So, here's a thought that completely stopped my brain from processing for a couple of moments after having read and pondered it.
It goes a little something like this.
In economic theory, we profess with probabilities how huge groups of people are likely to behave. Our science is not perfect, but it is growing and we are learning that with high probability we are able to predict how humans behave in groups.
The same can be said for quantum particles (as above, so below). We use probabilities to tell how they might behave. But:
I would relate this to it is impossible to know the actions and intentions of any one person, nor tell the future trajectory of that person. Even if you can read minds, or communicate with them; often times we ourselves are poor predictors of our own future behaviors.
So. Why is it that we call particles random but purport to humans being the sole owners of consciousness and free will?
It would be just as easy for an alien to observe our planet with some massive telescope, and observe all our random (yet probabilistically predictable) human behaviors!
I propose the whole universe. Down to the singular particle (and the strings that comprise them, and whatever frequency makes up strings...) is inherently conscious. (I'm not even sure I know to put in words what consciousness means)
So, do you think particles are conscious, or that they are self-directed?
Do particles have free will?
Well, maybe they don't; but maybe our free will is an illusion as well!?
Is it our dominant societies hubris that wants to attribute consciousness solely to humans? If particles have it, doesn't that mean all matter is conscious (not just 'living' species but 'dead' things as well, rocks, water, mountains, magma, etc)?
What do you think?
A section from a much longer thought exercise.
Rieki
Dedicated to Word-Smithing High-Quality, Detailed, Original Content
i think we are created much alike digital, binary computer processors. We have 1 and 0s meanig neurons can be in charged or discharged mode. So the special regions in the brain detect signal frequency when neuron discharges or not (1 and 0). So you might ask than if we are much alike why do humans have free will of choice? How do we have “real” inteligence and artificial inteligence still suffers a lot. Well… Problem is in the software. Maybe you’ve never thought of our software, how we think, how we use our “hardware”?
So how my brain knows when I touch my finger on really hot object, during that moment when receptors firing stimuli like crazy through neurons to brain, that this means I have to immediately take it off? Well u will say that’s instinct and yes. On the really simple level instinct is the software (and other many things also, your free will as well which can be thought is not actually free will). And our “software” was developing during millions of years so it is like it is now. So would you doubt that if we give that much time to a processor (piece of metal) and let it learn everything. Like we already have python neural networks and machine learning libraries. And a little example about what our free will is. If I create little python code
number = random.randint(1, 10)- meaning generate random number between 1 and 10
if number == 2:
print “hello”
if number == 5:
print “bye”
if number == 6:
print “I love you”
if number == 7:
print “I hate you”
you can call this randomization “mood” :D if you want. So what is difference? Well millions of years have created conditions like that you can’t even count. That makes our free will. That is our software, that what we call intelligence. But is it?
thanks for listening my opinion. up vote and follow will be much appreciated.
Absolutely, I personally would be more inclined to relate your example to the workings of the brain! There are some schools of thought that suggest we are all brain. I'm attempting to create the idea that our whole being is inherently conscious, inherently aware and that this being then interacts with different 'software' and 'programming' such as our gut, our hearts, our brains (all contain 2 way information streams). My suggesting of particles being conscious would say that all of life is conscious, now of course what programming they run on top of this consciousness is what's going to give us the vast diversity of life!
Well, I would say yes with contingencies. It is a default level of intelligence that has been developed and programmed into us for millennia. However, this intelligence can be adapted, removed and replaced. I also believe as I alluded to above to our multiple forms of "intelligence" outside of brain/logic/programming.
But also. If we suggest particles are inherently conscious then if/when we build effective AI it will, in this context, be inherently conscious. It will just have a different operating system in which to experience this world! Some would call this unnatural (On a small level I think I agree). However, we humans are natural, and we created it. I wouldn't call a beehive unnatural so why is a machine?
I approve your idea. Appreciate your reply
Interesting internalization.
Neurons are not binary at all. They operate on action potentials. Analog.
We have free will because the quantum mechanics mentioned in this post ensure that we do. An alien with a telescope can not know everything about our planet and use that to predict the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
i want to tell you, please read action potential how it works. i am almost doctor and with my knowledge i can say that action potential is digital. i want to consider All-or-none law. when potential rises higher than -50mv action potential starts if it didn't go higher than nothing happens. same story All-or-none 1 or 0 . it's digital. and about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. yes we cant say where particle will be but it does not mean that it's really uncertain and they don't have their conscious where to go.
