Sandra Kroeker It is an interesting question and I do think the explanation for consciousness is to be found in a better understanding of fundamental physics:

Preprint The Conscious Brain

However, I think that a better understanding of fundamental physics will also show us the limitations of quantum theory as a true explanation of fundamental reality.

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on the Unification of Physics

Richard

Dear Sandra Kroeker

as far i know all species, is coming from single entity, thus everything that it makes by atom has conscious.

On the other hand, all of the elements of periodic table is result of hydrogen's journey.

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

If you think thereof statement is correct, then there is no such quantized exist in our living world, yet intelligent atom.

Richard Lewis thank you for your response! However couldn’t I just say that a better understanding of quantum physics would help understand classic physics?

Javad Fardaei thank you for your response! I appreciate this response because it makes me think in both realms. If you add up all the elements on the periodic table you could get some sort of quantitative measurement. But that only works if you’re reductionist or materialist because that measurement wouldn’t equal the whole -but at least if everything was made of consciousness and matter is a type of consciousness then it could be quantized a little bit in the material realm. Do you think we could reverse engineer the double slit experiment with the observer effect to measure the behavior of consciousness as opposed to measuring the behavior of light?

Sandra Kroeker The problem is that physicists have agreed that noone understands quantum theory. This statement attributed to Richard Feynman reflects the fact that quantum theory does not make any physical sense.

In the early days of quantum theory they could not agree on a picture of the physical structure of the atom so they focused on observables and being able to predict the results of experiments.

If we confine quantum theory and QFT to predicting the results of experiments then we realise that it does not give us a real understanding of things like mass, charge and spin.

So if quantum theory does not give us an understanding of fundamental physics, it is unlikely to help with understanding consciousness.

Richard

So because consciousness doesn’t have mass charge or spin, does that mean it can’t be quantized? In my opinion consciousness is in the same realm as quantum physics, it may manifest in particular ways via different shaped brains or differently equipped brains, But it is not a physical thing and therefore not susceptible to the laws of classical physics. But we cannot see energy but it is said that energy can be quantized. I suppose I need to know the exact nature of consciousness if it’s not energy. But if consciousness is energy then somehow it should be able to be m

Sandra Kroeker We need a definition of consciousness. Consciousness is the subjective experience that we have from the operation of our brain.

In particular it is important to understand the neuron network explanation for the way we control our “focus of attention “. See the paper linked above.

It is the wave activity of the brain that allows us to control our focus of attention. You really need to read the paper to see how this works.

Richard

Thank you-

I am unable to see the paper attachment. But maybe that’s because I’m on my phone. However I am familiar with consciousness studies and specialized in it-I am familiar with Natsulus and the various definitions of different degrees of consciousness and I am very familiar with Penrose-hammeroff hypothesis, which I might be assuming the paper is about. I am not a materialist or reductionist so I tend to see consciousness from a top down perspective rather than a bottom up perspective and do not seek necessarily physical definitions or explanations. I understand consciousness is having different levels and different degrees and yes there is a subjective degree but there’s also Carl Jung‘s idea about the collective unconscious or a collective consciousness. Just like I believe there is a subjective physical experience and a collective physical experience and a subjective emotional experience and a collective spirit. I will try accessing this from a different computer to see if I can see the attached paper. I will get back to you after I’ve read it if I can find it.

Sandra Kroeker That will be great. If you still have difficulty accessing the pdf let me know.

The paper is also available on Academia:

I tried adding the link but ResearchGate insists on replacing the link. You can find the paper through my academia profile:

https://cantab.academia.edu/RichardLewis

Richard

Sandra Kroeker Reading your comments again I would recommend treating the ideas of subjective consciousness and collective consciousness as completely separate topics.

When you talk about quantisation, I think you must be talking about the consciousness experienced by one individual due to the operation of their brain.

Richard

Absolutely not, as "consciousness" does not respond to "rules" dictated by theoretical physics.

Anything in the Multi-Universw can be quantized and both continuized.

“Can Consicousness be Quantized?” ..

- “Absolutely not, as "consciousness" does not respond to "rules" dictated by theoretical physics. …”

- yeah, that is so; however, despite that this answer is correct, without scientific explanations – why that is so? - that is only some by some chance true bare declaration.

Any scientific grounds in this case are fundamentally impossible in mainstream philosophy and sciences, since in the mainstream all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, “matter”, “quantization”, etc., and “Consciousness”, “are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational; and so in every case, when some mainstream authors address to some really fundamental problem, the result completely obligatorily logically is nothing else than some transcendent mental constructions,

- as that all rather numerous publications are about how from “matter” some “consciousness” [and “life”] “emerge” and operate in accordance with “quantum entanglement”, etc.

