Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Gertie]

The LINE hypothesis is a plausible hypothesis for the axiom; Individuality exists and it is naturally mobile throughout this universe. Given the current state of scientific understanding the only exhibit of evidence for individuality that can be offered to you, is you. So it falls upon each of us to decide if oneself is an individual or not. Further, each instance of life, to any other instance of life, is only an extrapolation or an assumption of individuality currently based upon appearance and behavior.

OK

The affirmation of ones' own individuality, at least for most reasonable minded individuals can be accounted for. If we agree to the axiom that you and perhaps I as well as every other discernibly living entity is an individual instance of life then this conversation as challenging as it may be toward strongly held beliefs or ideologies may proceed.

My own views on the 'Self' or experiential 'Me'  aren't mainstream, in as much as I don't think it's necessarily appropriate  to think  in terms of An Experiencer (Subject) having (verb) Experience (Object).  Or analogously a  Radio (Noun) recieving (verb) Radiowaves (Object). 

Rather it seems to me that the evidence based on neural correlation suggests that when certain  very complex physical systems (perhaps only biological neural systems/brains) are in motion there is some mechanism (perhaps law-like) which via evolutionary utility somehow creates a unified, discrete field of consciousness.  A singular specific first person Me-Here-Now pov,  which correlates with a specific body.  This much makes sense evolutionarily, in aiding complex critters like humans with gazillions of interacting neurons competing for conscious 'attention' to be able to coherently navigate the world.  The 'somehow' of those binding and filtering processes which construct a unified Sense of Self is part of the mind-body problem. 

No aspect of the modern scientific understanding of biology or its empirical descriptions is being challenged. The cell and the verifiable aspects of its biological evolution are as science currently describes them. The LINE hypothesis begins where the modern scientific narrative admittedly, voluntarily abstains and, traditionally, religions are permitted to fill what is arguably the most important of all voids, and likely the only void any living being may actually care most about. That is, the natural mechanisms governing the instantiation of life. It is for this reason that humankind has fought and prayed for a time far longer than science itself has existed. It is much overdue for the narrative to be extended not by mysticism or ideological entrenchment but by well reasoned, steely objective thought, because clearly not just some, but all of nature is ultimately science.

Agreed.  My only caveat here, and it's relevant,  is the focus on Life, rather than Conscious Experience. It's phenomenal 'what it is like' Experience which brings meaning into the universe, and to being a Me. 

And because of the qualiative and private nature of Experience (as opposed to cells), it looks impervious to direct scientific enquiry which relies on observation and measurement.  That's why, as you say, we have to make assumptions about how others experience things (not just in terms of individuality, but in terms of 'inverted qualia'  too).  In fact we have to assume others are conscious at all.  So our assumptions are necessarily based on similarity of observable behaviour and substrate (living bodies with brains similar to ours, critters yelping and withdrawing from pain, etc).  We can't know non-biological entities like rocks and toasters don't have experience, or other living things like carrots  - we can only assume it based on them being so different behaviourally and in substrate.  This is the Hard Problem Chalmers talks about. 


Your position starts from assumptions too.  But without being able to answer the particular questions the nature of experience gives rise to, plausibility remains the test, when our basis for plausibilty about these fundamental questions is  obscured to the scientific method. This is where Science meets Philosophy of Mind.  And empiricism is  left to simply noting  physical stuff, behaviours, and perhaps our biggest clue - neural correlation.

The LINE hypothesis suggests that each life is an instance of a specific individual.

Re - 'specific individual', the cases you and I can speak from authority on are our own. And when we compare notes it seems for humans at least it's something like this to be a human Me -

An experiential 'what it is like'  sense of being a unified self with a discrete,  unified field of consciousness with a specific  first person pov,  which correlates with a specific body moving through space and time.

So your hypothesis has to address this key element of the specific first person pov correlating with a specific body. And even more specifically now we have the technology - neural correlation.

Maybe you're right and there are a series of underlying misconceptions in the way we interpret these correlations. But whatever underlying explanation would have to lay out how this apparent correlation comes about, and why the obvious conclusion that there is some underlying (mind-body) relationship between the specific experience and the specific physical substrate is less plausible than yours.

Also, the natural process that instantiates an individual to that host (i.e. species) is independent of the specific biology, chemistry (i.e. carbon, silicon etc.) or technological principles upon which such forms may be evolved, implemented or depend for function or for its local evolution. Therefore, any individual may instantiate (live) in any viable form in any viable environment in this universe. Ergo Earth is not special.