Don't worry! I know my neuroscience!
I definitely don't consider this to be digital - dispite what you correctly mention about the threshold potential.
In fact, I would not consider a neuron to be concretely analogue or digital (those words are used to describe a number of incompatible things). Neurons transmit spikes of activity (all spikes are mostly identical) randomly based on their inputs. So if a particular input state set results in a 30% chance of spiking the neuron will spike 30% of the time. The neuron will readjust with different inputs (usually, there is modulation and bistable neurons).
Basically a neuron uses a binary output state (spike or no spike) to transmit an analogue probability.
Here are some papers that might be interesting:
doi:10.1038/nrn3361
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~fritz/absps/nips00-ab.pdf
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~fritz/absps/sallans04a.pdf
maybe maybe... there is another side as well. frequency of discharge since, every cycle has same value in mv, there needs to be some variation to distinguish signals. yes source of signal can be analog but actual neuron fiber... i see it as digital. for example receptors give off analog signal (depends on how much it will be excited ) but then it is transformed into digital signal by neurons and the stronger receptor is excited longer will neurons transmit signals in a way of discharge.
Well the most accurate description would not be digital or analogue in the same terms as we discuss.
Sure the output of a neuron is a digital signal with two discrete values, on and off. Receptors (with the exception of the eyes and some other things) do not give off analogue signals. They do the same thing as neurons, a probabilistic-discretized output encodes the analogue input.
Again, basically a neuron uses a binary output state (spike or no spike) to transmit an analogue probability encoding the sum of its inputs.
and i agree with this opinion now :)
Interesting thoughts.
Some input from familiar with the quantum science you sorta mention.
Well, not really. There is a fundamental entropic uncertainty when moving between the size scales you mention here. Even if you knew the precise location and momentum of every subatomic particle in the universe, you could not advance that data set forward in time. There is fundamental uncertainty built into the universe.
The more you know about now, the less you can know about the future. The more you know about the future the less you can know about now. This concept runs deep into quantum mechanics and to really appreciate it I wouldrecommendd a degree in physics or nanotechnology.
See Uncertainty Principal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Hi Kyle,
I appreciate the input :)
Absolutely agree! I'm not sure how this counts as a "not really" statement when what you said actually supports my position.
This fundamental uncertainty is what I'm actually referring to when I say 'random'. However, I'm proposing that this uncertainty is founded by conscious particles being self-directed (at least to the degree we find ourselves to be).
I'm not really sure if I understand this statement
"The more you know about the future the less you can know about now. "
If, time is not linear (which I profess), then now/future would be a false dichotomy and I don't think it would be an appropriate example. Or, I may be missing the point...
Did I miss your point?
I think so,
Humans (and animals) are the only things that really do have consciousness and free will.
My point is the quantum nature of uncertainty you mention is a fundamental property of the universe. It is not that particles have consciousness in the way I would define it; particles properties (speed, location, time) have a finite precision of measurement. By measuring one precisely, you remove precision from another. This is called Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
This is a terrible metaphor for what happens with uncertainty over time. If you know velocity precisely you can predict the future very well, except you can't know much about the starting point (the now) - so that prediction for the future will have caveats. If you take great care about the starting point (initial position/properties) you can not know much about the velocity or the future.
This is a hard rule of the universe.
Side thought. You stated "humans (and animals)", are plants or fungi, or microbiology, algae, etc included in your 'beings' imbued with consciousness?
I want to have a meaningful dialog with you. In order to do so I would like to clarify some of your thoughts.
What do you consider 'consciousness'?
What do you consider 'free will'?
I know these are complex ideas, so it may be a difficult request. However, for us to proceed in any meaningful manner I would need to know your basis of understanding for the above claim.
I agree with you :)
Although, (from my understanding) you didn't say much here, only that there are some measurements to take and that these measurements aren't perfect. (similar to my measuring of peoples behavior analogy). I actually believe everything you stated.
We estimate in probabilities, not certainties. Right? The same process of understanding/predicting human behavior, in probabilities, not certainties...
Your argument would only contradict mine if you were stating that we could **in fact, ** know the behavior of particles!
Which brings me full circle. What is the fundamental difference between particles and "humans (and animals)" that causes one to have 'consciousness' and one to not?
