Consciousness might be a result of basic physics, say researchers
https://www.sciencealert.com/consciousne...gs-vibrate
EXCERPT (Tam Hunt): . . . All things in our universe are constantly in motion, vibrating. Even objects that appear to be stationary are in fact vibrating, oscillating, resonating, at various frequencies. Resonance is a type of motion, characterized by oscillation between two states. And ultimately all matter is just vibrations of various underlying fields. As such, at every scale, all of nature vibrates.
Something interesting happens when different vibrating things come together: They will often start, after a little while, to vibrate together at the same frequency. They “sync up,” sometimes in ways that can seem mysterious. This is described as the phenomenon of spontaneous self-organization. [...] Examining resonance leads to potentially deep insights about the nature of consciousness and about the universe more generally.
[...] Our resonance theory builds upon the work of Fries and many others, with a broader approach that can help to explain not only human and mammalian consciousness, but also consciousness more broadly.
Based on the observed behavior of the entities that surround us, from electrons to atoms to molecules, to bacteria to mice, bats, rats, and on, we suggest that all things may be viewed as at least a little conscious. This sounds strange at first blush, but “panpsychism” – the view that all matter has some associated consciousness – is an increasingly accepted position with respect to the nature of consciousness.
The panpsychist argues that consciousness did not emerge at some point during evolution. Rather, it’s always associated with matter and vice versa – they’re two sides of the same coin. But the large majority of the mind associated with the various types of matter in our universe is extremely rudimentary. An electron or an atom, for example, enjoys just a tiny amount of consciousness. But as matter becomes more interconnected and rich, so does the mind, and vice versa, according to this way of thinking.
Biological organisms can quickly exchange information through various biophysical pathways, both electrical and electrochemical. Non-biological structures can only exchange information internally using heat/thermal pathways – much slower and far less rich in information in comparison. Living things leverage their speedier information flows into larger-scale consciousness than what would occur in similar-size things like boulders or piles of sand, for example. There’s much greater internal connection and thus far more “going on” in biological structures than in a boulder or a pile of sand.
Under our approach, boulders and piles of sand are “mere aggregates,” just collections of highly rudimentary conscious entities at the atomic or molecular level only. That’s in contrast to what happens in biological life forms where the combinations of these micro-conscious entities together create a higher level macro-conscious entity. For us, this combination process is the hallmark of biological life.
The central thesis of our approach is this: the particular linkages that allow for large-scale consciousness – like those humans and other mammals enjoy – result from a shared resonance among many smaller constituents. The speed of the resonant waves that are present is the limiting factor that determines the size of each conscious entity in each moment.
As a particular shared resonance expands to more and more constituents, the new conscious entity that results from this resonance and combination grows larger and more complex. So the shared resonance in a human brain that achieves gamma synchrony, for example, includes a far larger number of neurons and neuronal connections than is the case for beta or theta rhythms alone....
MORE: http://theconversation.com/could-conscio...ate-103070
- - -
Tam Hunt: Is the Universe Conscious? A Conversation with Philosopher Philip Goff
https://www.noozhawk.com/article/tam_hun...f_20181018
INTRO: The last decade or so has been a golden age for the philosophy of mind as well as the scientific study of the mind and brain. The major new development in this time frame has been a growing acceptance that the prevailing view of mind and consciousness — what we can label “materialism” or “physicalism” as shorthand — is increasingly seen as inadequate for providing answers to the big questions about the nature of consciousness.
It seems, nevertheless, that some version of materialism may still be the prevailing view among philosophers and scientists. But alternative views are growing fast. One of the major alternatives is panpsychism, the view that all matter has some associated consciousness, albeit in a very limited manner for most matter.
Philip Goff, who was until recently associate professor in philosophy at Central European University in Budapest but has just taken up a position at Durham University in the UK, is a pioneer in elaborating on the various versions of panpsychism and developing in some detail his preferred version known as “cosmopsychism.” This is the view that the entire cosmos is one consciousness and that all other conscious entities, humans and everything else, are grounded in this higher level of consciousness. This is the opposite of the more common notion of grounding: grounding in the smaller constituents of the mind such as neurons, molecules, etc.
He fleshes these ideas out in his 2017 book (his first), Consciousness and Fundamental Reality, published by Oxford University Press. Goff’s book is very well done, a rare example of cutting edge philosophy that tackles viciously complex issues with clarity, modesty and humor.
For the record, I outed myself long ago as a panpsychist, but I’m of the more traditional (it seems funny to use that term in the context of panpsychism even now) school of constitutive panpsychism. I find Goff’s arguments for cosmopsychism interesting but not entirely convincing, as we discuss below. I approached Goff about an interview with the expressed goal of exploring his ideas and how they connect with Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy, which is a version of panpsychism I’ve explored and advocated in modified form.
We conducted this interview by email in mid-2018.
MORE (interview): https://www.noozhawk.com/article/tam_hun...f_20181018
- - -
Technically, the external appearance of microscopic objects / events or the medium of a field and its oscillations never fully explains manifestation. Since the former itself is dependent upon the latter. So any claim of locating what experience physically corresponds to or is concomitant with (ranging from neurons to quantum entities) would entail that item having an additional unknown, intrinsic property or capacity other than those publicly observed / measured / conventionally accepted. (Even "information" is an abstract entity limited to the semantic appearance underlying its description, and that offers no characteristic or power as a source for deriving either "manifestation of outward appearances" or "manifestation of meaning" from).
Thus an apparently non-structural property or capacity is needed or entailed (i.e., why it is so elusive) which would then incrementally build up in complexity to the sensory and thought manifestations of humans and some animals. A final product which in contrast would be intensely structural, detailed, and immediately present or "given").