But what about neural correlation?

1-Individual life (you) is species independent.

Again - but what about neural correlation?  A dog's brain is different to a human brain.  If neural correlation holds, as it apears to, then human experience is different to a dog's.  And this is born out by our observations of behaviour.  Eg dogs don't talk, dogs fancy other dogs, dogs can't do calculus or paint, -  so they don't have my 'what it's like experience' of being human - because their biological substrate kit is different.  

2-The natural process that places you or any living being in the life they currently live is not dependent upon any particular chemistry, biology, species or form, evolved or otherwise. Just as for example, memory, or intelligence does not depend upon any particular brand or type of technology for its implementation. That is to say, memory is abstracted from its implementation. Likewise, in nature is the individual life abstracted from any specific implementation of host form, or species.

Are you suggesting something akin to 'spirits' as experiential entities which attach to this or that biological body  (according to the science you've outlined), while remaining unchanged?  That when this current body of mine's cells all die  I might re-attach to a tree or frog?   Or would  I remain attached to the cells as they decompose, until the decomposed parts become part of new living cells? Or...?

The belief that you are your body stems from a lack of an alternative perspective and supporting evidence as well as from tradition also from the powerful visual perspective imposed by sight and a prominent physical form. It is as much a misperception as was humankinds' long-held belief in the Earth-centric universe. Likewise, it is a very convincing visual misconception only made more so by the advent of biology and genetic science which describe the evolution and development of the physical forms presently on Earth. This misconception is further compounded by the very illogical belief, held even by educated individuals, that the function and operation of the brain defines ones' individuality in nature. Clearly, this last point cannot be so since most life forms on Earth do not have a brain and are not even multi-cellular.

Maybe, but you're potentially describing a very different universe to the one physics, which relies on these types of observations you dismiss as misconceptions,  describes.  Plus - neural correlation.

Do you conceive of an in principle way to test the hypothesis?

[Sy Borg]

So the forum is being used to promote a book.

Sorry, spam is not permitted.

[tonylang]

So the forum is being used to promote a book.

Sorry, spam is not permitted.

Okay, my apologies.

[tonylang]

I want it to be possible. I just need some hint of how it COULD be possible.

It would be best for you if you came to a comprehension of what is, thus far, being proposed by the Universal Mobility of Individuality (UMI) principle with minimum input from me. Ergo, let first principles convince you. So, in this vein, what do you understand (or don't) from the following exchange from this thread?

tonylang;
Consider that devices such as radio, TV, smartphones, etc. composed of inanimate atoms are engineered to instantiate certain degrees of freedom (electromagnetic spectrum) of the space such devices instantaneously occupy as information programming (sounds, sights, data, etc.) even as such devices perpetually transition with Earth, ECO2, Sun, and galaxy through space. Similarly, living host forms; proto-cells, cells, amoeba, insects, fish, humans, whales, etc. composed of inanimate atoms have naturally evolved to temporarily instantiate certain degrees of freedom of the space such viable forms instantaneously occupy as individuality, 'You'.

Eckhart Aurelius Hughes;
Yes, a very common analogy often given by many neuroscientists and philosophers to explain a possible conjecture of the nature of consciousness (a.k.a. self-hood or spirit-having-ness) is that of a radio, where the brain is the analogue of the radio, but the consciousness is like the music and/or the pattern of waves in the electromagnetic field that exist even if the radio is off or broken or not yet made or altered (e.g. bass turned up, or volume turned down). In that model (which may or may not be an accurate analogy), the brain/body acts like a receiver and/or transformer that can be tuned, and thus it can easily be mistaken as primarily generating the music it plays and can hide the realer and more fundamental invisible and indirect thing(s) of which it is just one temporary receiver/transformer. It's like mistaking the lense of one's glasses as actually containing what is being seen by the eyeball looking through them.

One can imagine many different radios can be playing the same one station, with the electromagnetic waves that make up the music they all are playing being something singular that will still exist and be unaffected even if all the radios are destroyed or heavily altered.