I believe so. A challenge here is what do you mean by consciousness and how would this relate to a spectrum of consciousness in order to be inclusive to all particles and organisations of matter/energy.
Another aspect here is that all particles are also energy, vibrating at different frequencies so that may be helpful in describing consciousness and freewill. As human beings I think we can all agree that there are times when we are more conscious and more free, how does this relate to other life and things?
Absolutely, it's hard to put a description to it. Which is another reason for my confusion for the distinction between us and the rest of life. If we were going to create any sort of spectrum of consciousness it would be inherently biased. Imagine us humans created a consciousness spectrum and put dolphins, whales and elephants at the top and us mid-way ;)
Our hubris wouldn't allow it! Which is why I'm suggesting if particles are conscious (the basic building blocks of all life) then everything would be imbued with the same level of inherent consciousness. Only our abilities to subjectively experience would differ. As in a subjective experience of being a human vs the experience of being a dolphin vs life as a tree. What if an inherently conscious universe is gaining infinite experience by creating life to have various forms of experience to garner the whole experience that is life. All life is conscious, it's just the ego's that differ...
I agree! However, this is again our subjective critique of ourselves calling us more or less free at times, more or less aware. I don't know if this changes our inherent level of consciousness. But, maybe it does? Maybe we are able to alter our fundamental level of awareness and affect the level of awareness of the atoms that comprise us at the time (as they are always changing).
"how does this relate to other life and things?"
I have no idea! I look at other life, some seemingly more aware than others. But, that of course is all based on my own subjective and biased opinions of consciousness.
What do you think of calling consciousness 'own true selves' this level we obtain from time to time when we rid ourselves from the programming. Our consciousness is that voice inside our head that gets upset with the brain for overplaying a song ;)
So much to @contemplate.
Yes, and the steemian whales and dolphins would like to think so, lol. All of those animals are quite remarkable.
Well stated, but 'higher order intelligence' might emerge/manifest such as cells vs molecules vs atoms etc. I would say that everything is sacred at its most intrinsic level.
I think the subjective aspect needs to be understood as well, perhaps the material/energy aspect is the outer aspect and consciousness is the inner aspect or dimension and they complement each other like 2 sides of a coin. It is like our physical body and possible energy body or bodies is a ladder and consciousness is the awareness of the rung and the climber - separate sense of I.
I think that at our deepest levels, the subjective and the objective are experienced as both one and two, a multiplicity contained in an unity.
But these words are from one instance of a self that is subjective... :) And another hates the replaying of a song and another steps back from looking at the computer screen and asks who am I?
So much to contemplate indeed.
I would like to pretend I used those examples consciously :) Since I did not, I get to laugh at my own writing :)
Absolutely agree!
An infinite possibility and perspective unity!
Beautiful, just on a physical plane it's incredible the amount of 'selves' that we experience interacting with. There are neurons in the gut, the heart, the brain and elsewhere I'm sure. The ones in the gut can be manipulated by microbiology living in there as a way for them to communicate with you their wants and needs (For better or worse). What we may call a 'personal' craving could really be coming from microbiological cravings(or needs)! Then there's the heart, for me I take a more meta-physical/spiritual aspect to the hearts communication, finding that it's a deeper source for personal truth, but lacks reasoning to act on that truth (which is where the brain comes it).
This was all to say, that there are many 'actors' that even physically comprise our bodies, without discussing the non/physical "consciousness" actor that is experiencing the whole show :)
I really enjoyed this conversation, thank you. I believe there is a lot of mystery out there. The body is a magnificent thing with so many mysteries - I agree the heart is significant on many levels. Sure we could go down the science road and explain many things but it meditation we also see a different angle. Sincerely, This Particular Self :)
Thanks, Self :) I enjoyed it as well, living up to your name :)
Excellent post!
Holographic Universe theory would support your thought experiment. There is growing evidence in multiple fields that we live inside a giant conscious fractal.
Awesome, off to go explore more on the Holographic Universe theory!
Electrons have been shown to behave differently when being watched. Ill link a video below it's far easier than explaining. This absolutely blew my mind a about 2 years ago when I read about it -
HAHA People behave differently when watched as well! Thanks for sharing! Double slit was a fascinating experiment and discovery no doubt!
ABSOLUTELY YES THEY ARE! :D
Congratulations @rieki! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP