Pan proto experientialism and the quantum exchange interaction

[Iforgot]

pan proto experientialism and the quantum exchange interaction.

Would the quantum exchange interaction explain how (proto)experiences among particles are intimately shared to form what we perceive as an experience?

 

[Iforgot]

I know I'm getting carried away here... I remember reading about Einstein asking himself what would happen if he was traveling on a beam of light. Using a similar line of thought:

If we were a single isolated particle, how would our experience be different if we were entangled with another identical particle? Would both particles share them same protoexperiences'?

The only protoexperience available would the fundamental QED interactions... What would it be like to protoexperience some QED interaction?

 

[Math Is Hard]

Could you provide a little background reference on this for the unenlightened? (maybe some authors and links.) And could you define what a protoexperience is? Thanks.

 

[Iforgot]

here some links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=65012

they have some more rigorous citations

 

[ZapperZ]

... and could you define what "quantum exchange interaction" is?

Zz.

 

[Iforgot]

The exchange interaction arises from the invariability of a set of identical particles probability distribution |psi|^2 when two identical particles' coordinates are exchanged. i.e. |psi(x1,x2)|^2 = |psi(x2,x1)|^2.

This constrains the total wavefunction to take certain forms dubbed symmetric(psi_+) and antisymmetric(psi_-) states.

Classically, given some initial state, there is a probability a latter time that the positions (or more generally, quantum numbers) of the identical particles are swapped. Quantum mechanically: at any given instant, two identical particles are in a superposition of swapped and un-swapped states.

Book keeping of this effect gives rise to energies that are not purely coulomb. (I.e. the cross terms of energy expectation values are non zero). This lowers the energy of certain states allowing phenomena like ferromagnetism to arise.

With regards to philosophy: In such a state(superposition), is it possible to identify which particle has had a protoexperience?

 

[ZapperZ]

OK, now that we have defined "proto experience" and "exchange interaction", can you cite rigorous references that make the connection between the two?

Zz.

 

[Iforgot]

I've searched for others that have thought about this before, but all I've been able to find are a couple articles and their citations

http://www.kjf.ca/104-TAVIM.pdf
http://www.emergentmind.org/kaivarainen_I.htm

I'm an experimentalist, and these guys are using some pretty heavy theory.

Before I break my head trying to understand their work, you wouldn't by any chance know if they're the real deal, or just a bunch of crackpots?

 

[ZapperZ]

I've searched for others that have thought about this before, but all I've been able to find are a couple articles and their citations

http://www.kjf.ca/104-TAVIM.pdf
http://www.emergentmind.org/kaivarainen_I.htm

I'm an experimentalist, and these guys are using some pretty heavy theory.

Before I break my head trying to understand their work, you wouldn't by any chance know if they're the real deal, or just a bunch of crackpots?

None of the sources you cited here appear to have been published. They either cite ArXiv preprints, or worse still, cite dubious sources (Puthoff). Even within the Philosophy forum, one expects reputable, valid sources, not something like this.

Are you sure you want to spend time and effort on this? I don't. And I think I've put in more than I want to already.

Zz.

 

[Iforgot]

Zapper Z,

I just skimmed the articles I cited. Yep, they're crack pots. I'd feel sorry for making you read them but I'm considering it as revenge for you asking me to explain the exchange interaction. Before you escalate this encounter, be warned: I've found a link to a page with a thousand pop ups of Deepak Chopra saying the word "Wave Function", and I'm not afraid to use it.

I was hoping that starting this thread would

1) lead me to some reputable, non philosophical, sources where this idea has been discussed before.

2) lead to a brain storming session for designing an experiment to test for shared protoexperiences.

3) devolve into rant wishing harm on people who use quantum mechanics to sell snake oil.

So. Anyone have any ideas on how to test for shared protoexperiences?

 

[Q_Goest]

Zz - thanks for helping to clarify the OP! nice work.