This is where the value of the concept of "The Two Yous" from my book is very useful and can make talking about these kinds of things much easier and clearer for all involved. One of the two yous is the electromagnetic field and/or radio station that the radios (if they exist) are receiving differently and each playing slightly differently. The other of the two yous is one of the infinite radios playing that same one station from that same one omnipresent electromagnetic field.


tonylang;
The LINE scenario proposes that individuality is form and location agnostic hence is universally mobile. If individuality is indeed universally mobile as the Earth's and ECo2's relativistic motion through the cosmos demands, then the DOF of occupied space by which living forms instantiate individuality is both non-local and monogamous (one singleton instance of a specific DOF (individual) at a time). Hence, cannot be the electromagnetic spectrum (EMF). The EMF is non-monogamous, TVs, radios, etc. can instantiate the same DOF of the EMF at the same time, so we can all enjoy the World Cup simultaneously. Also, the EMF is local (restricted by the speed of light). Individuality, by definition, is monogamistic (one 'You' at a time, hence death). Consequently, to instantiate individuality in any frame of reference (Per Einstein's relativity) individuality must be non-local (not restricted by the speed of light). Also, to understand the fundamental nature of individuality in this universe, for now, forget all complex forms (especially humans). If we can't scale this mountain by only considering the single living cell or proto-cell then we are on the wrong path. Life, and individuality began on Earth some 4 billion years ago, no tree of life or brains existed then.

What is life? The universal mobility of individuality (UMI) principle suggests that individuality is form and location agnostic. Life is the instantiation of individuality by any extant viable host form (i.e. single cell) in any viable habitat in this universe. Individuality is the temporary instantiation of a uniquely quantifiable degree of freedom of space to establish an individualized position of view (POV). The POV (individuality) in each living host, functions as an antenna, a target for telemetry gathered and produced by ones viable host form located in any viable perpetually transient habitat (Earth, Moon, Mars, ECO2) in space-time.

[Lagayscienza]

This reminds me of the form of Idealism which posits that consciousness pervades the universe like gravity or electromagnetic radiation, and which further conjectures that the brain does not produce consciousness but is instead akin a radio that tunes into the universal consciousness.

The difficulty I have with this idea is that it cannot be disproved. It is untestable. Your hypothesis seems to me to have the same problem. Can you tell us in simple terms how you think your hypothesis might be tested? That shouldn’t need more than a few sentences.

You say that:

a quantum entanglement connection (QE), with a hypothesized form of matter called metamatter. Metamatter is composed of an undiscovered type of particle that necessarily resides entirely beyond this space-time, in Hilbert-space or the metaverse if you will.

So, we have a hypothesized form of matter composed of an undiscovers type of particle that resides in an abstract mathematical space. Unless there is something testable in this chain, it’s hard to see how your overall hypothesis can progress to become part of actual science.

I’m not saying your hypothesis is wrong. And it would be great if it were true. I just need something concrete which might indicate that it could one day be tested and shown to be true. Or not.

[Sy Borg]

This reminds me of the form of Idealism which posits that consciousness pervades the universe like gravity or electromagnetic radiation, and which further conjectures that the brain does not produce consciousness but is instead akin a radio that tunes into the universal consciousness.

The difficulty I have with this idea is that it cannot be disproved. It is untestable.

It's basically just hard panpychism. Given that a map of the universe looks similar to a map of a brain, who knows? As you say, no one alive can say yea or nay, and the dead aren't talking.

I lean more towards panvitalism, the idea that everything is effectively alive (and very little of it conscious), and that our views are biocentric. Science is leaning (ever so gently) in this direction with the relatively new field of geobiology, which examines the interactions between geology and biology, and how they work as a single system.

[Lagayscienza]

Yes, panvitalism makes more sense to me than panpsychism. It easier for me to imagine that there is no clear division between life and non-life than it is to imagine that everything is conscious. Idealism and panpsychism posit a top-down process with consciousness being primary, but abiogenesis, which eventually led to consciousness, is a bottom-up process and we can see how it might have happened.

Abiogenesis probably occurred naturally around hydrothermal vents and made use of chemicals brought to the seafloor in hot rock. A chemical energy gradient powered the construction the first organic molecules from the available chemicals, then RNA or DNA, and from these emerged the first cells capable of metabolism and reproduction. And from these developed multicellular organisms and consciousness.

If something like this process is what happened, if life is a natural processes to do with the interaction of chemicals in rocks and water, then there may indeed be no clear division between life and non-life, between geology and biology. On this view, life may be just a natural outgrowth of geology which may occur wherever the right chemicals and free energy are available to construct and power it.

[tonylang]

The LINE hypothesis suggests that in all living entities the hosting form has evolved to establish, maintain, and protect the delicate quantum state that is the position of view (POV) from intrusion, or specific violation. Failure of the host in this basic responsibility is the very definition of death. In this endeavor, the body and POV have coevolved to have the POV as the target, the kernel of certain host-specific processes and functions. In any given instance of life, these functions establish your presence and other evolved manifestations of the host, broadly describable as experiences. This interaction between the POV and the host form, sufficiently evolved, is the manifestation described in human cultures for generations, using one word or another, as the mind.


