Consciousness as a Pure State

Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward.
Soren Kierkegaard

If consciousness is able to abstract, then consciousness is able to survive a heat death by going back to the beginning of the universe with those abstractions? Consciousness, is able to survive a heat death by mathematically abstracting, then ones consciousness can indeed reach a Pure State.

Since entropy gives information about the evolution of an isolated system with time, it is said to give us the direction of "time's arrow" . If snapshots of a system at two different times shows one state which is more disordered, then it could be implied that this state came later in time. For an isolated system, the natural course of events takes the system to a more disordered (higher entropy) state. -http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

	The concept of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics suggests that systems naturally progress from order to disorder. If so, how do biological systems develop and maintain such a high degree of order? Is this a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? -http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/bioentropy.html#c1 See:  Chicken or the Egg Dilemma

***

Found a video for reference and posted for examination.Interesting comment at this moment?




So, what does Sir Roger Penrose say about consciousness?

So I may talk about a gap, but what is Stuart saying. So as a Platonist, we do not just see mathematics, but we see other things.

In a logical process, objective reductionism(ORCH) takes you to a certain point. Your aware of this point, and you can go back and look at the theory so as to suggest what consciousness is actually doing in that state. Penrose is actually telling us about the differences, regarding use of consciousness versus the computational view.

So with regard to this phenomenological association between two people, as Stuart and Sir Roger, they are melding "the abstract" to the biology. I asked if one could see a contradiction and I think if you look at what Stuart is saying here how does this fit with ideas about entropy?

So both of them were attack by philosophers, and by many others about their ideas.

Pure States

The direct realist view [11] is incredible because it suggests that we can have experience of objects out in the world directly, beyond the sensory surface, as if bypassing the chain of sensory processing. The pattern of electrochemical activity that corresponds to our conscious experience can take a form that reflects the properties of external objects, but our consciousness is necessarily confined to the experience of those internal effigies of external objects, rather than of external objects themselves. Unless the principle of direct perception can be demonstrated in a simple artificial sensory system, this explanation remains as mysterious as the property of consciousness it is supposed to explain.[1] But the indirect realist view is also incredible, for it suggests that the world that we perceive is merely a pattern of energy in the physical brain inside our head. This could only mean that the head we have come to know as our own is not our true physical head, but merely a miniature copy of it inside a copy of the world contained within our true physical skull. outside.The external world and its phenomenal replica cannot be spatially superimposed, for one is inside your physical head, and the other is The existential vertigo occasioned by this concept of perception is so disorienting that only a handful of researchers have seriously entertained this notion or pursued its implications to its logical conclusion. (Kant 1781/1991, Koffka 1935, Köhler 1971 p. 125, Russell 1927 pp 137–143, Smythies 1989, 1994, current, Harrison 1989, Hoffman 1998, Lehar current, Hameroff current)"[1]
Direct and indirect realism

What is the value of an awareness of "a construct" that we would assign as a background a formulation of the perceived by the perceiver? An archetype, created? A top down recognition in the square of opposition's use of the transcendent which could reveal an understanding of the essence of universals in face of "statistical prediction" in today's world? Symmetry.

A digital manifestation perhaps then that is clearly marked as to a recognition of a type of realism, or is it just noise(coherence as a contradiction). I might say that the realism here suggests to me a underlying recognition of the ability to perceive, to recognize facets of it own creation as to suggest, that it is quite capable of its ability to perceive beyond the confines of the construct given as a reality.

 The connection between superfluidity and symmetry breaking has had a glorious history. It has left us a rich legacy of fertile ideas, that seems far from exhaustion. PG 60 Superfluidity and Symmetry Breaking

***

Yes there were thoughts about the nature of the gap and you had asked to me to define this. I had trouble doing so even though the nature of the reduction was a gap with which information to me was accessible.

"Penrose Physics, Microtubules & Consciousness

psyche-d / March 15, 1995 According to the arguments for OR put forth in Penrose (1994), superposed states each have their own space-time geometries (see Shadows of the Mind, p. 338). When the degree of coherent mass-energy difference leads to sufficient separation of space-time geometry, the system must choose and decay (reduce, collapse) to a single universe state [avoiding the need for multiple universes as discussed by, for example, Everett (1957) and Wheeler (1957)]. In this way, a transient superposition of slightly differing space-time geometries persists until an abrupt quantum to classical reduction occurs. If as various philosophers claim (cf. Chalmers, 1994; 1996) the nature of conscious experience is somehow embedded in the nature of reality, self-selections in fundamental space-time geometry may address the "hard problem" of consciousness.