The scientific explanation can be, and is, given only in framework of the 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- where it is rigorously scientifically proven that “Matter” – and so everything in Matter, and any “Consciousness” are fundamentally different informational systems, and so practically everything that happens and is rather adequately to the reality is described by mainstream physics in Matter, fundamentally isn’t applicable to any consciousness.

More see the at least first dozen of pages – and Conclusion section, though, in the paper that is linked above; and to [the initial informational “Consciousness” model] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousness.

Cheers

There is something absolute to which everything is relative. The absolute has three qualities: Conscousness, Individuality and Will. And like the absolute we - the parts of "it" - have the same qualities as well. But not in the same quantity. We are in quality all the same but not in quantity. This is not measurable but remarkable. E.g. true Gurus, masters and so on...

“…There is something absolute to which everything is relative. The absolute has three qualities: Conscousness, Individuality and Will.…..”

- that really isn’t correct. Any “Consciousness” is simply some informational system in – an element of - the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set, which – the Set – contains absolutely completely and exactly information about all elements that constitute the Set.

At that every of absolutely infinite “number” of the Set’s elements has “Individuality”, however only consciousnesses have “Will”.

However, though in certain sense the Set can be some “Absolute” in sense “Absolute Consciousness”, It really hasn’t Will, see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

, section “Conclusion”

Cheers

First, the measurement problem does not actually show that human observation has the effect of altering the results of measurements. This was once the proposed theory that was popular in the early days, and some physicists still agree with this, but most physicists do not. There are strong reasons why the opinions of most physicists have changed. The experiments have become a lot more sophisticated.

Perhaps the biggest discovery was about decoherence. Experiments show that we can see signs of the particle-like property of light and the wave-like property of light at the same time. It does not have to be one or the other. We can see both at the same time when the interference pattern fades. And this fading happens if you introduce other particles.

For example, if one electron passes near the slits, the interference pattern fades by a noticeable amount. This suggests that the wave-like property has diminished and the particle-like property has grown. If you allow more electrons to be present, the interference pattern will fade further. If you allow many electrons to be present, the interference pattern will almost disappear completely. This suggests that it is not human observation that is altering the outcome, but rather the observations of other particles.

Now, about your question if consciousness can be quantized If we reversed the measurements. No, that would not happen because we cannot measure consciousness with equipment. However, there is one remarkable aspect of consciousness that suggests consciousness may always be quantized.

If you study living organisms, you will see that something remarkable happens if you try to cut them in half. In some cases, such as with worms, both halves will live, but they will now become two individual worms. In other cases, one half lives but the other half dies. In some cases, both halves die. What this shows us is that it appears as if consciousness may always be quantized. Living things always act as individuals.

There is no such thing as something being half alive. It is either alive or it is not. This appears to be directly related to the fact that there are no gradual steps leading to consciousness. If consciousness emerged, it must have leaped from non-conscious to conscious because there are no half-steps. This suggests that consciousness is always quantized.

This leads to a very different question. Is it possible that this quantized nature of consciousness is the cause behind the quantization of matter and energy?

“…There is no such thing as something being half alive. It is either alive or it is not…”

- that is so; however to state that really scientifically it is necessary to understand/define – what is “alive”? Correspondingly that

“…. This appears to be directly related to the fact that there are no gradual steps leading to consciousness. If consciousness emerged, it must have leaped from non-conscious to conscious because there are no half-steps. This suggests that consciousness is always quantized This leads to a very different question. Is it possible that this quantized nature of consciousness is the cause behind the quantization of matter and energy?….”

- is a really non-grounded scientifically and so vague, claim, since the author seems doesn’t understand what are the fundamental phenomena/notions “Matter” and “Consciousness”, “matter”, “energy”; and what are “alive” and “quantized”.

Really Matter and any consciousness [more see the SS post above and links in the posts], including the “consciousness on Erath” version, and her “homo-two sapiens consciousness” version,

- are fundamentally different informational systems, which exist and operate in the “Information” Set in different, only partially crossing, spaces that are composed by fundamentally different space dimensions; though also always change their states at evolving/developing, including [for consciousness] “thinking”, only in one “time dimension”.

Including we cannot exclude now that the fundamentally open in the Set system “consciousness on Earth” existed in the Set yet before Matter’s creation, and only used appeared opportunity to make a stable material residence in the Set; whereas in fundamental contrast to any consciousness Matter is rigorously logically closed – and so stable in the Set - system.

So any consciousness fundamentally cannot, and so isn’t, “emerging” from any material structure at any “leaps” in such structures; though, of course, any informational system “a consciousness” in the Set appears at some “leap”, but from something else that fundamentally isn’t material, but is some fundamentally non-closed logically system.