The mind is one tier of implementation above the actual instantiation of the POV. While the POV will exist in every living entity, even in the absence of evolved systems that may manifest a recognizable mind, a mind cannot exist in the absence of the POV. The mind is the interaction of the POV with the living form. The mind functions as an antenna, or a receiver for whatever workings, and telemetry, and other evolved manifestations the host, such as it is, is capable of producing. i.e. memory, consciousness, self-awareness, intelligence, thought etc., or the lack thereof. The POV brings none of these features, but only that which may experience these features. The classically measurable implementation of the POV is as a standing quantum wave, established at the individual’s unique QEF, one’s own unique values of the degrees of freedom (DOF) of the QE spectrum. The POV is maintained by the entanglement molecules (EM) within all cells, and in emerged species by the entanglement cells (EC). Further, the physical host establishes a very real bond with the POV. This POV-host bond (POVH) is not unlike the standing waves shared between the valence shells of atoms which establish and maintain covalent bonds that join molecules in this universe. It is the POVH bond which naturally provides the foundation of the mind upon which the individual’s first person sense of presence may evolve in all living beings, within you.


The POV is implemented, in biological hosts, during gestation at the point where instantiation occurs in the growing host form by the EM and EC. However, in sufficiently evolved complex host forms, the mind is established when the nervous system (i.e. Brain) form the unique infrastructure which may interface with the POV. This interface of the nervous system with the POV also takes the form of a standing quantum wave maintained by other specialized cells of the host which maintains the coupling which describes the POVH bond between these two, critical natural implementations. This joining provides the antenna state which becomes the basis for experience we call the mind. This temporary, but crucial link lasts a lifetime and naturally manifests the collapsed reality as well as the possibility to evolve perception and experience for one living individual. Because the POVH bond is essentially a molecular bond, it also may be represented by a mathematical equation or Hamiltonian. This Hamiltonian has its roots based on the Schrödinger wave equation. This is the quantum mechanical equation that very powerfully represents the complex standing probability waves of electrons in shells around atomic nuclei observed in atoms and molecules. However, this similarity will have very definite limits because, unlike molecules, the interactions and DOF that produce the POV are not derived exclusively from interactions between standard-model entities, but between matter with metamatter. Metamatter is hypothesized to be a non-local particle that very weakly interacts in this space-time. Therefore, to formulate the proper wave equations for the POV, the DOF which permits the EM within living cells to share a coherent quantum channel with metamatter, will have to be well defined through intensive research. This research will begin with the discovery of the EC and the EM.


An apt analogy for the role of the POV within living hosts is to consider an individual in the middle of an atmospheric storm. A storm may take on many forms, and have a number of features such as winds, tornados, rain, snow, hail, lightening, thunder, clouds etc. all described by certain degrees of freedom, temperature, pressure, humidity, surface absorption and radiation coefficients etc. which inform varying storm intensities. As a storm circumstantially manifests, it may be given various categorizations, akin to species of storm, and may evolve to a form that may even be given a proper name, an identity. Consider if we placed a living being, a human being for example, at the center of our imagined storm. This individual does not add to, and takes nothing away from the storms manifestations and activities. This individual does however bring, in the case of a human being, one individual’s singular perspective within the storm. This individual has its own capabilities and functions which define it as such. Additionally, if this person has a communications device with an open channel, they may transfer information from within the storm to the outside world. This individual only very weakly interacts with the storm itself. This individual presents both a conduit and a target for information and experience from the storm, but in one direction only.


Likewise, the instantiated POV bonded to a living host form is metaphorically similar to this in that the POV brings no effect or affect of its own, but is essentially a teleportation channel bonded to a host, able to receive telemetry and imprint information manifested by its living host. This interaction, this POVH bond in human beings, for example, which receives telemetry manifested by the human brain centered upon the individual POV, is the very definition of the mind. The mind can be described as being composed of two primary components, the POV, and the rest. On earth, the rest may be anything from; not much at all, as in a single cell, to the complex workings of a fully functional complex nervous system and brain of the human host. Whether in a human, in an eagle, a mantis, or an octopus, the POVH bond is the bond that builds upon the standing wave of the POV which manifests the QE connection to metamatter in all life. Further, in sufficiently evolved forms, the POVH bond becomes the mind. The description of the mind in various species is subject to cultural definition and perceptions, accurate or not, regarding a particular host forms observed behavior and nervous system function, or the lack thereof. However, to be accurate any definition of the mind must include the QE connection and POV as an essential prerequisite of individuality in any living presence in this space-time.