Unlike the random, "subjective reduction" (SR, or R) of standard quantum theory caused by observation or environmental entanglement, the OR we propose in microtubules is a self-collapse and it results in particular patterns of microtubule-tubulin conformational ("eigen-") states that regulate neuronal activities including synaptic functions. Possibilities and probabilities for post-reduction tubulin states are influenced by factors including attachments of microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs) acting as "nodes" which tune and "orchestrate" the quantum oscillations. We thus term the particular self-tuning OR process in microtubules "orchestrated objective reduction" ("Orch OR"), and calculate an estimate for the number of tubulins (and neurons) whose coherence for relevant time periods (e.g. 500 milliseconds) will elicit Orch OR. Stuart Hameroff"

The Platonist reality to me was a recognition of a informational reality where all information exists as energy, and that such integration with the physical body was a connection through the synapse as a reductionist ability to form through wave length function.

The point I wanted to make was that it is was as if there are two heads, that if it could be seen, one head moves through a whole wave length function potential as if walking through an ocean of wavelength like reality called information and such reduction of that information had to have a link between the material world in the brain/mind. I am trying to gather my thoughts here. Be clearer.

My thought of a glass of water was analogous here to what can exist in between a space , and have solid matter added to the glass without raising the water, somehow had me envision the gap in the water, as revealing the potential of that matter as filling a space that was not immediately obvious, but exists.

Matter then is not a solid.....but a potential realization of a condensation of that wave function. I am not altogether clear here.....so I am working on this.

 I think it is right to point out universal permeate of that energy as information. Think of the pattern of the quasi-crystal as consolidating wavelength like pattern. A pure state. How much closer are we then to recognize a wavelike pattern(chaldni) as an emergent product pattern of the idea?

I am having some difficulties here in solidifying a position here as to it being completely sound, so I am open to having philosophical interaction to help make this so.

***

 Knowing Penrose's attribute toward a Platonist ideal, the Goldberg idea may have come from how he saw what could be happening within the cosmic background as demonstration cyclical to the universe as always being born in certain locations(CCC). While now showing this theory to be false as defined as circles and located in WMAP, one gets a sense of his thinking of a Platonist.

The answer lies in the fact that the high entropy of the microwave background refers only to the matter content of the universe and not to the gravitation field, as would be encoded in its space-time geometry in accordance with Einstein’s general relativity. What we find, in the early universe, is an extraordinary uniformity, and this can be interpreted as the gravitational degrees of freedom that are potentially available to the universe being not excited at all. As time progresses, the entropy rises as the initially uniform distribution of matter begins to clump, as the gravitational degrees of freedom begin to be taken up. BEFORE THE BIG BANG: ;AN OUTRAGEOUS NEW PERSPECTIVE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR PARTICLE PHYSICS

Sir Roger Penrose was really fond of Escher .How might on see a relationship to Goldberg?

Penrose's Influence on Escher

During the later half of the 1950’s, Maurits Cornelius Escher received a letter from Lionel and Roger Penrose. This letter consisted of a report by the father and son team that focused on impossible figures. By this time, Escher had begun exploring impossible worlds. He had recently produced the lithograph Belvedere based on the “rib-cube,” an impossible cuboid named by Escher (Teuber 161). However, the letter by the Penroses, which would later appear in the British Journal of Psychology, enlightened Escher to two new impossible objects; the Penrose triangle and the Penrose stairs. With these figures, Escher went on to create further impossible worlds that break the laws of three-dimensional space, mystify one’s mind, and give a window to the artist heart.

***

How does one recognize "pure states?" There is a lot of science that is attached to this, and if one has not done their homework they might never understand exactly what this means. To relate self in this picture would somehow seem contradictory, but, as an idea regarding symmetry, one has to be able to speak about this possibility as well too.

While seemingly lost in history as to thinking its all Greek and not worth the time, there is more now to this realization having given some perspective about the Platonist that is current.

Well in today's world we might know what that might mean, not given time to further inspect what is being said. So we might call it this "other thing," a metaphysics. As a Platonist, I see the third realm as informational energy, so getting to that "as a pure state[a Form of the Good]," would in my view reveal something quite intrinsic about how we use that information. How we get to that information.

My question for you, recognizing that we are quite capable of getting to that informational energy, how do you resolve the quote given by Sir Roger Penrose given the Second law of thermodynamics with regards to entropy? You see the contradiction?



 See: Order and Chaos, by Escher (lithograph, 1950)

 You see Sir Roger Penrose had to be able say that such mini big bangs happen all the time.......and they do. Do you know where such pure states are given when considering this idea? Its happening in nature all around us right now. So if you assume this, how do we recognize it? While I hint here at (more then)one demonstration of a pure state, there is another.

