Is Matter Conscious? - Can All Matter Be Conscious?

[Pythagorean]

A worm recoiling could be experiencing the same thing as a boxer who gets punched in the heat of a fight or the same thing as a child confronted by a hissing crocodile. It could also just experience impulses the way a muscle in your body does, by reacting with contraction.

They're not mutually exclusive. You recoil impulsively and mechanically before the signal of pain reaches your consciousness. But yes, it could be that the worm doesn't have any experience associated with hi behavior. To me, that's rather highly unlikely, though.

My interest is in whether brain/nerve tissue could act as a transmitter/receiver of informational signals and thereby transmit/receive thoughts and consciousness to and from other bodies and/or media. My basic assumption is that esp and consciousness transfer is impossible, but it would really depend on exactly what causes consciousness, wouldn't it?

We do transmit signals brain-to-brain... but we have to use physical components like vocal chords and ear drums, eyes and body language. If there wasn't a need for any of that stuff, it's weird that it evolved. It makes more sense that those are how we transmit/receive thoughts because it's the only way we can.

If consciousness was simply an electronic pattern that could transfer between various media, would it have compatibility issues like software and operating systems on various kinds of computer hardware? Could it just be something as general as electromagnetism is conscious of whatever kinds of signals reach it from elsewhere and depending on the system in which the electromagnetism is present, it experiences different signals and has different avenues of expression open to it?

I think it's about the dynamics, the energy flow. Not just how much energy is flow, but the structure of the energy flow: the information flow. Maybe, for instance, there's a rule about complex informations structure density and any time you have a high density of transient information structure, you have consciousness (this would exclude computers, which are based completely on fixed point dynamics).

How would you measure consciousness in some medium that cannot express thought or action? If you operationalize "conscious" by comparing various signals to those measured in living humans that aren't brain-dead, then wouldn't you consistently mistake dead things as being unconscious even if they were somehow conscious? Isn't consciousness just a completely subjective research object?

Of course not. There's lots of objective research going on about consciousness. But yes, there are subjective components to it. That doesn't matter. Think about it this way.

You are an employer and you get three resumes who are all effectively equal, but in your interviews, you get a chance to subjectively choose your favorite potential employee.

But that doesn't mean your subjective decisions can't be studied objectively. Perhaps you picked a particular employee subjectively because they reminded you of your mother, or they were just the most attractive.

We can objectively categorize what social and biological pressures lead to the subjective decisions people make.

Neuroscientists like Christoph Koch believe that same thing is true for qualia.

 

[pftest]

That's the point of defining terms. Reasoning isn't necessarily involved. We're just saying what a certain term refers to. You're defining it as "looking like" your subjective experience. I'm defining it as "looking like" certain behaviors.

Yes, so because we use 2 different definitions, we are both talking about different things. In philosophy (phenomenal)consciousness generally refers to the subjective experience. So whatever word you want to give that, this is what I am talking about and i suspect the opening poster as well.

The OP asks all matter could be conscious. The answer that keeps popping up in here is basically "no because we assume it isn't conscious".

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes, so because we use 2 different definitions, we are both talking about different things. In philosophy (phenomenal)consciousness generally refers to the subjective experience. So whatever word you want to give that, this is what I am talking about and i suspect the opening poster as well.

The OP asks all matter could be conscious. The answer that keeps popping up in here is basically "no because we assume it isn't conscious".

Assuming your conclusion, isn't a proof, I agree. But assuming your conclusion, testing the consequences of your conclusion, and finding your conclusion to hold is evidence enough to continue making the assumption (until it reaches a contradiction, which it hasn't, only a lack of information).

So yeah, we have to start with an assumption (as most proofs do):

If brain matter is responsible for consciousness, maybe we can alter somebody's consciousness by injecting chemicals into their brain that will altar the electrochemical interactions. Yup, it works. If we lacerate this part of the brain, certain functions will be lost. Yup, it works. If we lacerate this other part of the brain, different functions will be lost. Yup, it works.

The evidence has shown that the assumption is sound. It would require an additional and ultimately meaningless explanation to show how iron atoms are consciousness since they don't have brains, or even an equivalent system of information processing.

 

[pftest]

Reduce consciousness to its constituents. What is it made of?

Im trying to find examples of emergence in nature, so that it becomes clear that emergence is a natural phenomenon, which in turn supports the idea that consciousness could have emerged. So you understand that bringing up consciousness itself is not a valid example of emergence. It would be like saying that jesus' resurrection is a natural phenomenon, because there is a known historical example of someones resurrection: jesus.

The big bang or the origin of the universe are also not valid examples of emergence, because the process is poorly understood and comparing the arisal of consciousness with the big bang offers no support for the idea that consciousness is a late arrival in the universe. If emergence is a natural phenomenon and happens all around us, then surely there must be many examples to be found. The idea of emergence of consciousness in brains would be much supported by an example of emergence taking place in some other organism somewhere on the evolutionary timeline. If on the other hand, evolution never caused anything to emerge in any organism, then this means that consciousness emerging from brains is an exception in evolution, making the idea less credible.

The unification of physics is headed towards a supersymmetric unified field picture and the so called "particles"(particles don't exist) are excitations of the field. In this picture, you are an excitation of the field, everything is. The math says so, experiments confirm it, so in short, the coffin is ready for your pre-conceived notions of the world.

But they appear "physical" and we label them so, but "physical", if we get to he bottom of it, is an ambiguous term.
"Physical" is that which is observed. What's really there is a totally separate issue.

Well physicalists do actually believe there is some physical substrate out there that is ultimately not illusory and dependant on mind. They believe this is what consciousness arises from in the brain. You are right that there are many possibilities for physical reality to be completely different than what we observe. There are ideas out there about all matter consisting of little loops of spacetime, or that everything is information on a 2D surface, etc. In that sense, the common idea that a non-emerging consciousness must imply that individual atoms are also conscious, is not valid (since "invididual" particles do not even exist in such scenarios).

But anyway, examples of illusions cannot be valid examples of emergence. It may be better to think of an illusion as a misconception. It is a wrong idea that exists in a persons mind. If i squeeze my eyes almost shut and look at a stain on a wall, i might think its a persons face. Then when i open my eyes and recognise its a stain on a wall, the illusion is gone. This doesn't mean that something actually physically emerged on the wall. It just means that the misconception in my mind is changed by my improving vision.