[Sy Borg]

Yes, panvitalism makes more sense to me than panpsychism. It easier for me to imagine that there is no clear division between life and non-life than it is to imagine that everything is conscious. Idealism and panpsychism posit a top-down process with consciousness being primary, but abiogenesis, which eventually led to consciousness, is a bottom-up process and we can see how it might have happened.

Yes, hard panpsychism is simply a form of idealism - top-down.

Reality is clearly a bottom-up situation. Our own lives could not make this clearer. We start out as a blastocyct - basically a microbe - a undergo many changes (which describe our evolutionary path) until we are born, and then the growth continues. Then there's decay, death and recycling based on a more complex genetic substrate than before, with the next generation being more complex again. Once life on Earth was mostly microbes, now it's mostly idiot simians, which I assume is somewhat of an advancement. At least, if we happen to eat each other, we know we are doing it.

I do have sympathy for soft panspychism, though, and I'm on board with the idea of proto-consciousness. Why? Because consciousness may not be what we think it is. The evolutionary path points to consciousness being a complex suite of reflexes. Meanwhile, reflexes are complex suites of chemical reactions. Chemical reactions are complex suites of interactions between atoms.

Consul and I have debated this for years - where the line lies between what we know of as consciousness and complete non-consciousness (presumably :) like a rock. For Consul, all organisms with fewer neurons than a flatworm are completely blank. I don't like that. I see the situation as not binary but a gradation, although emergence gives the appearance of a conscious/not-conscious binary.

I think that sensing should be taken seriously in context, and not assumed to be purely mechanical and unfeeling, like a device. In fact, I think observers have been mislead by the analogy between life and machines, as if life was built upon more primitive machines. In truth, even very complex machines operate more like molecules than even the most basic life form. There is no valid analogy to be made.

My guess is that, in very simple organisms, other structures fulfil roles that would be performed by brains, albeit in a more primitive manner. My other guess is that consciousness emerged as a temporary rather than constant quality. That is, the first glimmers of consciousness probably flashed on in extreme moments (I'm starting to sound like Anthony Hopkins in Westworld) and then subsided. That is, a state roughly equivalent to what we think of as sleep would have been the usual state for life, unless something major happened. This would trigger various responses, until the matter was dealt with.

All speculative of course, but this thread is all about speculating the nature of consciousness.

Who knows, if post-life advances enough, in a few trillion years, maybe whole galaxies will effectively be conscious in a way akin to Tony's ideas? I've sometimes felt that theism was perhaps just a few trillion years early. Or was that a few quadrillion years?

[Lagayscienza]

Yes, panvitalism makes more sense to me than panpsychism. It easier for me to imagine that there is no clear division between life and non-life than it is to imagine that everything is conscious. Idealism and panpsychism posit a top-down process with consciousness being primary, but abiogenesis, which eventually led to consciousness, is a bottom-up process and we can see how it might have happened.

Yes, hard panpsychism is simply a form of idealism - top-down.

Reality is clearly a bottom-up situation. Our own lives could not make this clearer. We start out as a blastocyct - basically a microbe - a undergo many changes (which describe our evolutionary path) until we are born, and then the growth continues. Then there's decay, death and recycling based on a more complex genetic substrate than before, with the next generation being more complex again. Once life on Earth was mostly microbes, now it's mostly idiot simians, which I assume is somewhat of an advancement. At least, if we happen to eat each other, we know we are doing it.

Right. We can watch the steps as we go from blastocyst to embryo to fully formed organism capable of independent life, then growth through childhood and, eventually, reproduction as an adult. The story of life on earth follows a similar pattern in all the steps from abiogenesis to human level consciousness.

I do have sympathy for soft panspychism, though, and I'm on board with the idea of proto-consciousness. Why? Because consciousness may not be what we think it is. The evolutionary path points to consciousness being a complex suite of reflexes. Meanwhile, reflexes are complex suites of chemical reactions. Chemical reactions are complex suites of interactions between atoms.

Yes, the consciousness awareness of, say, a flatworm compared to a human, is one of degree and not of kind. And so why stop at flatworms. What about a bacterium or a virus or the organic molecules these are made of.

Consul and I have debated this for years - where the line lies between what we know of as consciousness and complete non-consciousness (presumably like a rock. For Consul, all organisms with fewer neurons than a flatworm are completely blank. I don't like that. I see the situation as not binary but a gradation, although emergence gives the appearance of a conscious/not-conscious binary.

