The Hard Problem is Really a Harder problem

The hard problem of consciousness would remain as a harder problem of consciousness. Those theories which maintains that the subjective conscious experience arises from brain is not so hard problem as it was presented by David Charmer who argued for the problem. David also further argue that the problem consciousness belongs a altogether a different realm of reality which is completely different from the physical reality. With respect to the consciousness research, the physical reality is largely confined to the brain. Many theories has been around the understanding that everything that we experience or everything that we attribute to consciousness can be explained using the brain itself, there is no necessity of any third parameter to explain our conscious experience or consciousness. However, we have not been successful so far to explain any of the phenomena. 

There could be two assumptions: 

brain is physical whereas the consciousness belongs to a different reality which is unknown . 

In such situation the problem of consciousness can only be solved in conscious reality, it can't be solve in any other realm which are characteristically less than conscious domain. Therefore, it is impossible to solve or understand the problem of consciousness using brain. 

https://mindmatters.ai/2022/02/neuroscientists-the-hard-problem-of-consciousness-isnt-so-hard/

Jaynarayan, Bangalore, India

A Step Beyond the Neural Pattern

My feelings and corresponding neural patterns are two different things. Some of the contemporary theories strongly suggests that the subjecting feelings are originating possibly from brain itself and there is no second thing beyond that. However recent findings make a different claim suggesting that the subjective feeling can't be explained just with the neural patterns. The finds suggest that there must be something beyond the neural patterns. The problem with the neural basis of explanation is that the pattern itself does not covey the feelings, to get the idea of feelings the subject has to be asked separately to get to know how does it feel. This how does it feel is what has been called as subjective feeling a part of hard problem of consciousness. 

What kind of experiment could be performed to confirm the presence of subjective element fundamentally a different kind of element than physical one? How do we perform experiment to test this? 

One possibility is to do the following:

    Let's consider two subjects and a large set of objects. Subject: A and Subject: B, and a large set of object.

    Let I = {i1, i2, i3, ..................in} where n -> very large number. 

    Let perform a series of operation of input and output. 

    i1 will be given to both A and B, and the output from each subject will be recorded using MRI or FMRI kind of technology. 

   i2 will be give to both A and B, and the the output from each subject will be recorded using MRI and FMRI. 

  Similarly, the experiment will be performed for all the inputs and the output will be recorded. Then the output will be compared for both the subjects to find out how are they similar or how are they differ. The same output will be used to figure out the processing in the brain and then that will be compared between the subject. How are these two data points, the output and the neural patterns correlates would indicate the existence of subjective element or the qualia element. 

Jaynarayan, Bangalore, India

Existence of Life and Consciousness in Spectrum of Entity

The consciousness has been a non-trivial problem for the scientists of modern time. Not very long, since around last 30 years or so the problem has gained a serious attention from neuro-biologists. Not only the neuro-science, the computer science and quantum physics has also started to investigate the problem. And, of course the philosophy is involved since long. The interesting development is the integration of science and spirituality in search for a new science to address different problems of consciousness. The approach of synthesizing the science and spirituality has been invented and applied by H H Bhaktiswarupa Damodara Maharaj in search for the answers to the question of consciousness study. One of problem of consciousness is whether consciousness is limited to human being alone? Or in other words does the other creatures such as trees, plants, microbes etc poses consciousness? 

The problem stated has been investigated by Sir J C Bose long back in the year of 1900 (the history of this research goes back to 1848 by German philosopher Gustav Fechner). Sir J C Bose has demonstrated using an interesting experimental setup that plants are sentient. The plant do respond consciously to the external stimuli. The result has indicated that plant has some mechanism of being able to communicate the feelings of pain, suffering and happiness. (Well, here we may need to appropriately define what we mean by feelings. This subject we will discuss further.) Taking it from here, recently a work has been published in a book "Finding the Mother Tree" authored by Suzzane Simard which investigates the problem of plant consciousness. The work provides a set of evidences based on the authors examination of a Mother tree in a deep forest where the author studies the behavior of those trees that seems to be exactly like a mother in human being. The way they communicate about their survival, their food, friends and foe, health etc reveals a different kind of phenomena underneath in the forest society. These studies and observations lay a foundation for plant consciousness.