 

[pftest]

So yeah, we have to start with an assumption (as most proofs do):

If brain matter is responsible for consciousness, maybe we can alter somebody's consciousness by injecting chemicals into their brain that will altar the electrochemical interactions. Yup, it works. If we lacerate this part of the brain, certain functions will be lost. Yup, it works. If we lacerate this other part of the brain, different functions will be lost. Yup, it works.

The evidence you mention here is evidence of interaction.

So if we replace the assumption "brain creates consciousness" with "complex physical structures have complex consciousness" (and thus, simple structures have simple C), the evidence fits both. From here on, in order to find the best assumption, i suggest we look at how the rest of nature operates. Do phenomena "emerge"? Someone else here, brainstorm, said that he is interested in the idea that the brain is a "transmitter". The way he put this was as if this is some new, perhaps exotic view on how consciousness works. This is because of the associations we have with the word "transmitter". It reminds us of TVs, radios, telephones, the internet, and other hightech, recently invented, humanmade equipment. All correct of course, but each of those are all perfectly natural, and the electricity or airwaves or light that is transmitted in those systems are examples of how nature works. The particles of those systems are equally well transmitted (originating in space dust and eventually some quark gluon plasma), and so are the ingredients of every other physical thing. Transmitting is basically nothing more than some thing moving to a different location.

So i think this is the natural way to look at consciousness. Its not that the brain creates something new, its that it makes use of something already there and puts it in a particular configuration.

 

[apeiron]

Im trying to find examples of emergence in nature, so that it becomes clear that emergence is a natural phenomenon,

Unfortunately most people's idea of emergence is the cartoon version. You get a bunch of stuff together. It interacts. Then some new global property pops out.

So the belief is that separated stuff (ie: substance) has a set of inherent properties (like position, charge, malleability, etc) and then collections of stuff can combine to create a super-stuff, some compound or merely mixed state, which then inherently posesses some super-property.

This is just standard reductionism extended. It is how water molecules are said to come to posess the property of liquidity. H2O has van der waals forces and these organise collections of molecules so that they show some collective emergent property.

This approach to emergence is far too simple to explain a complex system like a conscious brain. It is perhaps an analogy that is 20% useful to get you started, a scaffolding to start lifting you out of reductionism, but quite quickly you have to leave it behind.

 

[Maui]

Im trying to find examples of emergence in nature, so that it becomes clear that emergence is a natural phenomenon, which in turn supports the idea that consciousness could have emerged.

You are either not trying or you are simply deluding yourself. Let's move down the importance ladder from the universe and consciousness to Life. Life is an emergent phenomenon and there is nothing in the laws of physics that requires life to form or self-sustain itself. Let's discuss this, then we'll move on to lesser popular nonlinear phenomena like superconductivity, magnetism, spontaneous symmetry-breakings and such.

So you understand that bringing up consciousness itself is not a valid example of emergence. It would be like saying that jesus' resurrection is a natural phenomenon, because there is a known historical example of someones resurrection: jesus.
The big bang or the origin of the universe are also not valid examples of emergence, because the process is poorly understood and comparing the arisal of consciousness with the big bang offers no support for the idea that consciousness is a late arrival in the universe.

I didn't mention the BB but whatever. I have expressed no opinion what consciousness is or where it comes from, so far. This particular thread doesn't require that i do.

If emergence is a natural phenomenon and happens all around us, then surely there must be many examples to be found. The idea of emergence of consciousness in brains would be much supported by an example of emergence taking place in some other organism somewhere on the evolutionary timeline. If on the other hand, evolution never caused anything to emerge in any organism, then this means that consciousness emerging from brains is an exception in evolution, making the idea less credible.

Well physicalists do actually believe there is some physical substrate out there that is ultimately not illusory and dependant on mind. They believe this is what consciousness arises from in the brain. You are right that there are many possibilities for physical reality to be completely different than what we observe. There are ideas out there about all matter consisting of little loops of spacetime, or that everything is information on a 2D surface, etc. In that sense, the common idea that a non-emerging consciousness must imply that individual atoms are also conscious, is not valid (since "invididual" particles do not even exist in such scenarios).

Okay I see what your point is. So you have 2 options:

1. Claim consciousness isn't real(isn't there)

2. Consciousness belongs to the properties of the constituents of matter(everything is conscious)


Or you have to accept emergence. Well anyway, could we EVER do without a form of magic(emergence, symmetry breaking, hidden variables, etc.) in explaining EVERYTHING we see?

 

[apeiron]

Life is an emergent phenomenon and there is nothing in the laws of physics that requires life to form or self-sustain itself.

On the contrary, current theoretical biology says that life and mind (bios) are clearly serving the second law of thermodynamics. People even want to frame this as a fourth law of thermodynamics.

The argument is that anything which can accelerate the entropification of the universe must be. And bios is such an accelerant. So is written into "the laws of physics" now.

 

[Maui]

On the contrary, current theoretical biology says that life and mind (bios) are clearly serving the second law of thermodynamics. People even want to frame this as a fourth law of thermodynamics.

The argument is that anything which can accelerate the entropification of the universe must be. And bios is such an accelerant. So is written into "the laws of physics" now.

The 2nd LOT doesn't in any physical way force particles of matter to combine in ways to form living organisms. If a resurrected Jesus was feeding on entropy, would that mean that Jesus was a phenomenon described by reductinistic physics?

The argument is that anything which can accelerate the entropification of the universe must be. And bios is such an accelerant. So is written into "the laws of physics" now.

This argument is a description and the conclusions are biased. The emergence of life cannot be predicted from the 2nd LOT and the laws of physics. You can only tie it in a loose way after-the-fact.

 

[apeiron]

The 2nd LOT doesn't in any physical way force particles of matter to combine in ways to form living organisms. If a resurrected Jesus was feeding on entropy, would that mean that Jesus was a phenomenon described by reductinistic physics?

If you have a rational basis for saying the second law does not have this necessary corollary, then please let's hear it.

If paths that accelerate entropification are available to the second law, then reality must take them. This is a physical fact.

Resurrected jesus is a strawman argument that is not worth a response.

This argument is a description and the conclusions are biased. The emergence of life cannot be predicted from the 2nd LOT and the laws of physics. You can only tie it in a loose way after-the-fact.

Thermodynamics is a package of laws in its current formulation. So you have the first three, and now widespread recognition of self-organising dissipative structure as a fourth.

 

[DaveC426913]

You know, Jimmy had a lot to say about there being no evidence. Yet when I presented my brain waves evidence, he had nothing to say.