~
https://www.sciencealert.com/consciousne...gs-vibrate
EXCERPT (Tam Hunt): . . . All things in our universe are constantly in motion, vibrating. Even objects that appear to be stationary are in fact vibrating, oscillating, resonating, at various frequencies. Resonance is a type of motion, characterized by oscillation between two states. And ultimately all matter is just vibrations of various underlying fields. As such, at every scale, all of nature vibrates.
Something interesting happens when different vibrating things come together: They will often start, after a little while, to vibrate together at the same frequency. They “sync up,” sometimes in ways that can seem mysterious. This is described as the phenomenon of spontaneous self-organization. [...] Examining resonance leads to potentially deep insights about the nature of consciousness and about the universe more generally.
[...] Our resonance theory builds upon the work of Fries and many others, with a broader approach that can help to explain not only human and mammalian consciousness, but also consciousness more broadly.
Based on the observed behavior of the entities that surround us, from electrons to atoms to molecules, to bacteria to mice, bats, rats, and on, we suggest that all things may be viewed as at least a little conscious. This sounds strange at first blush, but “panpsychism” – the view that all matter has some associated consciousness – is an increasingly accepted position with respect to the nature of consciousness.
The panpsychist argues that consciousness did not emerge at some point during evolution. Rather, it’s always associated with matter and vice versa – they’re two sides of the same coin. But the large majority of the mind associated with the various types of matter in our universe is extremely rudimentary. An electron or an atom, for example, enjoys just a tiny amount of consciousness. But as matter becomes more interconnected and rich, so does the mind, and vice versa, according to this way of thinking.
Biological organisms can quickly exchange information through various biophysical pathways, both electrical and electrochemical. Non-biological structures can only exchange information internally using heat/thermal pathways – much slower and far less rich in information in comparison. Living things leverage their speedier information flows into larger-scale consciousness than what would occur in similar-size things like boulders or piles of sand, for example. There’s much greater internal connection and thus far more “going on” in biological structures than in a boulder or a pile of sand.
Under our approach, boulders and piles of sand are “mere aggregates,” just collections of highly rudimentary conscious entities at the atomic or molecular level only. That’s in contrast to what happens in biological life forms where the combinations of these micro-conscious entities together create a higher level macro-conscious entity. For us, this combination process is the hallmark of biological life.
The central thesis of our approach is this: the particular linkages that allow for large-scale consciousness – like those humans and other mammals enjoy – result from a shared resonance among many smaller constituents. The speed of the resonant waves that are present is the limiting factor that determines the size of each conscious entity in each moment.
As a particular shared resonance expands to more and more constituents, the new conscious entity that results from this resonance and combination grows larger and more complex. So the shared resonance in a human brain that achieves gamma synchrony, for example, includes a far larger number of neurons and neuronal connections than is the case for beta or theta rhythms alone....
MORE: http://theconversation.com/could-conscio...ate-103070
- - -
Tam Hunt: Is the Universe Conscious? A Conversation with Philosopher Philip Goff
https://www.noozhawk.com/article/tam_hun...f_20181018
INTRO: The last decade or so has been a golden age for the philosophy of mind as well as the scientific study of the mind and brain. The major new development in this time frame has been a growing acceptance that the prevailing view of mind and consciousness — what we can label “materialism” or “physicalism” as shorthand — is increasingly seen as inadequate for providing answers to the big questions about the nature of consciousness.
It seems, nevertheless, that some version of materialism may still be the prevailing view among philosophers and scientists. But alternative views are growing fast. One of the major alternatives is panpsychism, the view that all matter has some associated consciousness, albeit in a very limited manner for most matter.
Philip Goff, who was until recently associate professor in philosophy at Central European University in Budapest but has just taken up a position at Durham University in the UK, is a pioneer in elaborating on the various versions of panpsychism and developing in some detail his preferred version known as “cosmopsychism.” This is the view that the entire cosmos is one consciousness and that all other conscious entities, humans and everything else, are grounded in this higher level of consciousness. This is the opposite of the more common notion of grounding: grounding in the smaller constituents of the mind such as neurons, molecules, etc.
He fleshes these ideas out in his 2017 book (his first), Consciousness and Fundamental Reality, published by Oxford University Press. Goff’s book is very well done, a rare example of cutting edge philosophy that tackles viciously complex issues with clarity, modesty and humor.
For the record, I outed myself long ago as a panpsychist, but I’m of the more traditional (it seems funny to use that term in the context of panpsychism even now) school of constitutive panpsychism. I find Goff’s arguments for cosmopsychism interesting but not entirely convincing, as we discuss below. I approached Goff about an interview with the expressed goal of exploring his ideas and how they connect with Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy, which is a version of panpsychism I’ve explored and advocated in modified form.
We conducted this interview by email in mid-2018.
MORE (interview): https://www.noozhawk.com/article/tam_hun...f_20181018
- - -
Technically, the external appearance of microscopic objects / events or the medium of a field and its oscillations never fully explains manifestation. Since the former itself is dependent upon the latter. So any claim of locating what experience physically corresponds to or is concomitant with (ranging from neurons to quantum entities) would entail that item having an additional unknown, intrinsic property or capacity other than those publicly observed / measured / conventionally accepted. (Even "information" is an abstract entity limited to the semantic appearance underlying its description, and that offers no characteristic or power as a source for deriving either "manifestation of outward appearances" or "manifestation of meaning" from).
Thus an apparently non-structural property or capacity is needed or entailed (i.e., why it is so elusive) which would then incrementally build up in complexity to the sensory and thought manifestations of humans and some animals. A final product which in contrast would be intensely structural, detailed, and immediately present or "given").
~