Reference: 

   1. https://www.the-scientist.com/reading-frames/book-excerpt-from-finding-the-mother-tree-68727

Jaynarayan, Bangalore, India

Living and Non-living machines

The subtle difference between living and non-living that we learn from Vedic scriptures is not very well understood by the modern scientific community. The scientific community particularly the biologists are in the process of research to learn more about What is Life? Whatever has been known so far does not give any clarity on what is living and what is dead. The current understanding which is based on the large number of assumptions states that the life could possibly be the cell itself. What is not known is how does the cell  has evolved? 

The recent research on living machines published in the paper "A cellular platform for the development of synthetic living machines" [1]  is even more interesting to note that it has been titled as Living machine. The author does states that they have created a living machine. However, the understanding is that the research is on creating an automatic self-healing machine from the living organism. Some of the critical points to be noted are that the machine has not been created from dead cells, rather it has been created from living cells which after the initial organization can further behave as a self-healing machine just like a computer. The machine has also a capability to record the past behavior of the machine. 

The relevant question to be asked is does this finding anyway helps us understand how does life has started, does this finding be useful in answering the question of machine consciousness? Will the machine ever be conscious? 

Reference:

[1] https://robotics.sciencemag.org/content/6/52/eabf1571/tab-pdf

Jaynarayan, Bangalore, India

Computational Model and Human Brain

Computation has become so much important that it has become impossible to live without it in modern times. The computation has spread across our day-to-day life in various ways. We use cell phone, we use various other computational devices for our livelihood in every home utilities as well as in many other technology. Further, computation has become a tool for the advancement of science in the pursuance of knowledge. It is of course true that we are yet to define what we suppose to be calling as a knowledge.  We have discussed on the definition of knowledge in other article. In the set of knowledge that has been learned so far by the scholars, the computation is one such which needs to be understood further. The curiosity has lead the investigation further to learn about the nature of computation and computation in  the Nature that we live in. This article is a set of thoughts to understand the nature of the human brain in the light of computational model. Our interest is to understand the structure and functionality of the human brain in contrast with the computational model. Is computation one of the fundamental principles of Nature? Does this material nature also performs a unique kind of computation in order to sustain the activities? As computer science has evolved theoretically as well as physically with the advent of different technology and computational model, it is appropriate to contrast the current computational technology with that of the human brain. 

The computation has been defined in terms of an abstract machine called Turing machine by Alan Turing a British mathematician. This definition has become a model for the theoretical study of computer science. The model describes the process of computation as information processing where the information is represented in the form of a set of well-defined symbols. The processing is controlled by an automated machine which can be called a controller, technically this can be termed as a state machine. Further, the processing requires an ability to remember the past for which a memory device is used called tap. With these three components, the Turing machine is constructed which defines what computation suppose to be. Most of the modern computational devices which are most popular are based on this definition. The physical counterpart of this definition is the Von-Neumann architecture (of course there is another architecture called Stanford Architecture conceptually similar with VNA.) which describes further how a machine could process the symbols in a step-by-step manner to reach at a conclusive result. Therefore, it can be said that the Von-Neumann architecture introduces additional components with data and control paths to facilitate the flow of information and data. This architecture, VNA, has been widespread now in almost all the processors that are currently being manufactured. Among many such processors, the general-purpose processors are most popular due to its basic properties of being programmable. The programmability feature implies that the same processor could be used to carry out multiple tasks. It is for that reason called as a general-purpose processor. It is the program that is unique for a particular task. The underlying processor is common. At the first look when we contrast this architecture with that of our human brain we find that our brain is something different from the architecture that we have just described. As time progress and along with that the human needs which can be termed as applications also is emerging with various demand. One such demand is performance. The applications that the modern computer process are complex in nature and therefore they demand high-performance computing. As the demand for high-performance computing rises, there have been several pieces of research that attempt to meet this performance demand. One of the interesting advancements in this direction to note is the development of application-specific accelerators. Here comes the something worth noting point which is the subject of this article. If we carefully observe the application-specific accelerators, it is one-to-one with the architecture of the human brain. Whereas not the general-purpose processor architecture. 