I suppose silence is about as close as one can expect to concession on the web.

 

[Pythagorean]

Unfortunately most people's idea of emergence is the cartoon version. You get a bunch of stuff together. It interacts. Then some new global property pops out.

So the belief is that separated stuff (ie: substance) has a set of inherent properties (like position, charge, malleability, etc) and then collections of stuff can combine to create a super-stuff, some compound or merely mixed state, which then inherently posesses some super-property.

This is just standard reductionism extended. It is how water molecules are said to come to posess the property of liquidity. H2O has van der waals forces and these organise collections of molecules so that they show some collective emergent property.

This approach to emergence is far too simple to explain a complex system like a conscious brain. It is perhaps an analogy that is 20% useful to get you started, a scaffolding to start lifting you out of reductionism, but quite quickly you have to leave it behind.

Quantum chaos is one study that seems to allow for the question, "what if QM is a result of constraints from the whole?"

 

[pftest]

You are either not trying or you are simply deluding yourself. Let's move down the importance ladder from the universe and consciousness to Life. Life is an emergent phenomenon and there is nothing in the laws of physics that requires life to form or self-sustain itself. Let's discuss this, then we'll move on to lesser popular nonlinear phenomena like superconductivity, magnetism, spontaneous symmetry-breakings and such.

I thought the common idea among physicalists was that life is just chemistry? If not, what extra property is it that emerged in life?

Okay I see what your point is. So you have 2 options:

1. Claim consciousness isn't real(isn't there)

2. Consciousness belongs to the properties of the constituents of matter(everything is conscious)

Or you have to accept emergence. Well anyway, could we EVER do without a form of magic(emergence, symmetry breaking, hidden variables, etc.) in explaining EVERYTHING we see?

I don't know. Ill leave the explaining of everything up to others. Right now I am just trying to figure out if emergence of C in brains is an abomination of nature.

 

[Maui]

If you have a rational basis for saying the second law does not have this necessary corollary, then please let's hear it.

If paths that accelerate entropification are available to the second law, then reality must take them. This is a physical fact.

Well okay, but it's not obvious to me how such a path must emerge or be there in the first place. Sounds too anthropic, the path is there because we observe it(or infer about it), otherwise we wouldn't be here observing it. You just move your goalpost further away, from the emergence of life to emergence of "paths", or emergence at the BB.

Resurrected jesus is a strawman argument that is not worth a response.

The origin of a ball falling down to the ground is not gravity. Its falling down is due to the effects of gravity. All you are saying is that life doesn't contradict the law of entropy, which of course i totally agree with.

Thermodynamics is a package of laws in its current formulation. So you have the first three, and now widespread recognition of self-organising dissipative structure as a fourth.

Yes, and we are inquiring into the origin of the dissipative structure.

 

[Maui]

I thought the common idea among physicalists was that life is just chemistry? If not, what extra property is it that emerged in life?

Self-organization. SO is not an inherent property of matter(well at least as far as we know), though it's reasonable to suspect that it might be. At the moment it isn't possible to predict, based solely on the laws of physics and chemistry, that life would form out of the interactions of atoms or molecules. Though it happens somehow.

 

[pftest]

Self-organization. SO is not an inherent property of matter(well at least as far as we know), though it's reasonable to suspect that it might be. At the moment it isn't possible to predict, based solely on the laws of physics and chemistry, that life would form out of the interactions of atoms or molecules. Though it happens somehow.

Isnt all matter organised in some way, and it did so itself (or however else all matter does it)?

But anyway, i don't see how life could be an example of emergence. Sure life behaves differently than dead matter, but the behaviour is still just matter in motion, and that's been around since the big bang. Since the difference between life and non-life is a difference in the way the matter moves, it is principally equivalent to an atom that moves to the left, versus and atom that moves to the right. It doesn't introduce a new property, just a variation of an already existing one (motion). Compare this with the idea that the atom moving to the left isn't conscious, whereas the atom moving to the right is, and you see there is no logic behind the idea that C is the result of matter doing a particular kind of motion or forming a particular kind of configuration (the brain).

 

[Maui]

Isnt all matter organised in some way, and it did so itself (or however else all matter does it)?

Yes it is. But it isn't possible, based on the laws of physics and chemistry, to predict that life will form. All we can do is observe that it does.

But anyway, i don't see how life could be an example of emergence. Sure life behaves differently than dead matter, but the behaviour is still just matter in motion, and that's been around since the big bang. Since the difference between life and non-life is a difference in the way the matter moves, it is principally equivalent to an atom that moves to the left, versus and atom that moves to the right.

There is one principal difference though - life is not a chaotic system(dead matter is).

It doesn't introduce a new property, just a variation of an already existing one (motion).

No it does. Nothing is the laws of physics and chemistry requires that a system of high entropy must give birth to a sub-system that will resist and fight entropy.

Compare this with the idea that the atom moving to the left isn't conscious, whereas the atom moving to the right is, and you see there is no logic behind the idea that C is the result of matter doing a particular kind of motion or forming a particular kind of configuration (the brain).

Nowhere so far did i claim that consciousness is necessarily a result of a configuration of matter. If this were the biology forum, i probably would(FAPP it is), but here we are supposed to seek truths, so i withhold judgement.

 

[pftest]

Yes it is. But it isn't possible, based on the laws of physics and chemistry, to predict that life will form. All we can do is observe that it does.

There is one principal difference though - life is not a chaotic system(dead matter is).

No it does. Nothing is the laws of physics and chemistry requires that a system of high entropy must give birth to a sub-system that will resist and fight entropy.

That we cannot predict something, does not mean it has new properties. For example, if i throw a single ball away, i cannot predict its exact path and motion, but that doesn't mean some new property has arisen. I have heard about "the halting problem", which apparently proves that some behaviour is truly unpredictable. But even so i do not see how this implies that new properties arise, as opposed to just variations of existing ones (as in an atom moving to the left versus an atom moving to the right).

 

[Maui]

That we cannot predict something, does not mean it has new properties. For example, if i throw a single ball away, i cannot predict its exact path and motion, but that doesn't mean some new property has arisen.

The new property is that YOU have your own human body of zero or very close to zero entropy in a vast universe of constantly increasing entropy. If you cannot(YOU CAN'T!) explain this little fact with your deterministic reductinist logic, then your logic is as good as dead.

I have heard about "the halting problem", which apparently proves that some behaviour is truly unpredictable. But even so i do not see how this implies that new properties arise, as opposed to just variations of existing ones (as in an atom moving to the left versus an atom moving to the right).

