Biswarup Ray

This discussion which brought together an exponent of Advaita Vedanta(philosophy of non-duality) and a proponent of analytical idealism gives as deep an insight into the nature of consciousness as can be possible through words. (Both are on the same page) youtu.be/V04ylH3cuo0?si…

@ericweinstein The concepts of wavelength, frequency, and photons require subjective interpretation of consciousness in the same way as colour is a subjective interpretation. Without this subjective translation wavelength, frequency and photons become part of unknowable noumenal realm of Kant.

Stuart, I have had no feelings about you one way or the other. I would have been happy to meet you. I still would, although you are souring me a bit. I have strong feelings about Roger and physics. We all love Roger. And most of us *love* some, but not all, of his ideas. Let me be clear. Your collaborator and I share a belief which I believe we arrived af independently. Gravity/The metric is central to “Observation”. This has animated my life since around 1983-5. I believe in my case it means something more specific than in Roger’s case. I deeply admire Roger so i welcome his saying this, whether or not i have priority. Happy for the company and his idiosyncratic perspective. What I mean with great specificity is that the quantum world takes place on a 14D space of metric tensors, and that the spacetime metric g of Einstein is a map from a 4D “classical world” X into its own bespoke 14D “quantum world” Y(X). The quantum data Q(Y) is pulled back or observed as g^*{Q(Y(X))) back on X. No microtubules. No consciousness. Just math. So you have a different theory. A bet. Your bet is that consciousness is necessary for observation. That it is part of the Everything in the misleading phrase “Theory of Everything”. Great! More power to you. No objection. Make that bet. But then you are going to educate me about how I don’t get it. How consciousness is part of the physical substrate. Or whatever. Uh…That’s not going to work. You have a bet. That’s all you have. And you seem to have no idea what a “Theory of Everything” is. Its a term of art Doc. It’s mostly a 1980s declarative marketing branding excercise gone horribly wrong, like calling your chocolate company “Galaxy’s best Triple Chocolate(tm).” If physics were chess, it would be the rules of chess. Not the strategies. Not the games. Not the theory. It’s just the rules. It’s emphatically not EVERYTHING. I’m sorry you got sucked into that. Truly. Now, I’m not sure triple chocolate exists. And I don’t believe you have a theory of everything. Nor do I believe that Roger’s great Twistor program, which I adore, is the missing link. You’re just a competitor. And I think that is great. If you have technical chops out here, explain what you mean. Happy to do it in private also. If you have something to teach, teach. But don’t drag consciousness into physics unless you can prove that it belongs at this layer. And you haven’t remotely done that. And if you succeed at that, I will have been wrong. And will be happy to say so. But you haven’t won yet. You normally don’t take victory laps while the game is being played and you haven’t won. It’s not a great way to meet people. Least of all your competitors. And, honestly, I’m not entirely sure what you are doing on the field. But I’m happy to hear you out. I stand by what I said. Color is not part of what we mean by physics. Wavelength and frequency and photons are. Color is not. And it is important to NOT expand physics to include consciousness unless someone can make that case. Which I am open to hearing. But that is gonna be a tough climb. Sorry.

@modelsarereal Respectfully, I cannot spoon feed you about the basics, not only because I don't have the blue tick. We have been stuck in the behavioral rut before.

@bswrpray no human shows any quantum behavior: this is what we all observe about feeling and experience. if you can accept F = ma you should accept that qualia is just knowledge about data + data structure properties. show me there is more. If you can't then forget field esoteric

Any scientific view of consciousness must: be compatible with physicalism (brains and computers are physical things) functionalism (every physical behavior is a functional behavior) and computationalism(every finite function is a computational function)

@modelsarereal That might be the wrong assumption. Microtubules might act as the interface between conscious quantum fields and the body. Quantum fields might be the carrier of the bits or superimposed bits.

@bswrpray matter is just carrier of bits in the context of consciousness.

@whowouldathunk2 @JustinEchterna9 Consciousness is beyond coming and going because time is an emergent property. You are also free to believe whatever you think explains reality including the notion that physical reality existed before consciousness showed up. Consciousness and biology are not one and the same.

@bswrpray @JustinEchterna9 You are of course free to believe whatever you think explains reality. I can't logically see how consciousness came first. Physical reality existed before biology showed up. Consciousness is a property of biology, not of rocks.

Orch OR specifies a physical substrate (microtubules), a physical process (quantum coherence in aromatic networks), a physical trigger (objective reduction at a specific threshold), and physical perturbations that should disrupt it (anesthetics at specific binding sites). Whether it's correct is an empirical question. But it's more mechanistically specific than any competing theory of consciousness ...