The interesting part to investigate is how far the application-specific accelerator  architecture would be correlated with the human brain architecture. And, would it be the appropriate architecture for neural processing? 

We will investigate further here.  

Reference: 1. Image is taken from: https://www.kurzweilai.net/how-brain-architecture-relates-to-consciousness-and-abstract-thought

-------------------------------------------

Jaynarayan, Bangalore, India

Measuring Consciousness

Recently at World Science Festival  group of minds from background of Neurology, Psychology, Neurophysics have gather to discuss most stunning and kind of enigma problem of consciousness-Measuring consciousness. The problem of consciousness is one of the most difficult unsolved problem. Till now not much scientists dare to think on the problem of consciousness.  Very handful of scientists do started a kind of serious research in combination with neuro science and quantum mechanics.


 Here we shall look the problem from yet another perspective- a Vedic perspective. We will understand the following 1) How the problem is defined
2) How it is approached 3) What are the difficulties 4) Can it be measured?

In the meantime you may like to visit the World Scientific Talk at
 http://worldsciencefestival.com/events/measuring_consciousness
 
 --------------------
Jaynarayan, Bangalore, India

Dr. Stuart Hameroff on Consciousness

Being the skunk at an atheist convention*

Most scientists and philosophers assume consciousness emerges from complex computation among  brain neurons and synapses acting as indivisible bits, or information states. Penrose and I suggest that consciousness involves processes at deeper levels, specifically sequences of quantum computations (~40 per second) in structures called microtubules inside brain neurons. The quantum computations we propose link to neuronal-level activities, and are also ripples in fundamental spacetime geometry, the most basic level of the universe.  

One implication of our model relates to a possible scientific basis for secular spirituality (unrelated to any organized religious approach). I should say that Roger avoids discussion of such implications, but I’ve been willing to raise this possibility.

For me, spirituality implies:

• Interconnectedness among living beings and the universe

• A ubiquitous reservoir of cosmic intelligence/Platonic values in touch with our conscious choices and perceptions

• Existence of consciousness after death

Can these issues be accounted for scientifically? I believe they possibly can.

Interconnectedness – Conscious minds and unconscious processes may be quantum entangled.

Cosmic intelligence/Platonic values – Penrose suggested in his 1989 book The emperor’s new mind that Platonic values including mathematical truth, ethical values and beauty were embedded in the fine structure of the universe, specifically in fundamental spacetime geometry at the inifinitesimally tiny (and ubiquitous) Planck scale. In a 1996 paper, Penrose and I further suggested that the precursors of conscious experience were also embedded in Planck scale geometry. In our theory, conscious choices and perceptions are affected by this universal Platonic information which Penrose termed non-computable influence. I liken such proposed influence on conscious choices to “following the way of the Tao”, or “Divine guidance”. 

Conscious existence after death – In my view, consciousness occurs at the level of Planck scale geometry amplified to quantum coherence/computation in brain microtubules. When metabolic requirements for quantum coherence in brain microtubules are lost (e.g. death, near-death), quantum information pertaining to that individual may persist and remain entangled in Planck scale geometry.

Taken as a whole, these ideas may be considered a plausibility argument for scientific, secular spirituality.