***

See Also:

• Book Review: “String Theory and the Scientific Method” by Richard Dawid
• Far-reaching features of physical theories are not sociological questions

Consciousness, as a Biophotonic System

The structure of optical radiation emitted by the samples of loach fish eggs is studied. It was found earlier that such radiation perform the communications between distant samples, which result in the synchronization of their development. The photon radiation in form of short quasi-periodic bursts was observed for fish and frog eggs, hence the communication mechanism can be similar to the exchange of binary encoded data in the computer nets via the noisy channels. The data analysis of fish egg radiation demonstrates that in this case the information encoding is similar to the digit to time analogue algorithm. Photonic Communications and Information Encoding in Biological Systems

Of course there is some difficulty by assigning life in human form as an assumption of coordinating a life form system based entirely on computerized processes. But at the same time, there has been this struggle with coordinating the idea behind color of gravity and sonification maturation with the basis of understanding the emotive system as part of the communicating system of our experience.

 The term biophotonics denotes a combination of biology and photonics, with photonics being the science and technology of generation, manipulation, and detection of photons, quantum units of light. Photonics is related to electronics and photons.Photons play a central role in information technologies such as fiber optics the way electrons do in electronics.

So definitely,  I would want some physical process that would emulate the sensitivity with which any detector would be present in the determination of those emotions present in the system at any time during any experience.

Nobody is quite sure how cells produce biophotons but the latest thinking is that various molecular processes can emit photons and that these are transported to the cell surface by energy carying excitons. A similar process carries the energy from photons across giant protein matrices during photosynthesis. Biophoton Communication: Can Cells Talk Using Light?

The very topic(biophotonics) while verging on the one side of mysticism, it begs for sensor development processes that would delve deeper into our psychological makeup and physiological processes,  to bring understanding to the human form and endocrine system as a messenger conduit for such communications?

So of course there are many difficulties in recognizing that consciousness itself would speak too, The Photon and Emergence, suffice it is to say that, consciousness could include emotive forces that are derived from such biophoton messengers that help to define the experience?  So this in a way is a starting point for me about what such science may reveal, that we could say such psychological experiences have definitive facets in the spectrum of observation that we are not currently cataloging?

TEDx Brussels 2010 - Stuart Hameroff - Do we have a quantum Soul?

Quantum Biology

The frequency of vibration of an object is, among other things, a function of mass: A heavy guitar string vibrates more slowly than a light one and produces a lower tone. These tiny cantilevers vibrate at radio frequencies, in the 1 to 15 megahertz range, and because they are so small to begin with, adding just a tiny bit more mass will make a measurable change in frequency.

For cell detection, the researchers coated their cantilevers with antibodies that bind to E. coli bacteria, then bathed the devices in a solution containing the cells. Some of the cells were bound to the surface, and the additional mass changed the frequency of vibration. In one case just one cell happened to bond to a cantilever, and it was possible to detect the mass of the single cell.
‘Nano’ Becomes ‘Atto’ and Will Soon Be ‘Zepto’ for Cornell - New Technology

As soon as you use the word "quantum" there is a easy assessment for a scientist who deals with reduction-ism to have it sorted out as to what levels of perception are being forced upon  a definition and understanding. A measurable quantity of something? For us lay people, it is never that easy.

 quan-tum (kwntm)

n. pl. quan·ta (-t)

1. A quantity or amount.

2. A specified portion.

3. Something that can be counted or measured.

4. Physics

a. The smallest amount of a physical quantity that can exist independently, especially a discrete quantity of electromagnetic radiation.

b. This amount of energy regarded as a unit.

adj.

Relating to or based upon quantum mechanics.

---

[Latin, from neuter of quantus, how great; see quantity.]

So suffice is it to say that by demonstrating this scalable reference to the values and options in recognition of the Powers of Ten,  we realize the depth with which we need participation. That through use of manufacture,  as for any of us to say such a thing that which is not observable normally, can we say then exists for us? We have all taken it for granted, even a scientist perhaps to realize how one can divvy up their day as to say at times our perception was much deeper in to the reality then previously confirmed?

Have we gotten so far into our assumptions of the world that we would not further entertain the idea that consciousness emerges from something. Consciousness that is so subtle that we have not really to this date been able to reproduce what consciousness actually looks like. Categorized consciousness at this wanted measurable level of perception that is needed.


Can we say we have always measured around it, and can shows signs of something going on in terms of biological exchange, but have as yet not been able to assess this function as nothing more then some abstract creature of design that we lack for distinct measurable quantities?

