Our Noisy Cortex knows more than you think

[citizenschallengev4]

@write4u

First humans are part of the universe and are self-referential.

I prefer to see humans as part of this Earth and their particular environmental situation.
We happen to know about the universe in a way, that I dare say, nothing and no one has ever seen before.
So great, We are star dust (if you have enough education to be in on the secret) and it really is a fantastic insight - especially if it happens at Glacier Point YNP, star gazing with San Francisco’s, Side Walk Astronomer, about '75, strike up Kumbaya.

But still, for most humans, through all the ages, the heavens are mere the playground for dreams, it’s the Earth around us we’re dependent on and need to learn about and constantly strive for better understanding, in order to master and survive better than we did before.

What you show up there is geniuses with too much time on their hands, and all in all meaningless outside of their particular exclusive club. When it comes to real people, and us dealing with our real lives, it’s just all so empty, doesn’t offer anything that relates to the physical reality we’re always sparing with.

@write4u

There remains an outstanding piece of this puzzle that has seen little progress, one that Roger Penrose described in his beautiful paper Singularities and Time-Asymmetry in 1979 as …

@write4u

Called by its formal academic name, though, “panpsychism” turns out to have prominent supporters in a variety of fields. New York University philosopher and cognitive scientist David Chalmers is a proponent. … , and British physicist Sir Roger Penrose, renowned for his work on gravity and black holes. The bottom line, Matloff argues, is that panpsychism is too important to ignore.

Yeah, he’s got nothing better to do with his time. How else is he going to sell more books.

You should know better than to try to impress me with those names, each has left solid science behind for day dreaming with 200 horse power under the hood. . . , and about as useful as drag races.

The universe is dictated by physics, nothing gets to make a choice {how do I know, okay got me there, but then math can describe and predict pretty much everything we observe, and accurately predict how it behaves, most of the time.} There’s no universe that’s ever made a decision such as making a U turn just, for the heck of it? So what possible need is there for any sort of consciousness out there.

Why is it so hard to accept that consciousness is a product of evolving biology and work out from there?

Think about what consciousness is, it’s processing information in order to make decisions needed to make the body function in a productive manner. The greater universe doesn’t involve any of that. That’s the stuff of Earth and biology and ecosystems, there’s where we’re going to find the origins of consciousness.

[write4u]

@citizenschallengev4

Why is it so hard to accept that consciousness is a product of evolving biology and work out from there?

It isn’t . But it doesn’t stop there. This is turtles all the way down, because many systems have shown logical behaviors. Hence my use of the term quasi-intelligent.

Think about what consciousness is, it’s processing information in order to make decisions needed to make the body function in a productive manner. The greater universe doesn’t involve any of that. That’s the stuff of Earth and biology and ecosystems, there’s where we’re going to find the origins of consciousness.

So where do you start with that ability when bacteria can already communicate and “share” data. We are an easyu mark, but by no means the baseline.

And here I can entertain the concept that “2 way communnication” of biochemicals and even down that scale until we look at Planck scale.

What does it mean that self-organization already started during the Chaos direct following the BB. What does self-organization mean? Is it a form of Logic created by the spacetime geometry or did a form of Logics create the spacetime geometry?

I am not claiming that the Universe is consciously intelligent. That would involve a God, but why could it not be unconsciously intelligent like a computer?

If we can build thinking AI, then the Universe has already done it. Humans do not invent new stuff. We discover how to make it using commonly available materials.

Ever seen a “buckyball”?
Why do non-brained plants grow in accordance with the Fibonacci Sequence.
Why do Sunflowers exhibit ability for Heliotropism but lose it as they age? Dementia?

How can “carbon nanotubes” self-assemble in the same way as “protein microtubules”

This shared simple mathematical self-organization shows that certain mathematical rules are instrumental in the shaping of our reality. This is the type of Logical behaviors that gave rise to religions. But today we know that certain fundamental mathematical patterns are expressed everywhere we look into the Universal properties.

Microtubules and carbon nanotubes (CNTs), and more particularly multi-walled CNTs (MWCNTs), share many mechanical and morphological similarities that prompt their association into biosynthetic tubulin filaments both, in vitro and in vivo.

Unlike CNTs, microtubules are highly dynamic protein polymers that, upon interaction with these nanomaterials, display enhanced stability that has critical consequences at the cellular level. Among others, CNTs prompt ectopic (acentrosomal) microtubule nucleation and the disassembly of the centrosome, causing a dramatic cytoskeletal reorganization.

These changes in the microtubule pattern trigger the generation of ineffective biomechanical forces that result in migration defects, and ultimately in spindle-assembly checkpoint (SAC) blockage and apoptosis.

In this review, we describe the molecular mechanism involved in the intrinsic interference of CNTs with the microtubule dynamics and illustrate the consequences of this effect on cell biomechanics.

Microtubule cytoskeleton-disrupting activity of MWCNTs: applications in...