Let's get back to self-organization(you insisted to discuss this) and why life forms are local domains of such miniscule entropy. Where in the Standard Model or in chemistry does it say that WE, systems of extremely low entropy, have to be or can be here?

 

[apeiron]

Self-organization. SO is not an inherent property of matter(well at least as far as we know), though it's reasonable to suspect that it might be. At the moment it isn't possible to predict, based solely on the laws of physics and chemistry, that life would form out of the interactions of atoms or molecules. Though it happens somehow.

I think it helps to see the issue in terms of three levels of mechanism.

1) atomism: you just have local components and local action.

2) self-organisation: you now recognise that the collective action of local components can develop some self-organised pattern. This is simple self-organisation as we see in chaos modelling and self-organised criticality for instance.

3) intelligent and adapative self-organisation: now something extra is added. By virtue of some kind of systems memory or symbol processing (semiosis), we have rate independent information in control of rate dependent processes (see Howard Pattee).

So life and mind (bios, complex adaptive systems, etc) are distinctive in that they can take SO processes (like a metabolic reaction) and stand back and harness them. The way that DNA can remember when to throw enzymes into a mixture to change its rate. The metabolic process itself is just level 2 SO. But it is controlled by level 3 semiotic organisation.

If you are talking emergence, you will thus have a simple kind of collective property emergence at level 2, but a quite different symbolic, or semiotic, emergence at level 3. And what goes on at level 3 seems now very different because, indeed, it demands a strong disconnection between the rate independent information and the rate dependent process.

So DNA is a very protected and stable molecule that exists "independently", while cellular metabolic processes just run to equilibrium as fast as they can.

Level 3 is quite computational (and not very dynamic). It is just the same as the way the silicon circuits of a computer are engineered to as isolated from real world dynamism as possible. This allows the symbolic code to run as if it had nothing to do with real world rate dependent processes, like battery life, cosmic rays, and other things that would interfere with the pure symbol processing.

I would say that levels 1 and 2 can really be collapsed into the one thing - look closely and all dynamical processes are SO within boundary constraints. QM is an example of that as Pythagorean says.

And level 3 is where the real novelty comes in that "physics" really cannot see at all. But on the other hand, we know all about computers and languages.

Where science is at - when it comes to complex systems, such as organisms with "consciousness" in its many grades and guises - is in trying to put together a combined story on 1/2 and 3.

You can't directly explain 3 with just SO principles (and thus simple emergence). But you still want to be able to build some composite model, some biological ToE, that puts both these aspects of nature, the dynamic and the computational, the rate dependent and the rate independent, into the same story.

Dissipative structure theory is one approach that does seem to bridge the divide. Especially with newer ideas like infodynamics - where the relation between structure and process can be describe more mathematically by combining information theory with hierarchy theory.

Theoretical biology has been talking about this kind of stuff for 30 years now. But reductionism still has such a grip on the popular imagination that even reaching level 2 is a step too far for most.

 

[Pythagorean]

apeiron,

Just for clarity, I meant that it allows for the question to be posed scientifically/mathematically . The "paradox" has not yet been resolved, but it seems like the answer to the question will contribute to such philosophical discussions as reductionism and emergence. And of course, it's a natural assumption to many of us that it will indeed point the way you indicated, but I want to be able to prove it formally before I can claim it.

I'm also curious if you know how these "levels" are quantified. Not as a challenge, but I am trying to find the analogy/terminology in dynamical systems language.

 

[apeiron]

I'm also curious if you know how these "levels" are quantified. Not as a challenge, but I am trying to find the analogy/terminology in dynamical systems language.

Level 1 would be simple action - apparently without restraint. The naked expression of a degree of freedom without any "feedback" or other global level interaction. So this would be the realm of linear outcomes (Newtonian mechanics) or exponential outcomes (as in unconstrained growth). That is a linear/log relationship.

Level 2 would be characterised most usually by powerlaw behaviour. A system involves two kinds of free action in interaction - ie: bottom=up construction and top=down constraint. In a dynamical system, both construction and constraint will be exponential or log, And thus the equilibrium outcome of what emerges is log/log or powerlaw. This is why SO is associated with powerlaws or self-similarity - scale indifference.

Now is level 3 also associated with a characteristic quantitative scale? Taking the DNA and enzyme example, level 3 is about controlling the rate of SO processes, so the process would have an equilibrium point and the enzyme would shift it. So it would seem that level 3 controls the slope of the powerlaw, the lyapunov exponent.

But level 3 also seems characterised by gaussian outcomes. Genes responsible for a trait like height or intelligence for instance. Strong constraint creates a single scale of variation (whereas powerlaws are about variation across every scale).

So level 1 = naked atomistic construction and thus unconstrained forms of action.

Level 2 = construction interacting with the constraints that the system is generating, a feedback situation and so the statistics become powerlaw.

Level 3 = SO process with either a rate or variety that is controlled by external information. The action thus again becomes reduced to a single scale - a form of linearity. But now a single scale that can be finely controlled. So action becomes directed (towards a systems purposes).

 

[Pythagorean]

Level 1 would be simple action - apparently without restraint. The naked expression of a degree of freedom without any "feedback" or other global level interaction. So this would be the realm of linear outcomes (Newtonian mechanics) or exponential outcomes (as in unconstrained growth). That is a linear/log relationship.

Level 2 would be characterised most usually by powerlaw behaviour. A system involves two kinds of free action in interaction - ie: bottom=up construction and top=down constraint. In a dynamical system, both construction and constraint will be exponential or log, And thus the equilibrium outcome of what emerges is log/log or powerlaw. This is why SO is associated with powerlaws or self-similarity - scale indifference.

Now is level 3 also associated with a characteristic quantitative scale? Taking the DNA and enzyme example, level 3 is about controlling the rate of SO processes, so the process would have an equilibrium point and the enzyme would shift it. So it would seem that level 3 controls the slope of the powerlaw, the lyapunov exponent.

But level 3 also seems characterised by gaussian outcomes. Genes responsible for a trait like height or intelligence for instance. Strong constraint creates a single scale of variation (whereas powerlaws are about variation across every scale).

So level 1 = naked atomistic construction and thus unconstrained forms of action.

Level 2 = construction interacting with the constraints that the system is generating, a feedback situation and so the statistics become powerlaw.

Level 3 = SO process with either a rate or variety that is controlled by external information. The action thus again becomes reduced to a single scale - a form of linearity. But now a single scale that can be finely controlled. So action becomes directed (towards a systems purposes).