Right, the divide may be more apparent than real.

I think that sensing should be taken seriously in context, and not assumed to be purely mechanical and unfeeling, like a device. In fact, I think observers have been mislead by the analogy between life and machines, as if life was built upon more primitive machines. In truth, even very complex machines operate more like molecules than even the most basic life form. There is no valid analogy to be made.

That may be right. How much information does, say, a bacterium embody compared to my computer? I’d have to look into that, but a bacterium can respond to changing environmental conditions, metabolise, reproduce, form colonies etc. My computer can do none of these. There are now even scientific papers like “Bacterial computing: a form of natural computing and its applications”.

My guess is that, in very simple organisms, other structures fulfil roles that would be performed by brains, albeit in a more primitive manner. My other guess is that consciousness emerged as a temporary rather than constant quality. That is, the first glimmers of consciousness probably flashed on in extreme moments (I'm starting to sound like Anthony Hopkins in Westworld) and then subsided. That is, a state roughly equivalent to what we think of as sleep would have been the usual state for life, unless something major happened. This would trigger various responses, until the matter was dealt with.

Right, a response that kicks into action when required and which is not maintained in full force all the time. That would be wasteful of energy and resources.

All speculative of course, but this thread is all about speculating the nature of consciousness.

Who knows, if post-life advances enough, in a few trillion years, maybe whole galaxies will effectively be conscious in a way akin to Tony's ideas? I've sometimes felt that theism was perhaps just a few trillion years early. Or was that a few quadrillion years?

Tony might be right. And it would be kinda nice if something like his hypothesis were correct. In respect of theism, it’s not the basic idea of god(s) that bothers me so much as the all the crazy stuff that theists attach to it. If there are gods, then they, too, will have a natural explanation and they won’t give a sh*t about burning witches or abortion or gays or keeping the sabbath and other such entirely human delusions and mumbo jumbo. They'll probably know very well how such delusions arose but be to interested in constructing universes or something to worry about such nonsense.

[Sy Borg]

Yes, panvitalism makes more sense to me than panpsychism. It easier for me to imagine that there is no clear division between life and non-life than it is to imagine that everything is conscious. Idealism and panpsychism posit a top-down process with consciousness being primary, but abiogenesis, which eventually led to consciousness, is a bottom-up process and we can see how it might have happened.

Yes, hard panpsychism is simply a form of idealism - top-down.

Reality is clearly a bottom-up situation. Our own lives could not make this clearer. We start out as a blastocyct - basically a microbe - a undergo many changes (which describe our evolutionary path) until we are born, and then the growth continues. Then there's decay, death and recycling based on a more complex genetic substrate than before, with the next generation being more complex again. Once life on Earth was mostly microbes, now it's mostly idiot simians, which I assume is somewhat of an advancement. At least, if we happen to eat each other, we know we are doing it.

Right. We can watch the steps as we go from blastocyst to embryo to fully formed organism capable of independent life, then growth through childhood and, eventually, reproduction as an adult. The story of life on earth follows a similar pattern in all the steps from abiogenesis to human level consciousness.

I do have sympathy for soft panspychism, though, and I'm on board with the idea of proto-consciousness. Why? Because consciousness may not be what we think it is. The evolutionary path points to consciousness being a complex suite of reflexes. Meanwhile, reflexes are complex suites of chemical reactions. Chemical reactions are complex suites of interactions between atoms.

Yes, the consciousness awareness of, say, a flatworm compared to a human, is one of degree and not of kind. And so why stop at flatworms. What about a bacterium or a virus or the organic molecules these are made of.

Consul and I have debated this for years - where the line lies between what we know of as consciousness and complete non-consciousness (presumably like a rock. For Consul, all organisms with fewer neurons than a flatworm are completely blank. I don't like that. I see the situation as not binary but a gradation, although emergence gives the appearance of a conscious/not-conscious binary.

Right, the divide may be more apparent than real.

I think that sensing should be taken seriously in context, and not assumed to be purely mechanical and unfeeling, like a device. In fact, I think observers have been mislead by the analogy between life and machines, as if life was built upon more primitive machines. In truth, even very complex machines operate more like molecules than even the most basic life form. There is no valid analogy to be made.

That may be right. How much information does, say, a bacterium embody compared to my computer? I’d have to look into that, but a bacterium can respond to changing environmental conditions, metabolise, reproduce, form colonies etc. My computer can do none of these. There are now even scientific papers like “Bacterial computing: a form of natural computing and its applications”.