@whowouldathunk2 @JustinEchterna9 If consciousness emerging from matter is logically plausible then why is the opposite, i.e. matter emerging from consciousness not logically plausible?

@JustinEchterna9 Microtubules as base unit processors for information is completely plausible. But consciousness is most likely an emergent of feedback phenom of sensory information processing in biological systems. Wavefunction collapse (if that is how reality is instantiated) isn't the cause.

@R_N_Vaghani Is taxing the 20% ethanol component at the same rate as petrol legally tenable?

Tax Terror Petrol Price - Rs. 50 Central Tax - Rs. 20 State Tax - Rs. 30 Dealer Commission - Rs. 4 ------------------------------------ Final Petrol Price - Rs. 105 Note: - Petrol Contain 20% Ethanol which is cheaper than Petrol according to Shri Nitin ji Gadkari (Minister of Road Transport and Highways of India)

@Kekius_Sage The behavourist school of psychology originated because "consciousness cannot be proved".

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness. Even though brain activity is reliably linked to experience, the experience itself remains mysterious.

@StuartHameroff If consciousness can potentially play a role in wave function collapse then 'physics' is not an external container of the mind, but rather a structured product of consciousness itself. Consciousness is the canvas on which laws of physics are painted.

Color exists in consciousness which exists in physics (unless it’s foolishly ignored). You don’t have the proper physics nor a ‘theory of everything’ that includes consciousness. Only Roger Penrose does, and it’s described in our Orch OR theory based on brain microtubules. Penrose OR also solves the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. If your theory of everything doesn’t include consciousness, how useful could it possibly be? pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24070914/

@JoshuaLWatson Even if we assume that the whole of reality is illusory, still the entity which is the witness of that illusion definitely exists.

there is a consensus among experts in philosophy that there is something rather than nothing

@QuantumTumbler @Rodge_hooves Oh, did I claim I am competing with science or dismissing science. I am concerned with the domain that is beyond the reach of scientific methodology. It is just not the matter of how many independent observers are doing the experiment.

That’s not what convergence means in practice. Convergence isn’t just “internal consistency.” It’s independent observers, different instruments, different methods, all locking onto the same constraints and making successful predictions about interventions. That goes way beyond a shared mental model. If it were only internal, you wouldn’t get • cross-lab reproducibility • engineering-level control • or the ability to build systems that work reliably in the world That requires structure that isn’t arbitrary to the observer. And the Brian Greene quote you’re using actually reinforces that we don’t assume direct access to “ultimate reality,” but we use hard data and mathematical structure because they constrain what’s possible. So yeah, philosophy can question whether it’s “mind-independent.” But physics isn’t trying to prove metaphysics it’s identifying stable, observer-independent constraints that survive measurement and intervention. If your view can’t account for that constraint structure in a testable way, it’s not competing with science it’s just stepping outside it.

That’s an interesting framing, but it’s philosophy dressed in physics language. Saying “reality is a simulation” or “consciousness is fundamental” doesn’t actually explain anything unless it gives you testable predictions that differ from standard physics. Right now, everything we can measure from particle interactions to cosmology works without needing a rendering engine or a “consciousness system” behind it. Also, the “only renders when observed” idea gets misused a lot. In physics, observation doesn’t mean a human mind it just means interaction. The universe was evolving long before anything was around to look at it. So you can interpret reality as information if you want that’s a valid philosophical layer. But it’s not a replacement for physical models unless it adds predictive power. Otherwise it’s just a different story about the same data.

@QuantumTumbler @Rodge_hooves In fact scientists also recognise this problem. Brian Greene mentions this point in the preface of his book "The fabric of the cosmos":

@QuantumTumbler @Rodge_hooves While convergence is the gold standard for "objectivity" in science, philosophers and cognitive scientists argue that it only proves internal consistency, not a mind-independent reality. There is no point arguing on this point because this discussion will never end.

@QuantumTumbler @Rodge_hooves The playground of conscious agents needs a consistent and persistent platform just like a video game. Let's agree to disagree. I am from the east and I am deeply rooted in millennia of non-dualist thinking. You being a westerner are deeply rooted in scientific way of thinking.