Ok, I think I understand somewhat. Level 3 is most tangible to me, the "motion" of the lyapunov "constant" (an interesting terminology for something that isn't so constant).

level 2 seems to imply a constant (positive?) lyapunov exponent? Solutions may grow away from each other, but the lyapunov is constant with respect to time?

level 1 seems to be 0 lyapunov exponent, or possibly negative? as solutions all tend to go toward some constant equilibrium (negative) or all tend to stay parallel (zero)?

To nitpick, none of the levels seem outside of Newtonian mechanics to me. The simple pendulum is already a nonlinear problem (unless you approximate it for small angles). Fluid dynamics and turbulence are a high dimensional nonlinear system.

 

[pftest]

The new property is that YOU have your own human body of zero or very close to zero entropy in a vast universe of constantly increasing entropy. If you cannot(YOU CAN'T!) explain this little fact with your deterministic reductinist logic, then your logic is as good as dead.

I suspect even entropy is a matter of degrees, so there will be a spectrum that ranges from little to much entropy. I would compare this with a car going slowly, then going faster and faster, etc. If so, it is about quantitative differences, and not about the emergence of qualitatively new phenomena.

However, I am no expert on this so correct me if I am wrong. In particular, i would like to know what entropy actually physically consists of, and how it entails new (emergent) physical properties.

The issue remains that it is proposed that consciousness (whatever it is) is completely absent at some moment in time, so there is not even the slightest degree of it anywhere, and then consciousness comes into existence. So we need to find a physical phenomenon that does not come in degrees of complexity and has no spectrum ranging from [little] to [much]. To me, it seems like any example of mass in motion (including life)is not acceptable since that has, in some degree, been around since the big bang.

Let's get back to self-organization(you insisted to discuss this) and why life forms are local domains of such miniscule entropy. Where in the Standard Model or in chemistry does it say that WE, systems of extremely low entropy, have to be or can be here?

I don't think it is known exactly how or why life arose, but is there anything pointing towards the idea that it isn't a (unexpected) consequence of the different chemical forces at work, and consists of something more than those forces?

 

[apeiron]

To nitpick, none of the levels seem outside of Newtonian mechanics to me. The simple pendulum is already a nonlinear problem (unless you approximate it for small angles). Fluid dynamics and turbulence are a high dimensional nonlinear system.

All the levels would have to include Newtonian mechanics as their most reduced view. But clearly, the whole point about nonlinearity is that it is the emergent higher dimensionality that the Newtonian view "cannot see". So mechanics can handle a simple pendulum, but as soon as there is a three body problem, it is lost as now there is a need to quantify the richer interactions.

 

[Maui]

I suspect even entropy is a matter of degrees, so there will be a spectrum that ranges from little to much entropy. I would compare this with a car going slowly, then going faster and faster, etc. If so, it is about quantitative differences, and not about the emergence of qualitatively new phenomena.

This would have been true if a human body wasn't comprised of approximately 100 trillion cells. That's way out of the ordinary for such a small region of space to contain such low level of entropy in a universe of ever-increasing entropy.

However, I am no expert on this so correct me if I am wrong. In particular, i would like to know what entropy actually physically consists of, and how it entails new (emergent) physical properties.

The broken egg example is a good one and illustrates the direction of entropy. On this background, the processes of life are more evidently emergent(non-linear).

I don't think it is known exactly how or why life arose, but is there anything pointing towards the idea that it isn't a (unexpected) consequence of the different chemical forces at work, and consists of something more than those forces?

Only if superdeterminism is true. But superdeterminism raises more questions than it answers, right?

 

[Maui]

All the levels would have to include Newtonian mechanics as their most reduced view. But clearly, the whole point about nonlinearity is that it is the emergent higher dimensionality that the Newtonian view "cannot see". So mechanics can handle a simple pendulum, but as soon as there is a three body problem, it is lost as now there is a need to quantify the richer interactions.

What's the universe made of in this approach?

 

[Pythagorean]

All the levels would have to include Newtonian mechanics as their most reduced view. But clearly, the whole point about nonlinearity is that it is the emergent higher dimensionality that the Newtonian view "cannot see". So mechanics can handle a simple pendulum, but as soon as there is a three body problem, it is lost as now there is a need to quantify the richer interactions.

What I mean is that the three body problem completely follows Newton's mechanics, it's just not analytically solvable using only the techniques from the time. But the fundamental principles still hold! There is nothing in Newtonian laws that requires philosophical reductionism.

 

[apeiron]

What's the universe made of in this approach?

Substance and form.

 

[apeiron]

There is nothing in Newtonian laws that requires philosophical reductionism.

What do you mean by that exactly? Newtonian mechanics was based on a reduction to local or efficient causes and so the exclusion of global constraints (global constraints were taken as read, static and immutable, so therefore something that just dropped out of a very reduced description of reality).

 

[Pythagorean]

Newtonian mechanics was based on a reduction to local or efficient causes and so the exclusion of global constraints (global constraints were taken as read, static and immutable, so therefore something that just dropped out of a very reduced description of reality).

I don't see how that kind of thinking is forced by Newtonian mechanics. I really can't even see how philosophical reductionism is defensible as an absolute, honestly. Maybe in Newton's time it was, but it was a result of interpretations and philosophy, not the formalism of netwonian mechanics.

The superposition principle is known to be incorrect when you are considering nonlinear systems. Because of the difficulty in solving nonlinear problems, and the fact that the low-hanging fruit still hadn't been picked at the time, I can see how philosophical reductionism might have been common.

That's how things are taught in first/second year physics using all the parts that are reduced, but by third/fourth year it becomes more integrated: Lagrangian mechanics, for instance, are a reformulation of Newtonian mechanics, they don't change anything fundamental about it. What's changing is the way we apply it. And that we can actually manage nonlinear problems now that we have computers, but this is through many high-order approximations to classical systems that cannot be analytically solved.

 

[apeiron]

I don't see how that kind of thinking is forced by Newtonian mechanics. I really can't even see how philosophical reductionism is defensible as an absolute, honestly. Maybe in Newton's time it was, but it was a result of interpretations and philosophy, not the formalism of netwonian mechanics.

Why do you keep going on about philosophical reductionism? In what way is it my position here?

 

[Pythagorean]

Why do you keep going on about philosophical reductionism? In what way is it my position here?

I thought you meant philosophical reductionism because you often speak of the "reduction to the sum of its parts" which is philosophical reductionism.

