all fallacies, but quite a number (most of which are petitio principii: begging the question).
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Soz. I misread the title. I thought this was gonna be a Jungian thing about the Collective Unconsciousness.
You know... Archetypes and the rest of that garbage.
BTW. If you like fantasy and bizzare ESP shit mixed with autobiographical stuff... Carl Jung's autobiography "Memories, Dreams and Reflections" was the best read I did during my long gone college days.
Other folks also found it quite engaging.
Maybe he's a Calvinist, Hindu, or Buddhist?