Quantum biology refers to applications of quantum mechanics to biological objects and problems. Usually, it is taken to refer to applications of the "non-trivial" quantum features such as superposition, nonlocality, entanglement and tunneling, as opposed to the "trivial" applications such as chemical bonding which apply to biology only indirectly by dictating quantum chemistry.
Austrian born physicist and theoretical biologist Erwin Schrödinger was one of the first scientists to suggest a study of quantum biology in his 1946 book "What is Life?"

Contents 1 Applications 2 Notes 3 Further reading 4 External links

Applications

Many biological processes involve the conversion of energy into forms that are usable for chemical transformations and are quantum mechanical in nature. Such processes involve chemical reactions, light absorption, formation of excited electronic states, transfer of excitation energy, and the transfer of electrons and protons (hydrogen ions) in chemical processes such as photosynthesis and cellular respiration.^[1] Quantum biology uses computation to model biological interactions in light of quantum mechanical effects.^[2]
Some examples of the biological phenomena that have been studied in terms of quantum processes are the absorbance of frequency-specific radiation (i.e., photosynthesis^[3] and vision^[4]); the conversion of chemical energy into motion;^[5] magnetoreception in animals,^[6][7] DNA mutation ^[8] and brownian motors in many cellular processes.^[9]
Recent studies have identified quantum coherence and entanglement between the excited states of different pigments in the light-harvesting stage of photosynthesis.^[10][11] Although this stage of photosynthesis is highly efficient, it remains unclear exactly how or if these quantum effects are relevant biologically.^[12]

Notes

1. ^ Quantum Biology. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Group. http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/quantum_biology/
2. ^ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070116133617.htm Science Daily Quantum Biology: Powerful Computer Models Reveal Key Biological Mechanism Retrieved Oct 14, 2007
3. ^ Quantum Secrets of Photosynthesis Revealed
4. ^ Garab, G. (1999). Photosynthesis: Mechanisms and Effects: Proceedings of the XIth International Congress on Photosynthesis. Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7923-5547-2.
5. ^ Levine, Raphael D. (2005). Molecular Reaction Dynamics. Cambridge University Press. pp. 16–18. ISBN 978-0-521-84276-1.
6. ^ Binhi, Vladimir N. (2002). Magnetobiology: Underlying Physical Problems. Academic Press. pp. 14–16. ISBN 978-0-12-100071-4.
7. ^ Erik M. Gauger, Elisabeth Rieper, John J. L. Morton, Simon C. Benjamin, Vlatko Vedral: Sustained quantum coherence and entanglement in the avian compass, Physics Review Letters, vol. 106, no. 4, 040503 (2011) (abstract, preprint)
8. ^ Lowdin, P.O. (1965) Quantum genetics and the aperiodic solid. Some aspects on the Biological problems of heredity, mutations, aging and tumours in view of the quantum theory of the DNA molecule. Advances in Quantum Chemistry. Volume 2. pp213-360. Acedemic Press
9. ^ Harald Krug; Harald Brune, Gunter Schmid, Ulrich Simon, Viola Vogel, Daniel Wyrwa, Holger Ernst, Armin Grunwald, Werner Grunwald, Heinrich Hofmann (2006). Nanotechnology: Assessment and Perspectives. Springer-Verlag Berlin and Heidelberg GmbH & Co. K. pp. 197–240. ISBN 978-3-540-32819-3.
10. ^ Sarovar, Mohan; Ishizaki, Akihito; Fleming, Graham R.; Whaley, K. Birgitta (2010). "Quantum entanglement in photosynthetic light-harvesting complexes". Nature Physics 6 (6): 462–467. arXiv:0905.3787. Bibcode 2010NatPh...6..462S. doi:10.1038/nphys1652.
11. ^ Engel GS, Calhoun TR, Read EL, Ahn TK, Mancal T, Cheng YC et al. (2007). "Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems.". Nature 446 (7137): 782–6. Bibcode 2007Natur.446..782E. doi:10.1038/nature05678. PMID 17429397.
12. ^ Scholes GS (2010). "Quantum-Coherent Electronic Energy Transfer: Did Nature Think of It First?". Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 1: 2–8. doi:10.1021/jz900062f.