Such “leaps” are, of course, some “quanta”, however these quanta fundamentally have no any relation to any quanta and quantization’s in Matter.

More, including about what is “quantization”, which happens fundamentally obligatorily in any/every changing of any/every [absolutely for sure some informational] object/system – since continuous changes are logically prohibited, see at least first dozen of pages in the linked in the last SS post paper, where a number of the really fundamental phenomena/notions are scientifically defined.

Cheers

It is one thing being quantized. It is quite something else to be able to fathom the endless complexity of the said quantization. We can never fully determine the intricacy of the weave of the chain of causality that spawns what we characterize as consciousness.

“…It is one thing being quantized. It is quite something else to be able to fathom the endless complexity of the said quantization…”

- really there exist nothing too complex in “quantization”. Again, see the SS posts above, that is rather evident thing: everything changes only be quantized since continuous changes are prohibited by logics, and that was proven by Zeno in his really brilliant foundational aporias more 2500 years ago; more concretely at applications to fundamental informational systems “Matter” and “Consciousness” see SS posts above and papers that are linked in the posts.

Including that

“….. We can never fully determine the intricacy of the weave of the chain of causality that spawns what we characterize as consciousness….”

- correspondingly is rather vague claim. Everything in any changing system of some objects/system’s elements changes along some “chains of causality”, which can have any intricacy of the weave, but that by no means doesn’t practically in any case spawn the system itself, it is spawned already, and in chains of causality evolves/develops.

Including when a consciousness operates, innumerous chains of causality proceed in her, but, thank heaven, mostly in accordance with the informational system “Consciousness” logical construction.

The concrete logical construction of the “consciousness on Earth” Consciousness version, including “homo-two sapiens consciousness” version, indeed isn’t known till now,

- and in mainstream philosophy and sciences this system is fundamentally transcendent/uncertain/irrational – more transcendent, etc., than in religions, and so in the mainstream there exist numerous “scientific models/theories of consciousness”, where the authors even don’t suspect that they write about completely transcendent for them thing, and seems quite frankly believe that they write something that is really scientific.

Again, real understanding of what is “Consciousness” – and all other really fundamental phenomena/notions is possible, and is defined/clarified only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception,

- and note, at that, that all the phenomena/notions really can be scientifically defined only together, it is impossible to understand what is consciousness without understanding what are “Information”, including what are “Logos” set elements, first of all “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”; and at application to the “consciousness on Earth” – what is “Matter”.

More see the SS posts above and links in the posts.

Cheers

Every time I push the links to read the papers it brings me to someone’s profile where there are more than one paper. It’s hard to determine which paper people are sending me to or I’m just not doing it right. But yes that’s why I advocate for the universe as a living system and I study non-linear dynamic all systems theories which is a complexity theory and think that the axiom of choice should be brought back into mathematics in order to explore this more through set theory. Thanks all for comments

Frankly, bipolar disorder can be a quantum state.

You mean bipolar is like particle -wave dualism? Does one state or the other happen at a time or is there a quantum potential where the person who has the disorder is neither and mania and depression exists in potential until one or the other manifests? Interesting thought experimen- thanks!

Sergey Shevchenko, been in New Zealand on vacation - just saw your post.

I maintain my position that the complexities of quantization are beyond our comprehension, and I reject your assertion that there are no elements in quantization that are too complex to understand.

The human brain generates a continuous, ever-changing stream of sensory information that forms the basis of our consciousness. This stream is composed of a multitude of sensory modalities and channels, and it is a highly complex and dynamic process that is constantly modulated by internal and external factors. However, we are generally unaware of this ongoing process, and it is only when we deliberately focus our attention on it that we can construct a snapshot, but in doing so, the ongoing stream grinds to a halt only to restart when the strength of our focus diminishes.

The brain is an incredibly complex organ, comprising over 80 billion neurons that are interconnected through up to 10,000 synapses each. This complex network forms the foundation of the cognitive processes that underlie our conscious experience. However, this complexity is such that it is beyond our ability to fully understand and quantify the individual elements that make up this network.

Therefore, I stand by my claim that the complexity of quantization is endless and that the lion’s share of its functioning is beyond our comprehension. The brain is a highly complex system, and while we can make progress in understanding some of its fundamental principles, we are unlikely to fully unravel its mysteries anytime soon.

Charles Wohl,

- it seems you didn’t read the SS posts above attentively enough, and so write

“…I maintain my position that the complexities of quantization are beyond our comprehension, and I reject your assertion that there are no elements in quantization that are too complex to understand.