In November 2006 I was invited to a meeting at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California called “Beyond Belief” (http://beyondbelief2006.org/). Other speakers and attendees were predominantly atheists, and harshly critical of the notion of spirituality. They included Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Patricia Churchland, Steven Weinberg (the least venal), Neil deGrasse Tyson and others who collectively vilified creationists and religious warriors. But the speakers also ragged on the notion of any purpose or meaning to existence, heaped ridicule on the very possibility of a God-like entity (and those who believed in such an entity), declared that scientists and philosophers should set society’s moral and ethical standards, and called for a billion dollar public relations campaign to convince the public God does not exist. 

Near the end of the first day came my turn to speak. I began by saying that the conference to that point had been like the Spanish Inquisition in reverse -  the scientists were burning the believers. And while I had no particular interest in organized religion, I did believe there could be a scientific account for spirituality.

After pointing out faulty assumptions in conventional brain models for consciousness and summarizing the Penrose-Hameroff theory, I laid out my plausibility argument for scientific, secular spirituality, suggesting cosmic connections and influence in our conscious thoughts occurred via quantum interactions in microtubules. I closed with a slide of the DNA molecule which emphasized it’s internal core where quantum effects rule, suggesting a Penrose non-computable influence in genetic mutations and evolution (aimed at Dawkins in the form of a quantum-based intelligent design).

At the end a few people clapped loudly, but most sat in steely silence. The moderator and conference organizer Roger Bingham said I had enraged nearly everyone in the room. Indeed, I had raised a stink, and felt (happily) like the skunk at an atheist convention.

Comments from the audience were negative, but off base. Physicist Lawrence Krauss said my suggestion of backward time effects in the quantum unconscious (indicated by experiments, and required to rescue consciousness from its unfortunate characterization as epiphenomenal illusion) were impossible. He was apparently unaware of the verification of Wheeler’s delayed choice experiments which precisely prove such backward time effects. Krauss also questioned the possibility of biological quantum computation at brain temperature, but I pointed to evidence for warm quantum coherence in biological photosynthesis. Neuroscientist Terry Sejnowski attempted to criticize my view, but floundered, unable to explain how his conventional approach could explain 40 Hz gamma synchrony EEG (the best measurable correlate of consciousness) without quantum effects.

Our theory also chafes proponents of artificial intelligence (“AI”, including advocates of the so-called Singularity) who assume consciousness results from interactions among neurons with no consideration of deeper activities or quantum mechanisms. Along these lines I recently spoke at Google in Silicon Valley, my talk being titled A new marriage of brain and computer – Why the Singularity is bogus. That talk is at 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2069501759514424839

 

I am not by nature confrontational, but am happy to debate scientists and philosophers who oppose our theory. Atheism does not hold the scientific high ground. Secular spirituality based on quantum biology and the physics of spacetime geometry is a viable and important idea. I am not offering or suggesting any proof, just a plausibility argument.

*The above article is taken from  Dr. Hameroff website
Jaynarayan, Bangalore, India

Neuro Science and Consciousness

As we look around the world we find that many neuro scientists are getting interested more and more in the problems related to consciousness. For example the Hard and Easy problem of David Charmer[1], Neural co-relate consciousness(NCC) of Francis Crick and Christof Koch [2], Quantum consciousness by Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose [3], concept of epiphenomena of V. S. Ramachadran and many other well known philosophers, neurologist, and physicists like Amit Goswami [4], A. K. Mukhopadhyay[5] at AIIMS, India, Sangetha Menon [6] at NIAS, India are very much involved in the realm of consciousness. Hence we can see that the problem of consciousness can not be ignored any more.

Many intuitions are speculated and theorised in order to understand the consciousness from neuro science point of view. However, till now after so much of dedicated research effort the consciousness is not very well understood by the great thinkers of the world. Most of the scientists have impression that the consciousness is originated from the complex interaction of neurons in the brain. The collapsing of wave function is the one speculation in which most of the scientist around the world are contemplating in order to understand the origin of consciousness. The other proposal which is well accepted among many leading scientist of the world is microtubles as the origin of consciousness. Apart from these two proposals which are well accepted there are many other proposals in this area which also tries to explain the origin of consciousness in brain. One thing to be noted is, till now there is no satisfactory answer to the origin of consciousness from the basis of brain or complex interaction of neurons. On the other hand, the Indian Vedic literature provides a clear idea that the very nature of consciousness is non matter rather spiritual. Being a spiritual element the consciousness can not be generated by complex interaction of the neurons which are matter by nature. The Vedic literature provides very detail understanding of consciousness from entirely different aspect.