My guess is that, in very simple organisms, other structures fulfil roles that would be performed by brains, albeit in a more primitive manner. My other guess is that consciousness emerged as a temporary rather than constant quality. That is, the first glimmers of consciousness probably flashed on in extreme moments (I'm starting to sound like Anthony Hopkins in Westworld) and then subsided. That is, a state roughly equivalent to what we think of as sleep would have been the usual state for life, unless something major happened. This would trigger various responses, until the matter was dealt with.

Right, a response that kicks into action when required and which is not maintained in full force all the time. That would be wasteful of energy and resources.

All speculative of course, but this thread is all about speculating the nature of consciousness.

Who knows, if post-life advances enough, in a few trillion years, maybe whole galaxies will effectively be conscious in a way akin to Tony's ideas? I've sometimes felt that theism was perhaps just a few trillion years early. Or was that a few quadrillion years?

Tony might be right. And it would be kinda nice if something like his hypothesis were correct. In respect of theism, it’s not the basic idea of god(s) that bothers me so much as the all the crazy stuff that theists attach to it. If there are gods, then they, too, will have a natural explanation and they won’t give a sh*t about burning witches or abortion or gays or keeping the sabbath and other such entirely human delusions and mumbo jumbo. They'll probably know very well how such delusions arose but be to interested in constructing universes or something to worry about such nonsense.

I think most of us would love it if Tony was right. It would be brilliant - shift from this life into the bliss of the great ocean of universal consciousness a la John Hagelin etc, and maybe be recycled later on.

I suppose the issue with religion is the same as with any power bloc - they always try to expand, and engage in scope creep. The Bible didn't say anything about abortion or stem cells or trans, but theists behave as if it did. We know what happens when theists are not accountable thanks to the cruelty and injustices of the Inquisition and the rife molestation of children entrusted to church care.

Yet ... in the absence of a unifying creed, western society is looking increasingly frayed, degraded, directionless and self-loathing. Islam strikes me as the worst possible religion yet it is vastly preferable to the anarchy and warlord activity it replaces. Religion's cosmology is at best a rough metaphor and, at worst, absurd, but they are unifying (even if it means that heretics are ... removed).

Who, aside from Douglas Adams, can truly say what the ultimate truth of reality is? Maybe we do exist within a larger consciousness, and our brains are filters rather than generators (broken filters being "unblocked" with brain death might explain deathbed lucidity)? Yet those who ostensibly believe in idealism do not behave as if idealism was true. If Tony's or other idealism is true, then there is no hell, just a return of mind to the source, just like the body after death.

Therefore, theists' judgement of non-believers as evil is as incoherent as the concept of hell. If theists actually believed in idealism, they would be more like hippies - all about peace and love. However, they tend to be just as hard-nosed as any secular merchant, and just as fearful of death, aside from the 72 virgins crowd.

Still, as we discussed, a bottom-up model of mind makes more sense with the established information we have at this stage. It's a shame, but life is very good at doling out disappointments. Idealism looks like just another pipe dream, along with hopes for life on Mars and Venus, and the existence of UFOs (seemingly with air traffic control lights).

The disappointment starts with Santa and works its way through ever ideal and hope you ever had, and then you snuff it. Given the circumstances, a sense of humour would seem an essential survival tool.

[tonylang]

This is all very interesting. And it would be great if it were true. However, my enthusiasm is tempered by the lack of anything in the way of empirical evidence.

What do you, a complex evolution of trillions of cells have in common with the first single living proto-cell and cell on earth some 4 billion years ago and today? What do both you and a living cell persist moment by moment the secession of which defines death for both, regardless of the relative location, distance, velocity, or acceleration, between viable habitats in space? The LINE hypothesis suggests it is the position of view (POV) a natural antenna state or transceiver acting on the quantum entanglement (QE) spectrum of occupied space established via a type of molecule called the entanglement molecule (EM) in all viable host forms.

The LINE hypothesis incorporates the concept of the perpetual motion of individuals through space, not only to facilitate the non-local, instantaneous mobility of individuality (or POV) across the universe but also to account for the physical movement of viable hosts and habitats for life. This notion is critical for understanding how individuality is instantiated and maintained in Earth's ecosystem and beyond, emphasizing the natural, universal process of quantum entanglement as the mechanism that underpins the universal mobility of individuality (UMI) principle.