The human brain generates a continuous, ever-changing stream of sensory information …..This stream is composed of a multitude of sensory modalities and channels, and it is a highly complex and dynamic process that is constantly modulated by internal and external factors. However, we are generally unaware of this ongoing process, and it is only when we deliberately focus our attention on it that we can construct a snapshot, but in doing so, the ongoing stream grinds to a halt only to restart when the strength of our focus diminishes.

The brain is an incredibly complex organ, comprising over 80 billion neurons that are interconnected through up to 10,000 synapses each.…”, etc.

- that is indeed so, the informational system “homo-two sapiens consciousness” indeed is rather complex system, which is composed by a really very complex system of rather numerous functional modules, and every module is rather complex system as well.

However that

“…that forms the basis of our consciousness….”

- is fundamentally incorrect. Really, again – see the SS posts above on page 2 - consciousness is concrete informational system; and, as any other system, is something like a computer, which consists of a hardware – as specifically combined system of some logically connected hardware elements, eventually chips – though every chip is rather complex system of transistors, etc.;

- and software – the program shell that governs what happens in computer. Computers can have now billions logical gates, be connected to arbitrary number of sensors that produce some information about environment, etc., and that is indeed very complex in every concrete case, but that by no means “forms the basis of the computer”

- but in all cases that is elaborated by the same computer, by using concrete hardware and concrete program shells, which aren’t very complex – though, again, can elaborate problems in very complex and diverse input situations.

Again - consciousness is rather like to computer, and so at her operation she obtain information from concrete well determined concrete sensors; the information is processed by indeed complex system of functional modules, but which – the system of the modules – in concrete situations remain be the same, and works using the same hardware and algorithms independently on – what the information is processed. All that proceeds mostly on some “sub-conscious” levels and modes of operation, when only the processing results are downloaded into, and are analyzed in, the “mind mode of operation” – something like as in a computer usually only the results of the processing are downloaded into monitor.

At that, again:

- all input information by no means forms the basis of the consciousness. Moreover, since any consciousness is fundamentally non-material system, while all that happens in the sensors, brain, and whole nervous systems, are practically material processes of exchanges by completely material signals [say, electric pulses] between practically material brain structures, etc.,

- but all that is the work of some only auxiliary functional modules, while the main functional consciousness modules [as in computer “processor”, “BIOS”, random access module, etc., are] work outside Matter and practically always in own consciousness space, which only partially crosses with Matter’s space – when, say, the practically material functional auxiliary module, mostly “hard disk/ “long term memory””, brain mostly operates.

More see the SS posts above and papers that are linked in the posts; to read SS comments in https://www.researchgate.net/project/TOWARDS-A-NEW-RELIGION it useful as well.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko, I have spent time going through your material directly related to consciousness, which I found at times thought-provoking, but you certainly don't provide sufficient material to answer this thread's question, which is, "Can Consciousness be Quantized?"

Your statement,

"consciousness is concrete informational system; and, as any other system, is something like a computer, which consists of a hardware – as specifically combined system of some logically connected hardware elements, eventually chips – though every chip is rather complex system of transistors"

is a rather gross simplification. While certain discreet parts of the totality of the human nervous system might be characterized as elements of a computer, computer processing is ultimately described as the manipulation of bits, 0s, and 1s, routines piled atop one another in an ever-expanding hierarchy and integrated at various junctures with information that has been processed in parallel. There is no room for error; a computer processes large amounts of information most rapidly and does not make mistakes with respect to what it has been tasked to do.

While you have claimed in this thread that consciousness is analogous to a computer and that it can be quantized, the works you referred me to in places state the opposite, and you write that,

"Consciousness has fundamentally limited capabilities at obtaining and processing of the principally infinite in this case information, every result of the processing is always at least partially uncertain, and sometimes erroneous and illusory."

And you additionally write,

"Matter” and“ Consciousness”, are fundamentally transcendent, so undefined and uncertain."

Finally, you write,

"... main functional consciousness modules work outside Matter and practically always in own consciousness space, which only partially crosses with Matter’s space"

I disagree with this statement. Every aspect of what we might term consciousness has a physical counterpart down to the level of photons and electrons. It's just that we're unable to quantize the intricacies, which has been my premise,

"... the complexity of quantization [of consciousness] is endless and the lion’s share of its functioning is beyond our comprehension."

Recent SS comment to a mainstream paper “Design of a minimal di-nickel hydrogenase peptide”. Science Advances journal, March 10, 2023, in

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Creative-Particles-of-Higgs-or-CPH-Theory/update/64244a27806fe2503df29024

- is relevant to this thread question.

Cheers