[citizenschallengev4]

@write4u

What does it mean that self-organization already started during the Chaos direct following the BB.

That self organization is caused by physical processes that don’t involve, choice.

Beyond that your side stepping the specific point I’m making.

@citizenschallengev4

Why is it so hard to accept that consciousness is a product of evolving biology and work out from there?

It isn’t . But it doesn’t stop there. This is turtles all the way down, because many systems have shown logical behaviors. Hence my use of the term quasi-intelligent.

Think about what consciousness is, it’s processing information in order to make decisions needed to make the body function in a productive manner. The greater universe doesn’t involve any of that. That’s the stuff of Earth and biology and ecosystems, there’s where we’re going to find the origins of consciousness.

@write4u

So where do you start with that ability when bacteria can already communicate and “share” data. We are an easy mark, but by no means the baseline.

Where do we start? How about: “Consciousness is an emergent property of biology systems.”

Why does it need a precursor off in the cosmos?
Simple physics was the precursor, until something like planets and biology came around, with all it’s amazing "emergent’ flowering.

[write4u]

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:23, topic:9781”]
That self organization is caused by physical processes that don’t involve, choice.
I must make it clear that this is not necessarily a conscious process, but it needs not be conscious.
Under anesthesia a person is unconscious, but his “subconscious” quasi-intelligent homeostatic system continues to work and “control” the body’s existential functions.

I completely agree that human conscious intelligence is the result of evolutionary processes, but I believe that the potential for that was already present in the physical interactive properties of matter.

Note that “consciousness” is an emergent property, but quasi-intelligent interactions began with the self-organization of patterns during the Chaos immediately after the BB.

What would you call “natural selection”, if not a choice made by nature to “select” for “fitness”?

It isn’t . But it doesn’t stop there. This is turtles all the way down, because many systems have shown logical behaviors. Hence my use of the term quasi-intelligent.
[/quote]

Think about what consciousness is, it’s processing information in order to make decisions needed to make the body function in a productive manner. The greater universe doesn’t involve any of that. That’s the stuff of Earth and biology and ecosystems, there’s where we’re going to find the origins of consciousness.

@write4u

So where do you start with that ability when bacteria can already communicate and “share” data. We are an easy mark, but by no means the baseline.

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:23, topic:9781”]
Where do we start? How about: “Consciousness is an emergent property of biology systems.”

And why must it be limited to biological systems, which are fundamentally just forms of dynamical system

Why does it need a precursor off in the cosmos?

Determinism? Work it backwards. As I said "quorum sensing’ is a form of decision making and that is not where it began. How about “oxidation” ?

Biology definition:
Biological oxidation is a biological process that involves the loss of electrons as opposed to the reduction process where there is a gain of electrons. Oxidation and reduction, however, are coupled together as a ‘redox ‘ reaction, which is an energy-producing reaction within the cell.

Is this a form of arriving at an unconscious “conclusion”, an abstract form of thought?

Is physics the study of Universal quasi-intelligent processes that yield “sums” and “products” of physical interactions at the smallest levels, just like our brains!

Simple physics was the precursor, until something like planets and biology came around, with all it’s amazing "emergent’ flowering.

What would you call superposition, if not a natural choice. A mathematical choice?
All that we see today is the result of that which was already present in potential form. Everything stems from prior Universal potentials. Determinism can be traced back to origins.

Just look at the fundamental forces :

There are four fundamental forces at work in the universe: the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force . They work over different ranges and have different strengths. Gravity is the weakest but it has an infinite range.

Consider the expression that “mathematics is the language of the Universe”.
The implication is that somehow the Universe understands this language and used it during the formation of an infinite number of expressions and variations thereof.

If you were God, would you do it differently than it did happen in reality? Could you have done it differently? If God is presumed to be intelligent, then how did all the regular patterns emerge.

I see the Universe as a quasi-intelligent dynamic system, not conscious, but deterministically intelligent.

[citizenschallengev4]

@write4u

Is this a form of arriving at an unconscious “conclusion”, an abstract form of thought?

That happens here on Earth, not out in the cosmos
Or?
Where do you find ‘redox’ reactions in the cosmos?

@write4u

What would you call superposition, if not a natural choice.

Superposition is a human construct to help explain facts we don’t fully understand,
energy collapses into a “particle”.

We don’t understand, we have plenty of guesses, but it’s all in our mind.

Heck I just saw where Penrose is telling folks, post Big Band “Inflation” never happened, and that Dark Matter doesn’t exist.

My understanding is that “Inflation” was an ad hoc explanation to explain the facts we’ve amassed.

The same goes for “wave function collapse” we know something happens, but we are left with making our best guesses.

@write4u

Just look at the fundamental forces :

There are four fundamental forces at work in the universe: the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force . They work over different ranges and have different strengths. Gravity is the weakest but it has an infinite range.

Right and do any of those forces have a “choice,” or “free will” or “free won’t” for that matter?