Key Points:

1. Perpetual Motion and Non-locality: The LINE hypothesis acknowledges that both individuals and their environments are in constant motion through space. This perpetual motion necessitates a mechanism for instantiating individuality that is not constrained by physical distance or barriers, achievable through quantum entanglement channels to metamatter. This allows for the POV, a unique quantum entanglement frequency (QEF)-based Eigenstate, to maintain its coherence and identity regardless of spatial changes.

2. Quantum Entanglement Channels to Metamatter: These channels serve as the foundational mechanism that connects living entities with the broader informational and quantum fabric of the universe. The entanglement between the Entanglement Molecules (EM) within living cells and metamatter provides a non-local, instantaneous link that transcends the physical separation and motion through space.

3. The Role of Entanglement Cells (EC): ECs are specialized cells that establish and maintain the POV by heterodyning individual QE connections with metamatter at a composite QEF. This process ensures that the individual's unique identity, or LifeID, remains consistent and mobile across different spatial and temporal scales, despite the constant motion of viable hosts and habitats.

4. Implications for Understanding Reality: The LINE hypothesis suggests that the essence of life and individuality extends beyond mere physical existence to encompass a quantum-coherent interaction with the universe. This interaction, facilitated by the QE channels to metamatter, allows for the mobility of individuality, enabling life and consciousness to manifest in diverse forms and environments.

5. Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Implications: While direct empirical evidence of QE channels to metamatter as described by the LINE hypothesis remains speculative, the concept is supported by theoretical considerations of quantum mechanics, information theory, and observations of life's resilience and diversity. The hypothesis challenges conventional notions of space, time, and individuality, proposing a more interconnected and dynamic understanding of the universe.

The LINE hypothesis presents a visionary framework that integrates quantum entanglement, the perpetual motion of entities through space, and the universal instantiation of individuality. It posits that life and consciousness are not merely products of local physical conditions but are deeply rooted in the quantum entanglement fabric of the universe, facilitated by non-local connections to metamatter. This perspective opens new avenues for exploring the nature of existence, individuality, and the cosmos.

[Lagayscienza]

It sounds great and I’d like it to be true.

However, as it stands it is entirely hypothetical. You would need to work on the physics. What theoretical concern gives you reason to think there is an as yet undiscovered particle that makes up the hypothetical meta-matter? Is the particle required to fill some gap in the standard model of physics? And, if so, you would need to come up with some proposal as to how this particle might be discoverable. Otherwise your hypothesis will remain a just-so story.

I mean, I can just declare that there is a god who controls and permeates the universe and whose substance, in the form of a yet to be discovered form of matter composed of a hypothesized god particle, permeates the universe. All I need to do is then to discover my hypothesized god particle. But unless there is at least a hope of such a particle ever being discovered, my god hypothesis can go nowhere – it remains merely a just-so story.

There are at least two things you could do to further your theory. You could:

1. Show that your undiscovered particle is made necessary by the mathematics underlying the standard model of physics.

2. Perform experiments in a particle accelerator designed to detect your as yet undiscovered particle. It took a while to confirm the existence of the Higgs boson, so maybe your particle will emerge eventually with a powerful enough particle accelerator.

Good luck with it.

[tonylang]

It sounds great and I’d like it to be true.

However, as it stands it is entirely hypothetical. You would need to work on the physics. What theoretical concern gives you reason to think there is an as yet undiscovered particle that makes up the hypothetical meta-matter? Is the particle required to fill some gap in the standard model of physics? And, if so, you would need to come up with some proposal as to how this particle might be discoverable. Otherwise your hypothesis will remain a just-so story.

I mean, I can just declare that there is a god who controls and permeates the universe and whose substance, in the form of a yet to be discovered form of matter composed of a hypothesized god particle, permeates the universe. All I need to do is then to discover my hypothesized god particle. But unless there is at least a hope of such a particle ever being discovered, my god hypothesis can go nowhere – it remains merely a just-so story.

There are at least two things you could do to further your theory. You could:

1. Show that your undiscovered particle is made necessary by the mathematics underlying the standard model of physics.

2. Perform experiments in a particle accelerator designed to detect your as yet undiscovered particle. It took a while to confirm the existence of the Higgs boson, so maybe your particle will emerge eventually with a powerful enough particle accelerator.

Good luck with it.

I chuckle mildly... you clearly haven't seen the book.

[Lagayscienza]

All I have to go on is what you have written here, Tony. I have searched online for the "LINE hypothesis", and I have checked out your book at Amazon and I have tried to find some reviews of the book. If you have not done so already, why not try to get your hypothesis published in a peer reviewed scientific journal?