But also, because scientific reductionism is a tool, not a philosophy. I didn't think there was any reason to argue philosophically against something that's not a belief, unless it's perverted into something like "greedy reductionism".

Scientists, by virtue of being human, are already comprehensive/holistic thinkers. Reductionism in science is meant to complement, not replace, the comprehensive/holistic views of individual scientists (or cliques of scientists, as it may be). Reductionism, for instance, can be used to ask about the mechanisms contributing to emergence.

 

[apeiron]

I thought you meant philosophical reductionism because you often speak of the "reduction to the sum of its parts" which is philosophical reductionism.

But also, because scientific reductionism is a tool, not a philosophy. I didn't think there was any reason to argue philosophically against something that's not a belief, unless it's perverted into something like "greedy reductionism".

Scientists, by virtue of being human, are already comprehensive/holistic thinkers. Reductionism in science is meant to complement, not replace, the comprehensive/holistic views of individual scientists (or cliques of scientists, as it may be). Reductionism, for instance, can be used to ask about the mechanisms contributing to emergence.

This is just a rant about a lot of things I never said, positions I never held. Weird.

 

[Pythagorean]

This is just a rant about a lot of things I never said, positions I never held. Weird.

Ok, so then you agree that reducitonism is not inherent to Newtonian mechanics? Neither is linear phenomena? And that Newtonian mechanics can be used to completely describe nonlinear and emergent systems?

 

[apeiron]

Ok, so then you agree that reducitonism is not inherent to Newtonian mechanics? Neither is linear phenomena? And that Newtonian mechanics can be used to completely describe nonlinear and emergent systems?

What do you actually understand by reductionism?

There are two kinds of meaning at least.

1) That all causality can be reduced to efficient causes - localised or atomistic pushes and pulls. This is what holism challenges by pointing out that systems also involves top-down causality. Or indeed, Aristotle's full set of four causes.

2) Reductionism also can mean just generalisation that leads to model building (a reduction in the information needed to model the world). In this epistemological sense, both atomistic reductionism, and holism, would be reductionist.

Newtonian mechanics is of course reductionist in both these senses. So reductionism is "inherent" in mechanics. His laws really do treat the world as if it is reducible to efficient cause.

Now does this mean that the same laws cannot be used to generate - from the bottom-up, in constructive fashion - non-linear results? Of course not. Does it mean that the resulting models lack the holistic features I am talking about? Yes, it does. Although boundary conditions and other necessary contraints are of course plugged in by hand normally. They are implied rather than present in the model.

The third law - action and reaction - are a perfect example of this. A global context that is necessary to resist the local action is reduced to the cartoon notion of a "reaction" - an exactly counterbalancing force vector.

Self-organisation takes place when the conditions are right. But SO models don't model that extra bit of "how the conditions become right". The global context is left informally specified. It is not part of the model.

The meta-physics of non-linear systems, or chaos and dynamism, is very poorly understood by most people. But then it is still a relatively new area of modelling.

 

[Pythagorean]

What do you actually understand by reductionism?

There are two kinds of meaning at least.

1) That all causality can be reduced to efficient causes - localised or atomistic pushes and pulls. This is what holism challenges by pointing out that systems also involves top-down causality. Or indeed, Aristotle's full set of four causes.

2) Reductionism also can mean just generalisation that leads to model building (a reduction in the information needed to model the world). In this epistemological sense, both atomistic reductionism, and holism, would be reductionist.

Newtonian mechanics is of course reductionist in both these senses. So reductionism is "inherent" in mechanics. His laws really do treat the world as if it is reducible to efficient cause.

Now does this mean that the same laws cannot be used to generate - from the bottom-up, in constructive fashion - non-linear results? Of course not. Does it mean that the resulting models lack the holistic features I am talking about? Yes, it does. Although boundary conditions and other necessary contraints are of course plugged in by hand normally. They are implied rather than present in the model.

The third law - action and reaction - are a perfect example of this. A global context that is necessary to resist the local action is reduced to the cartoon notion of a "reaction" - an exactly counterbalancing force vector.

Self-organisation takes place when the conditions are right. But SO models don't model that extra bit of "how the conditions become right". The global context is left informally specified. It is not part of the model.

The meta-physics of non-linear systems, or chaos and dynamism, is very poorly understood by most people. But then it is still a relatively new area of modelling.

Thank you, that clears some things up. This is what I was going to point out: boundary conditions and the third law.

In my view, complex systems are one class of systems and nothing fundamental has changed, really (no additional fundamental laws are required, it's just a matter of a different case within the framework of the same fundamental laws. As you say, different metaphysics.).

It seems to me that Newton felt that way, from his preface in Principia, and the Copernican Scholium he added later to Principia (but only got added 200 years later in the actual print).

 

[apeiron]

In my view, complex systems are one class of systems and nothing fundamental has changed, really (no additional fundamental laws are required, it's just a matter of a different case within the framework of the same fundamental laws. As you say, different metaphysics.).

Once again, this does not reflect my position. I side with those who believe more is different.

For instance, Newtonian mechanics is symmetric in respect of time. Events can run in either direction as a fundamental aspect of the description. This same time symmetry then propagates all the way through even complex descriptions of nature, such as Boltzmann's statistical mechanics. And so the arrow of time remains a fundamental mystery. There is no point along the elaboration of a time symmetric model that suddenly produces the "emergent property" of uni-directional time.

It would thus be a very different approach to model time as a top-down global constraint on local events. A completely different way of thinking about "mechanics".

To connect back to the OP, the problem with consciousness theorising is that everyone is stuck at level 1 modelling - seeking bottom-up emergent stories on how matter can produce mind.

The way out of this overly reductionist mindset involves a double shift in perspective. (Yes, it is a big paradigm shift).

You have to see that even self-organising matter involves a systems logic if we were to describe reality fully. So level 1/2 thinking.

And then there is yet a further trick going on which I called level 3. The harnessing of SO processes by semiotic or symbolic mechanism.

Level 1 thinking is exemplified by Newtonian mechanics (and even statistical mechanics and deterministic chaos).

Level 1/2 would be hierarchy theory and systems thinking.

Level 1/2 + 3 is the complete package that gets you to models of real complexity - complex adaptive systems, or life and mind.

 

[Pythagorean]

To connect back to the OP, the problem with consciousness theorising is that everyone is stuck at level 1 modelling - seeking bottom-up emergent stories on how matter can produce mind.