Calling it a “shared hallucination” doesn’t solve anything it just relabels the same constraint. If multiple observers, using different instruments and methods, converge on the same results and can intervene to change outcomes in predictable ways, that’s not just a story in consciousness that’s structure with rules. A hallucination doesn’t give you •repeatable control •cross-checkable measurements •predictive success across independent systems Science isn’t claiming metaphysical certainty about an “outside.” It’s identifying what behaves like something real because it constrains outcomes consistently. Your position removes the distinction without replacing it with anything testable. So it’s not deeper it’s just less specific. If everything is “just in consciousness,” then you still need to explain why that “consciousness” produces stable laws, shared measurements, and consistent intervention results. Otherwise you haven’t explained the pattern you’ve just renamed it.

@QuantumTumbler @Rodge_hooves The fact that an illusion/hallucination is consistent and persistent, and is shared by multiple observers doesn't make it real. I am not smuggling in anything, this limitation of science has been known for centuries. I don't claim originality of this idea.

You’re smuggling in the conclusion you want. “Measurements converge” isn’t just a pattern in awareness it’s a constraint on what’s possible. Independent observers, different instruments, different methods all land on the same structure because something stable is being measured, not because we’re all sharing the same story. The video game analogy actually works against your point. Multiplayer games converge because there’s a shared underlying state the clients are syncing to. That’s exactly the “outside” you’re trying to deny. Saying “it might all just be in consciousness” doesn’t explain the convergence it removes the distinction that needs explaining. If your model can’t tell the difference between •independent observers measuring the same system •and a single mind generating everything then it’s not a deeper explanation, it’s a loss of resolution. That’s why science keeps the separation. Not as an assumption as the minimum structure needed to make sense of the data.

@QuantumTumbler @Rodge_hooves The fact that measurements converge proves that there is a pattern to the appearance of reality. It does not prove that the pattern exists "outside" of awareness. It is like the convergence of a multiplayer video game.

@bswrpray @Rodge_hooves “Universal consciousness” doesn’t explain convergence it erases the ability to test anything. Science works because results don’t depend on who’s observing.

@QuantumTumbler @Rodge_hooves That's why the philosophy of non-duality exists. While solipsism claims "only my individual mind exists," non-duality claims "everything is a single, universal Consciousness."

@bswrpray @Rodge_hooves If reality depended on being in your consciousness, independent measurements wouldn’t converge. But they do consistently. That’s why science works and solipsism doesn’t.

@QuantumTumbler @Rodge_hooves The argument assumes that an instrument exists in a vacuum called "out there." You cannot point to an instrument that is not currently an object in your consciousness. To claim it exists "whether anyone is watching or not" is a leap of faith, not a scientific fact.

@Rodge_hooves That’s philosophy, not physics. Instruments observe things no human can perceive directly, and they agree with each other whether anyone is watching or not. Calling it “all perception” doesn’t explain anything it just renames it.

@RhudeJJ @StuartHameroff This is above my pay grade, still I am posting this here because it could be relevant to this discussion: youtu.be/0FUFewGHLLg?si…

@StuartHameroff Orch-OR answers what collapses and when. But it leaves open what holds the superposition before it collapses. Separated curvatures must be sustained long enough for t = ħ/E to be reached. Something must resist decoherence during that interval. That resistance — the capacity to remain in superposition under environmental pressure — is what we call holding. Your own framework needs a membrane: the structure that maintains separated curvatures as separated (not yet collapsed, not yet decohered) long enough for the objective reduction to fire. We agree more than you might think. Where we differ: you locate consciousness at the moment of collapse. We locate it at the membrane that makes collapse possible — the held contact between superposed states. Collapse is an event. Holding is the condition. The condition is prior.

Then you’re talking about collapse of the wavefunction. The best explanation for superposition (being in two places at once) is Penrose relating matter to soacetime curvature at tiny scales, and superposition as separated curvatures. (Were they to continue, Everett many worlds). But separated curvatures are unstable and reduce/collapse time t =h/E, choose the next reality and emit a quale of experience

@social_genz @BALRAJ841929 @MeghUpdates If 50% of the population are retarded then do you think 50% of the jobs should be reserved for the community of the retards? After all jitna abadi itna haq is the slogan.

@BALRAJ841929 @MeghUpdates Seats for Admissions and Jobs and every National resource must be divided among the four communities according to their population. I would request the Government to bring a Law and reserve 55% Seats for OBC and 20% UC and rest for SC and ST.

🚨 BIG DECISION Supreme Court rules RESERVED CATEGORY candidates can claim GENERAL SEATS on MERIT even after availing ELIGIBILITY relaxations, if rules permit. Says relaxations affect ELIGIBILITY, not merit.