Further reading

• Derek Abbott, Julio Gea-Banacloche, Paul C. W. Davies, Stuart Hameroff, Anton Zeilinger, Jens Eisert, Howard M. Wiseman, Sergey M. Bezrukov, and Hans Frauenfelder, "Plenary debate: quantum effects in biology―trivial or not?" Fluctuation and Noise Letters, 8(1), pp. C5–C26, 2008.
• Philip Ball, "Physics of life: The dawn of quantum biology," Nature 474 (2011), 272-274.
• P.C.W. Davies, "Does quantum mechanics play a non-trivial role in life?" BioSystems, 78, pp. 69–79, 2004.
• P.C.W. Davies, "Quantum fluctuations and life", quant-ph/0403017, 2 March 2004
• Johnjoe McFadden and Jim Al-Khalili, "A quantum mechanical model of adaptive mutation" BioSystems 50 (1999), 203-211.
• Ogryzko VV. "Erwin Schroedinger, Francis Crick and epigenetic stability". Biol Direct. 3, pp. 15, 2008. http://www.biology-direct.com/content/3/1/15
• Erwin Schrödinger. What is Life?, Cambridge, 1944.
• M. Tegmark, "Why the brain is probably not a quantum computer," Information Sciences, 128, pp. 155–179, 2000.

External links

• Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Group, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
• Quantum Biology Workshop, University of Surrey, UK

Photos By: Illustration by Megan Gundrum, fifth-year DAAP student

See Also:

• An Idea: Percolating to the Surface

The Fundamentals of Consciousness?

Ian Waldie/Getty Images

Science also lacks even a back-of-the-envelop concept explaining the emergence of consciousness from the behavior of mere matter. We have an elaborate understanding of the ways in which experience depends on neurobiology. But how consciousness arises out of the action of neurons, or how low-level chemical or atomic processes might explain why we are conscious — we haven't a clue.

We aren't even really sure what questions we should be asking.See: Are The Mind And Life Natural? 13.7 and by Alva Noë

I open with reference too, Is There A Place For The Mind In Physics? Part I as it sets up the question that looks as if it will lead to further discussion. Adam Frank will reveal more about, of course realizing this is Part 1, one assumes there should be more.

The basis of discussion seems to center around Thomas Nagel's work so it seems there is a foundational treatment here that is used to bounce off of,  in order to express Adam Frank's position(The truth is, while I deeply suspect he is wrong, I do find his perspective bracing.)He also writes, "Now, as 13.7 readers know, I am no fan of reductionism. In its grandest claims, reductionism tends to be more an affirmation of a faith then a tenable position about ontology (what exists in the world)." 

Okay, so the idea is expressed here then that what I had linked previous of Quantum Consciousness (Stuart Hameroff) and Stuart Kauffman on Beyond Reductionism some question for me about  how such measure could  have existed if the mind did not attempt to define it self as a "measure of something?" Alva sets the bar high by writing, "We aren't even really sure what questions we should be asking."

So there seems to be this group thinking over at 13.7 since Alvae's work on  October 12, 2012 that raises  the subject title presented by Adam Frank. It shows such connections in reference to Thomas Nagel's work. I forgot to include Stuart Kauffman before that in terms of emergent processes, as well as Tania Lombrozo , so you sort of get what I mean by as a "Group Think."

So to begin,  with out argument, consciousness "just is,"  or how else can such awareness exist for any of us of such a discussion? IN that sense the notion of any reductionist versions are not necessary because it would  not need to define parameters around anything other then, "are we aware?" Alva expresses this very nicely by  saying, "But how consciousness arises out of the action of neurons, or how low-level chemical or atomic processes might explain why we are conscious — we haven't a clue." 

So by asking us to impose a vision of a blue monkey, does Adam rank reveal some fundamentalism inference to what exists as a consciousness? I hope to explore more of this as we go along. Can we gain awareness without understanding that  an Observer exists?

Alvae explains it nicely as he askes us to recognize.

 We think we can't explain life, but only because we insist on adhering to a conception of life as vaguely spooky, some sort of vital spirit. And likewise, we think we can't explain consciousness, but again this is because we cling to a conception of consciousness as, well, somehow spiritual, and precisely because we insist on thinking of it as something that floats free of its physical substrates ("a ghost in the machine"), as something essentially interior and private. See: Are The Mind And Life Natural? 13.7 and by Alva Noë

 In a sense it is a call out to scientists to get beyond themselves as  Adam Frank is doing, as well as a call out to others to start to deal with the question with what exists "as is." Experimentally as a physicist I am not sure how a scientist can not be a reductionist. Adam Frank writes,"What if the Mind was something as real as Space and Time and Higgs Bosons?" . It is experimentally necessary to be specific and burdened with proof even if in speculation raised as a question.?

See Also:

• Embodied Cognition and iCub

Quantum Consciousness (Stuart Hameroff)

 

See Also:

 

See: 

• Nikola Tesla - Wardenclyffe Tower