The way out of this overly reductionist mindset involves a double shift in perspective. (Yes, it is a big paradigm shift).

You have to see that even self-organising matter involves a systems logic if we were to describe reality fully. So level 1/2 thinking.

And then there is yet a further trick going on which I called level 3. The harnessing of SO processes by semiotic or symbolic mechanism.

Level 1 thinking is exemplified by Newtonian mechanics (and even statistical mechanics and deterministic chaos).

Level 1/2 would be hierarchy theory and systems thinking.

Level 1/2 + 3 is the complete package that gets you to models of real complexity - complex adaptive systems, or life and mind.

Ok, I agree that understanding consciousness will require a paradigm shift.

But don't you think we've already made the the first paradigm shift from level 1 to 2? And to me, it seems to have fallen directly from Newtonian mechanics, from which statistical mechanics is derived and where entropy came from. The arrow of time is not an insignificant topic of cosmology nowadays.

Level 3 of course, is a framework now and still needs to be formalized and well, reduced, but I think it's the direction we're already headed. For instance, there's a conference coming up in May that touches on holistic aspects, and of course, quantum chaos is another example where mechanics might be a function of the system dynamics.

(May '11 consciousness conference in Stockholm)
http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/

Some of the topics there, particularly the notion that consciousness is an aspect of the universe (not just humans) are particularly appealing.

I've just been reading Turing's paper on morphogenesis which seems relevant to mention here too, as his perspective seems to contribute to Level 3 thinking.

 

[apeiron]

(May '11 consciousness conference in Stockholm)
http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/

Some of the topics there, particularly the notion that consciousness is an aspect of the universe (not just humans) are particularly appealing.

Are you serious? I can't see a single proper neuroscientist among the speakers. Just the crank fringe - quantum mystics, psi researchers. Oh, there's one session on neuronal coherence hidden in there. But really...

 

[Pythagorean]

Not only will ad hominem be insufficient to make a point, but it's application is not even relevant.

The point is not whether they're correct or not. The point is that people are moving in the direction of holism as an approach. But of course, your response demonstrates the reputation of holistic approaches . You must recognize SOC and chaos have both had similar reputations depending on who the author is and what exactly their claim is.

Holism-type theories are difficult to verify and (because of our small brains) really must be reduced to be verified (empirical observation). This has a tendency to destroy emergent properties. To preserve them (in the dynamical sciences) we have to look at the projections of state trajectories so that we can get an idea of how one member behaves in the group but we know the behavior can't be reduced to one member of the group, as the behavior is complex and irregular when it's coupled to the group dynamics (as Newton ultimately confessed about the n-body problem).

But once we start looking at projections of a state trajectory, we've lost information about the dimension over which was projected (like the shadow of a cardboard cut-out can be made to look exactly like the shadow of a human is a simple 3D->2D example). This leads to a lot of claims becoming unfalsifiable, since complex systems are more like 600D-->4D. And of course, because the verification is often performed computationally for such complex systems, lots of computation artifacts have been published.

So hopefully this demonstrates why there's a heavy burden of proof on SOC. I hope you can appreciate why I'm playing Devil's advocate here. I obviously don't think quantum mysticism is worth discussion.

You have made comments along the lines of life being a necessary event in the universe following the laws of entropy; one of the talks for the conference seemed to mirror that sentiment for consciousness in more general terms and of course this is why I mentioned the Turing instability: the universe tends towards many scales of local pattern generation which globally, is entropy generation.

You needn't focus on Penrose or any particular member of the conference, just the general trend of holism in the sciences.

 

[apeiron]

Not only will ad hominem be insufficient to make a point, but it's application is not even relevant.

Pfft. It is their theories I criticise, so how is that ad hominem?

The point is not whether they're correct or not. The point is that people are moving in the direction of holism as an approach.
.

Why is their lack of correctness not a problem? And which one among this bunch are holists in your opinion? Alwyn Scott was genuinely, but he is now only present in spirit .

But of course, your response demonstrates the reputation of holistic approaches . You must recognize SOC and chaos have both had similar reputations depending on who the author is and what exactly their claim is.
.

Do you ever read anything closely? You're telling me about how to be a holist now? Why do you keep inventing positions I could not possibly hold?

You needn't focus on Penrose or any particular member of the conference, just the general trend of holism in the sciences.

Where is the genuine holism in these speakers? Again you appear to be talking through your hat. Just name the actual speakers you claim to be "holists".

 

[Pythagorean]

It's ad hominem because you just called it by a derogatory term (that you know has a certain connotation attached to it). You didn't confront any of their arguments at all. You might as well have not said it.

you did, however, say:

"The way out of this overly reductionist mindset involves a double shift in perspective. (Yes, it is a big paradigm shift)."

But here we have three holistic approaches being presented at a single conference:

1.

Is consciousness an epiphenomenal happenstance of this one particular universe among multitudes, as proposed in M-theory by Hawking and Mlodinow? Or are consciousness and intelligence intrinsic to the fabric of reality?

2.

Does the conscious observer collapse the wave function? Is consciousness an emergent property of complex computation, or irreducible and intrinsically related to spacetime geometry? How did the universe arise from nothingness? What is entanglement?

3.

Evidence suggests brain-generated electromagnetic fields provide feedback on brain neuronal activities, bolstering long-standing electromagnetic field theories of consciousness.

and yes, JohnJoe McFadden (3) is a holist:

http://www.truth-out.org/article/johnjoe-mcfadden-the-unselfish-gene

My point is that the problem isn't about reductionism vs. holism.

 

[apeiron]

My point is that the problem isn't about reductionism vs. holism.

So what is the problem then? Can you actually spell it out?

As to your cited examples of holism, really they aren't in any serious evidence-based sense.

You can safely say (in my long experience) that anyone who mentions quantum and consciousness in the same sentence is going to be a crank. No matter that there is an academic industry in this nonsense.

Holism stresses top-down causality and nested hierarchical design. And we can tell how far down that causality reaches experimentally.

Neuroscience finds that global mental state correlates right down as far as individual neural responses. And even down to synaptic level - but starting to become fuzzy.

There is no good reason to suppose it reaches down below that to individual microtubules or other sub-cellular structure that might get you in reach of localised quantum coherence.

To take the alternative approach - arguing for coherence as a global state - is crank too because there is no evidence for global mind fields, nor any credible mechanism for how they would act downwards to constrain local neural activity. (And why would it even need to when there is abundant neuroscientific evidence for biological machinery doing that job already).

