What is life?

[Brad Thomson]

Darwinian evolutionists, based on their theory very well supported by the subsequent discovery of genetic mutations, believe differently. Intelligent Design theory has been around much much longer, and its proponents, the theologians of the world, are still looking for some supportive evidence...
And please ask the Ukrainians about the so called astounding order of the Universe.

What genetic mutation lead to the sun, the moon, the earth and the entire order of the non-living cosmos?

[Brad Thomson]

If consciousness is a byproduct of the interactions of matter, can it effect the causal chain or are all of the events determined? In other words, are we free, or is our consciousness only epiphenomenal, something that falls off of the end of the causal chain into nothing without the capacity to kick back into the chain?

[Dilip Panjwani]

Yet if we bang our head hard enough against a car windshield, the windshield breaks and so does our head, and indeed our life may end in that instant.

That conclusion is drawn by the neuronal framework in our brains... AI, apparently devoid of consciousness, would also lead to exactly the same conclusions.

[Dilip Panjwani]

The astounding order of the universe leads me to conclude the existence of intelligent design rather than blind natural laws.

Darwinian evolutionists, based on their theory very well supported by the subsequent discovery of genetic mutations, believe differently. Intelligent Design theory has been around much much longer, and its proponents, the theologians of the world, are still looking for some supportive evidence...
And please ask the Ukrainians about the so called astounding order of the Universe.

[Sid Belzberg]

Thank you, Sid. Whether particular consciousness is an inherent property of particular shapes of brain's electronic waves or particular combinations of Orch OR, is a minor point. I just find the former simpler to understand (and hence more elegant) than the latter, and the vast majority of quantum physicists say that Orch OR just cannot occur at brain temperatures...

I just find the former simpler to understand

I do, too; however, although Dr. Tucker's case history data is very compelling, he does not understand basic definitions of Quantum physics. He tries to rationalize the observer effect on the results of the classic double-slit experiment, but he incorrectly defines the observer as "consciousness". The observer of the double slit experiment are physical objects like photon detectors used to quantify measurements. When the instrument is deployed, it interferes with the outcome of the experiment.
If we place an observer behind a door with a peephole where the double slit experiment is being done you will find that the "observer" in the case will have no impact whatsoever on the experimental outcome.
Dr. Penroses Orch-Or theory is based on rigorous reproducible data. Not as elegant but it holds together experimentally.

[Pargat Perrer]

No. Other than one leading to the other by interacting with the brain, there is no similarity whatsoever between the physical nature of what produces a sound or sight and the sound or sight itself. One just needs to calmly think about the details of it to realize this fact.

Dilip, I did not say that sound and heard sound have similarity. I agree they are different things. I am just discussing the language we use to differentiate them, so we can discuss one versus the other. If you insist that "sound" is defined as what I am calling "heard sound", then you need a term for the physical sound that I am defining as "sound". They should not both be called "sound". That is my only point. Likewise with light.

Having said that, what is very very difficult to believe, but nevertheless true as per modern physics, is that the stuff that we see and feel (through intermediary physical processes of transmission of information, and the latter are easily obvious as being different) is very very different from what our consciousness tells us it is!! We seem to see and feel particles, but in reality, particles do not exist... what exists outside our consciousness is just energy...

Yet if we bang out head hard enough against a car windshield, the windshield breaks and so does our head, and indeed our life may end in that instant.

So if our consciousness tells us through our brains that the windshield is hard and we should not bang our head against it too hard, that may be our consciousness acting in self-preservation survival mode. Our consciousness tells us about our surroundings in ways we need to survive, even if our consciousness is fully aware that it's existence is certain to be of a finite length of time only.

So in the question of whether the universe is intelligently designed or not, which I see in another post Brad brought up, the consciousness seems to be designed to provide us an interpretation of our surroundings for the purpose of keeping us alive long enough to procreate and continue the species.

[Brad Thomson]

Maybe, maybe not...

The astounding order of the universe leads me to conclude the existence of intelligent design rather than blind natural laws.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Why do you believe that this energy is not conscious?

Maybe, maybe not...

[Brad Thomson]

what exists outside our consciousness is just energy...

Why do you believe that this energy is not conscious?