Hi Iforgot - <ok, I had to laugh at that last comment! Nice.>
The issue of whether or not quantum mechanics, and not just classical mechanics, is needed to account for phenomenal experience is a much debated issue. The argument always boils down to one logical issue; there has to be a reason why quantum mechanics is necessary to a theory of consciousness. Henry Stapp wrote a paper, "'Why Classical Mechanics Cannot Naturally Accommodate Consciousness but Quantum Mechanics Can" which garnered a responce from Kirk Ludwig, "Why the Difference Between Quantum and Classical Mechanics is Irrelevant to the Mind-Body Problem" in which he wrote:

The only hope, then, of finding a position that quantum mechanics favors over classical mechanics lies in emergentism. I assume that emergentism is in fact the position which Stapp adopts. But emergentism is as much an option for the classical view as it is for the quantum view.

That really is the crux of the issue. There needs to be a reason why quantum mechanics can accommodate a type of emergence that classical mechanics can't, and that difference has to be shown to be applicable to consciousness. One reason that has been cited regards separability. Classical mechanics is generally considered to be separable while QM is not. But even that issue is debated for example, by Alwyn Scott who claims that nonlinear phenomena are nonseparable regardless of their being classical or not. There is also the issue of 'levels' of nature that many people find explanatorily useful.

Bottom line, conciousness is an emergent phenomena. If it is a phenomena that requires a QM explanation, then one needs to show the difference between emergence at the classical level and emergence at the quantum level, and why that difference matters. I don't see anywhere in the papers cited where that issue has been addressed, so if you don't see that, it probably isn't worth your time.

 

[Boy@n]

Would the quantum exchange interaction explain how (proto)experiences among particles are intimately shared to form what we perceive as an experience?

Interesting question.

If it were so, would it mean that a man who loses part of own body (say a leg) would experience world differently?

I'd say no - I don't think particles which might have proto-experiences build up to give rise to human kind of experience (and awareness).

Though, I do think that human consciousness cannot emerge on its own, but in 'co-operation' with material particles.

 

[Maui]

I know I'm getting carried away here... I remember reading about Einstein asking himself what would happen if he was traveling on a beam of light. Using a similar line of thought:

If we were a single isolated particle, how would our experience be different if we were entangled with another identical particle? Would both particles share them same protoexperiences'?

The only protoexperience available would the fundamental QED interactions... What would it be like to protoexperience some QED interaction?

'Particles'(single or small number) do not appear to be a determining factor for conscious experience. In fact, i doubt you have a single atom left from your birth, since most atoms in the body are replaced every 3 to 4 years(just don't ask me to rigorously define what an atom or a particle is).

 

[Iforgot]

I just lost my whole response, to a timed out session and I'm too lazy to write it again.

Emergent phenomena = "I don't know. Stop asking me annoying questions."

Until science gives a good crack at it, I'm not buying it.

Furthermore, I think I could argue that all "emergent phenomena" are just taking semantics to the extreme. Just because you call a collection of wood a chair, doesn't make "chair" an emergent phenomena.

As for the lost leg. I see your point. However, last time I checked, consciousness was not seated in the femur. Would you make the same argument about removing a pea sized section of the brain?

As for our atoms and who we are. I have no idea what your point is, but I agree. I think DRAM is a perfect example of what you are saying. (the same electrons aren't responsible for the same memory.)

Finally, if I could produce a massively shared protoexperiencing entity (with out a member of the opposite sex), how would I go about testing for said shared protoexperiences. I was thinking something along the Turing lines...

 

[Math Is Hard]

I just lost my whole response, to a timed out session and I'm too lazy to write it again.

Emergent phenomena = "I don't know. Stop asking me annoying questions."

Until science gives a good crack at it, I'm not buying it.

Furthermore, I think I could argue that all "emergent phenomena" are just taking semantics to the extreme. Just because you call a collection of wood a chair, doesn't make "chair" an emergent phenomena.

As for the lost leg. I see your point. However, last time I checked, consciousness was not seated in the femur. Would you make the same argument about removing a pea sized section of the brain?

As for our atoms and who we are. I have no idea what your point is, but I agree. I think DRAM is a perfect example of what you are saying. (the same electrons aren't responsible for the same memory.)

Finally, if I could produce a massively shared protoexperiencing entity (with out a member of the opposite sex), how would I go about testing for said shared protoexperiences. I was thinking something along the Turing lines...

You haven't yet given a satisfactory working definition of a "protoexperience". I don't think you even know what you are looking for.