It is the title of the thread. Consciousness can only be found to exist in an interaction between neurons. I thought it was already becoming accepted that Sir Roger Penrose already discovered how this interaction between neurons allows consciousness to emerge. It is not part of the standard model.
Correct. The conscious quantum network is far from being established science. It is not just the concept, but the substrate and the pattern from which consciousness emerges that is very much in question. Hence this thread. I am engaged in presenting the "hard facts" Tegmark believes are necessary for building a "working" model.
It was described as being a result of changes in the phase space of particles in a quantum superposition.
Orchestrated objective reduction
Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) is a theory which postulates that consciousness originates at the quantum level inside neurons, rather than the conventional view that it is a product of connections between neurons. The mechanism is held to be a quantum process called objective reduction that is orchestrated by cellular structures called microtubules. It is proposed that the theory may answer the hard problem of consciousness and provide a mechanism for free will.[1]
The hypothesis was first put forward in the early 1990s by Nobel laureate for physics, Roger Penrose, and anaesthesiologist and psychologist Stuart Hameroff. The hypothesis combines approaches from molecular biology, neuroscience, pharmacology, philosophy, quantum information theory, and quantum gravity.[2][3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction
There is a similar hypothesis by Giulio Tononi named Integrated Information Theory (IIT) that I haven't had real chance to examine, but seems to rest on a similar concept of information being reduced to an experiential causality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory
In any case, Hameroff suggests that microtubules (fundamental to ALL Eukaryotic cells) have the desired configuration for processing and reducing large volumes of information into an emergent experiential thought pattern. An argument that seems to be supported by the way microtubules react to anesthetics that render the part of the brain unconscious, without affecting homeostasis.
I believe it has been proven that the microtubule network also acts as an "amplifier" among other data processes.
First, many non-human animals and plants are capable of self-aware consciousness at various levels of emotion. (emotional experience being a sign of self-aware consciousness).
Second, the ability to "speak" and "respond" to communicative language or environmental pressures, i.e. "problem solving". Evolutionary processes are very much involved in selecting for best adaption to the environment.
Research has established that there is an active communication network at all levels of biological life.
I believe this change in making this scientific discovery has allowed the future to scramble our brains with complete nonsense sent through time. What would be the goal here? Do they need to be able to scramble plants brains too?
It depends on your interpretation of consciousness. Consciousness did not start with the human brain.
If we look at the grand beauty of patterns in the universe and nature it is clear that instead of scrambling "brains", there is a quasi-intelligent process that is always guiding the formation of balance, symmetry, and durability (resistance to environmental pressures).
An argument can be made that the human brain was formed by an evolutionary fluke, a genetic mutation that resulted in a brain much larger than necessary for survival. It is becoming apparent that our ambitions far exceed our abilities to live in harmony with the restrictions imposed by our planet's limitations. It is the human brain that is quite capable of becoming scrambled!
That would mean that computers or other objects wouldn’t ever be able to obtain real consciousness in the same way that we do.
I believe that is a premature conclusion. You are using the wrong baseline.
As Penrose would argue, it started with quantum "decision" making in a much simpler physical pattern than the human brain. There is no reason why AI could not attain an emergent consciousness, albeit different from humans.
I don’t think you fully realize that it is impossible to win an ad hominem based argument. That was the point I was trying to make.
It seemed you were engaged in ad hominem. I am glad you clarified your "intent".