[Dilip Panjwani]

No. Other than one leading to the other by interacting with the brain, there is no similarity whatsoever between the physical nature of what produces a sound or sight and the sound or sight itself. One just needs to calmly think about the details of it to realize this fact.
Having said that, what is very very difficult to believe, but nevertheless true as per modern physics, is that the stuff that we see and feel (through intermediary physical processes of transmission of information, and the latter are easily obvious as being different) is very very different from what our consciousness tells us it is!! We seem to see and feel particles, but in reality, particles do not exist... what exists outside our consciousness is just energy...

[Pargat Perrer]

The physics of sound causes real sound in consciousness, but the two are not the same at all, just like the physics of sight and sight itself are not the same...
Technical devices just transmit the physics of sound, not real sound, just like video recordings transmit the physical basis of sight, not sight itself.

Again, the distinctions between "physics of sound" and "sound in consciousness" can be articulated: "sound" and "heard sound".

Similarly with light: there is "light" and there is "seen light".

Perhaps to make the articulation even simpler, do away with the terms "heard" and "seen" and simply put "perceived". Perceiving can only be done by some form of consciousness. Perceiving implies awareness. Therefore the microphone in the forest is not "perceiving" sound, nor is a camera "perceiving" light.

EDIT: but in the not too distant future, an AI drone in the forest may (if all the hype is correct) perceive both sound and light. But what about a non-AI drone of today? Such a drone of today may be programmed to do something if it "sees" or "hears" something. The seeing or hearing is only on the basis of the physics of sound, but nevertheless the drone takes action based on programming logic. So maybe perceiving soune or light isn't limited to concious entities, but can be extended to programmed entities that take action based on such perceiving.

[Dilip Panjwani]

It seems to me that Nature thinks the universe, and we reside in the mind of Nature.

Hey Bob A., What Brad says should relieve your anxiety: Climate change is a thought of Nature, and humans, just another thought, cannot change that thought...
(just kidding, but nevertheless, your anxiety is not justified...)

[Dilip Panjwani]

The physics of sound causes real sound in consciousness, but the two are not the same at all, just like the physics of sight and sight itself are not the same...
Technical devices just transmit the physics of sound, not real sound, just like video recordings transmit the physical basis of sight, not sight itself.

[Brad Thomson]

The question about sounds and forests came up in the first philosophy course I took. Most students said yes there is still a sound, a few said no. Then I said if there is no one there to hear it then there is no forest in the first place.

Sid, I like your explanation. Though being a committed proponent of Berkeley I do not myself believe in the existence of matter, my view is that only minds and their contents, sounds for example, exist. To me matter is simply what minds imagine, I do not believe that interactions within matter/energy produce consciousness. It seems to me that Nature thinks the universe, and we reside in the mind of Nature.

[Pargat Perrer]

The answer to the question depends heavily on how you define "sound." In physics, sound is typically defined as a wave of pressure variation that travels through a medium (like air or water). By this definition, the falling tree certainly does make a sound, regardless of whether any conscious being is around to perceive it.

However, if you define "sound" as a perceptual phenomenon -- something that occurs in the mind of a listener when these waves stimulate their auditory system -- then you could argue that no sound occurs if there's no listener.

So, the statement that "sound is a property of consciousness" aligns with this latter definition. Yet, it's worth noting that this is not the only possible definition, and it's not the one that's commonly used in physics. This illustrates how different disciplines can use the same word ("sound") to mean slightly different things.

Moreover, it's important to distinguish between philosophical discussions about perception and consciousness, and empirical questions about the physics of sound. The tree-falling question is a useful tool for exploring philosophical ideas, but it doesn't invalidate or challenge the physics of sound.

In the scenario of a tree falling in the forest and no bird or animal nearby to hear it, it could be imagined that a non-conscious technical device (a microphone connected to a transmitter, powered by batteries) could pick up the sound and transmit it thousands of miles away to an observer.

I'm sure this must have been done in today's technical world, and I'm just as sure the sound was observed from a great distance.

Therefore as you say Sid, the physics of sound .... is sound (sorry for the pun!)

The distinction can be made between a "sound" versus a "heard sound".

There's also the question of whether plants (trees, grass, weeds) can hear sound. Is there any proof they do not? I have no idea on that.