In brief here we can discuss bit about the Vedic understanding of consciousness. According to Vedic understanding the elements of this entire creation is categorized into two. One is matter and another is non-matter or spirit. The matter is again classified into two, one is gross matter which consists of earth, water, fire, air, and ether and other one is subtle matter which consists of mind, intelligence, and false ego. The matter is different from the spirit because it does not contain any consciousness. The spirit however has consciousness. According to the Vedic science the phenomena of perceiving, feelings, and experiencing are due to the presence of consciousness in spirit. In matter no such phenomena are expressed or exhibited. Vedic science gives the analogy of sun shine and sun to understand the consciousness and spirit. The sun shine is like the consciousness where as the spirit is like sun globe. Hence according the Vedic science the consciousness is fundamental quality of spirit. Because of the presence of consciousness the spirit is entirely different from matter and it exhibits far more superior functions. Hence we can see that the consciousness according to the Vedic science is not the complex interaction of neurons. Further more the Veda gives the information that the neurons in the brain, and mind are the devices through which the consciousness is transmitted between the spirit and the sensory organ. And this is how the spirit interacts with the external Nature. The most difficult question that scientists ask is the proof that the spirit exists and how it posses the consciousness as its fundamental quality. The Vedic literature has given very practical methodology to proof the existence of spirit.

According to the Vedic science the spirit is something which cannot be observed by the senses or the kind of extended senses like ultra microscope and NMR technology. Hence Vedic science has devised an entirely different kind of methodology to directly perceive the spirit. And this methodology or science is known as Science of self realization. Bhagavad-gita the encyclopedia of Vedic knowledge provides various kind of self realization process. Among all these processes the one which is practical for this age of modern science and technology is the process of devotional services to Supreme Lord Krishna. The process of devotional service is recommended by the Supreme Lord himself and it is accepted and successfully practiced by many seeker of Supreme Lord. By studying the life of many great spiritual scientists we learn that the science of self realization is the only one method by which one can proof (directly see) the existence of spirit and consciousness. Although this may be very difficult for modern scientists to accept but this is the well proven methodology to see the spirit. May be in the future our modern scientist may invent some method to proof the existence of spirit but it is very much doubtful that it will give us complete perception of spirit and consciousness because till now we have not seen directly any of the sub-atomic particles- our quantum world is completely a dark room where we just infer and go ahead.

Therefor, if the scientists will be open minded and come forward to look into the literature of Vedic knowledge it will be easy for them to unravel the mysteries of consciousness accurately in very shorter period of time.

This post is at primary stage on the commentary on neuro science and consciousness. Kidly give your valuable suggestions, references, and other useful resources such that the concept of consciousness can be understood precisely from both modern science as well as from ancient Vedic literature.

Jaynarayan,
Bangalore, India

Questions on Machine Intelligence and Conscious Machine

Followings are some of the interesting question the intellectuals around the globe have been asking.

Q1) Can machine ever be intellingent like man ?
Q2) Can we compare man with machine just based on quantitative computation ?
Q3) How do we understand the difference between man and machine ?
Q4) Is conciouseness enough to distinguise between man and machine ?

All these sort of question has been the interesting topic of research among scientist , philosopher and Spiritualist .

The purpose of posting this kind of blog is to spread such a worth message among the growing genious all over the world , and collecting the views from them whether such question is worth enough to ask or not ?

According to my undestanding, these kind of questions are very much important for the society and for an individual. This kind question set the basis for human life style.

All kind of comments and suggestion are wellcome ................