I don't see that you understand the issues you wish to defend here.

 

[Pythagorean]

So what is the problem then? Can you actually spell it out

Of course not, but my point is that holism is abundant already. Holism, in general, isn't the answer, and we're not stuck in reductionism. And the merger of holism with reductionism is no new story. It's always been a matter of verifying holistic claims with reductionism because we think holistically already.

Being able to verify the generalizations of holistic claims with reductionism is exactly what has worked for a long time. i.e Alchemy got reduced by physics and became chemistry.

And of course, as I mentioned earlier, quantum chaos is an example of this that has potential to give us insights into principles of emergence:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6848/full/412712a0.html

This is the general trend of paradigm shifts. The choke point has generally been finding specific techniques to verify the holistic claims.

Similarly, consciousness will be a merger of valid holistic theories from (for instance) psychology and reduced models of brain components (neural networks). And of course, the neural networks can be reduced to smaller components in the brains (neurons, glia, processes like volume transmission and field effects).

You can safely say (in my long experience) that anyone who mentions quantum and consciousness in the same sentence is going to be a crank. No matter that there is an academic industry in this nonsense.

Well, that's nice, but there's actually good formal arguments to use in place of your experience, and you finally did even after I told you it was irrelevant, since I'm not defending these theories. Here's a journal you can post for efficiency next time: ;)

Phys Rev E Stat Phys Plasmas Fluids Relat Interdiscip Topics. 2000 Apr;61 4 Pt B 4194-206.

But I think you missed my point and mis-characterized my stance. I'm not defending any theories. I'm demonstrating that (as I've said) there's no lack of holistic theories in science.

Holism is elusive. It's difficult to verify holistic claims. A lot of work in theoretical science comes from finding ways to reduce holistic claims to empirically verifiable statements.

The more productive direction I was hoping we'd go is to actually approach these, since the case doesn't need to be made for holism. It is already accepted, and was already implicitly expressed.

 

[apeiron]

The more productive direction I was hoping we'd go is to actually approach these, since the case doesn't need to be made for holism. It is already accepted, and was already implicitly expressed.

Again you seem to want to have a dispute without actually having a position to argue.

If you remember, you chipped in after I describe a quite specific view of what "holism" is about when it comes to modelling complex systems such as conscious brains.

If you didn't actually want to discuss that - having ignored my careful replies to your original questions - then I have no clue as to what you want to say here. I can follow no thread in all your replies above. And you keep ascribing to me things I never said.

 

[Pythagorean]

Again you seem to want to have a dispute without actually having a position to argue.

If you remember, you chipped in after I describe a quite specific view of what "holism" is about when it comes to modelling complex systems such as conscious brains.

If you didn't actually want to discuss that - having ignored my careful replies to your original questions - then I have no clue as to what you want to say here. I can follow no thread in all your replies above. And you keep ascribing to me things I never said.

I have no dispute at all with the idea of complex systems and SOC in consciousness (I mean, I do research in complex neural systems, working with people who do research in SOC systems). In fact, we even began to have a productive discussion about it at one point.

My only dispute was with this:

To connect back to the OP, the problem with consciousness theorising is that everyone is stuck at level 1 modelling - seeking bottom-up emergent stories on how matter can produce mind.

And hopefully I've demonstrated it's not really the case. We're not "stuck" at level 1 modeling any more than we are overloaded with ambiguous holistic theories. That was my only position to argue.

And this:

So this would be the realm of linear outcomes (Newtonian mechanics)

Which, if you know the mathematics, is obviously not true.

And our argument grew from there. The reason you can't find any dispute with your general position is because it's not there. I share your general conclusion, I just don't agree with some of your "means" to the end, or in some cases I just don't understand them and instead of explain them you get offensive. I thought we'd gone through this before.

I still want to keep the discussion on complex systems and SOC productive, but I can't help but nitpick at incorrect details, so if you'll try not to take them as an offense on your whole perspective, I feel like we could make some ground.

Let's changes the subject then, let's help the OP more directly:

what kind of classifications would designate SOC systems that think and have consciousness from "inanimate" SOC systems like a sand pile?

 

[apeiron]

And hopefully I've demonstrated it's not really the case. We're not "stuck" at level 1 modeling any more than we are overloaded with ambiguous holistic theories. That was my only position to argue.

Except you chose to illustrate your idea of holism with reference to a conference of mainly crank quantum consciousness theorists, who are not actually systems thinkers but property emergentists.

When you could have referenced real neuroscientists like - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_brain

Let's changes the subject then, let's help the OP more directly:

what kind of classifications would designate SOC systems that think and have consciousness from "inanimate" SOC systems like a sand pile?

I already referenced this at the start. For instance - http://binghamton.academia.edu/Howa...physics_of_symbols_bridging_the_epistemic_cut

 

[Pythagorean]

Except you chose to illustrate your idea of holism with reference to a conference of mainly crank quantum consciousness theorists, who are not actually systems thinkers but property emergentists.

When you could have referenced real neuroscientists like - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_brain

I don't find Holism particularly explicit in the Bayesian Brain (not that it's not there mind you), but the thing about conferences is they present a variety of topics from a variety of approaches. You chose to see red; the one color on the quilt I wasn't referring to. Three of the titles presented explicit holistic ideals (one of which mirrors your top-down sentiments about life form entropy) and the one you mentioned, about coherence is represented by

http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v2/n4/abs/nrn0401_229a.html

So please don't make this about QC.

I already referenced this at the start. For instance - http://binghamton.academia.edu/Howar..._epistemic_cut[/URL][/QUOTE]

What post did you reference it for context? I will try to refrain from further discussion before reading through your reference.

 

[apeiron]

I don't find Holism particularly explicit in the Bayesian Brain (not that it's not there mind you), but the thing about conferences is they present a variety of topics from a variety of approaches.

Except the conference you cited is largely the usual quantum consciousness crew. Believe me, I know. I've been to their conferences before.

Can you define what you actually understand by holism? I don't recognise it from your usage so far.

the one you mentioned, about coherence is represented by

http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v2/n4/abs/nrn0401_229a.html

Varela (a sad loss) is definitely the kind of approach that I am talking about.

What post did you reference it for context? I will try to refrain from further discussion before reading through your reference.

I mentioned Pattee's key distinction between rate dependent and rate independent information in describing the "level 3 transition" from simple SO to SO under biotic control.

Pattee (a student of von Neumann) is generally the sharpest thinker on these issues in my experience.