Favourite Theory of Conciousness

Post Reply New Topic

I don't understand Orch OR. It seems to have changed over time as early conjectures were proven false.

But more than that it seems to just move the problem of how a program on networks of neurons creates consciousness to how a program running on some sort of quantum effects in micro structures within neurons creates consciousness.

It seems that invoking the mystic power of the QM world permits any claim to be made, but I don't see an actual reasoned argument why these claims are somehow validated or verified by the theory.

Can the Orch OR fans help me to understand?

I voted Other,
for Einstein's "Spooky Action at a Distance."

In 2013 several electrodes were attached to microtubuoles in the labs of Sahu et al, and Bandyopahdayay et al, in which they determined that several configurations in the channels of the microtubuoles changed their corresponding frequency with only the tiniest change in applied voltage. As such, there is a very good probability that some quantum effects were instigated from the said EEG frequency, and I would assume that if OR interpretation of QM is correct (it is not yet fully known if that is the case, other QM interpretations like Many Worlds and the Copenhagen exist), then very much ORCH-OR is a correct theory of consciousness.

The Strong Emergence in the Flying-ness of Flying Carpets (Kek, 2017)

Abstract

Many in the philosophy of science community are speculating that by the end of the 21st century flying carpets will surpass cars or motorcycles as a means of small-scale commuting. This change will have a positive impact on global warming and fossil fuels consumption but will hurt auto manufacturers and will encourage a shift to light truck and commercial vehicle sales. With mathematical heuristic analysis taken into account China, India, Pakistan, and Iran are making more carpets than they ever have in history of textile production and consumption. Based on the ease with which carpets can be created and the advances in the ease of pattern and weave customization we're bound to see major advances in textile innovation. The economic selection of carpets breeds inventory change for the manufacturers and reprioritize what carpets they'll make. Eventually it will be advantageous for the smaller and more intricately designed carpets, if they don't make great floor spreads and get too expensive to be hung on walls, to be able to fly.

The counter-intuitive yet logical proposition according to researchers and specialists at the SEI (Strong Emergence Institute) - there's no reason why a carpet shouldn't be able to fly. The flyingness of a flying carpet does not break the laws of physics if it is an emergent property of textile evolution. You may feel inclined to suggest that carpet's flying is explained nowhere in the thread count or the type of silk, wool, or hemp used in the manufacture of the carpet but this is where having a PhD in Textile Information Theory comes to the rescue. Textile experts, noting strong emergence in other areas like consciousness, afford no appropriate criticism as to why the carpet can fly if a reductive analysis has failed. Similarly no criticisms of flying carpet emergence are appropriate until textile research has properly explained the matter scientifically. Some textile experts have suggested that the flyingness of the flying carpet is an optical illusion - that it will take you where you need to go but that any visual report of the carpet flying is based on a failed hack in the human visual cortex. Researchers have offered that they will be experimenting with carbon fiber to see if the flyingness of flying carpets is a commutable property to substances other than silk, wool, or hemp. In the meantime the only known way to transfer the flyingness of a flying carpet to a non-flying substance is to weave the non-flying substance into the fabric of an already flying carpet.

I just made satire of strong emergence, thought it would spice the conversation up.

I'm actually somewhat surprised neutral monism isn't on this list.

I had the chance to listen this lecture and it range a lot of bells hearkening back to a thread I wrote about Dennett's ideas and whether they imply panpsychism. Mike Silberstein actually hammered on both radical emergence and panpsychism as absurdities that we get by circumscribing our search for truth within incorrect assumptions.

I had to it three times to make sure I was really getting a proper handle on it and from what I gather he's arguing for the difference between materialism and idealism to be split by a certain interpretation of functionalism. He gets to neutral monism by his theory he calls Contextual Emergence, which is a further processing of the ideas within Ontological Structural Realism.

I don't have much time to say a whole lot more than this, just that I think he's opened a really interesting can of worms and its one that takes a fair amount of time and effort to wrap your mind around.