Solving Noam Chomsky's question: What Kind of Creatures Are We?

Dear Professor Noam Chomsky: You graciously responded to my email correspondence back in 2001 regarding my master's thesis and also the hopeful reprinting of your book, At War With Asia. (It did get reprinted the following year or so by AK Press). So I posted the below on my blog - any comments or question, etc. would be appreciated.

So this summer Professor Noam Chomsky attended the Stuart Hameroff organized Consciousness Conference.

He is interviewed and his brief overview summarizes the same view he gives in his 2016 book, What Kind of Creatures Are We?

The book is a dense read. I have not read it word for word, cover to back yet. But Chomsky's work is an accumulation of classical science up to modern science and then on to quantum physics and relativity.

I linked recently, an August response from Chomsky to the critique of his work by former Professor Chris Knight - in the journal Nature - Chomsky stating Knight does not even understand Chomsky's analysis of linguistics.

It is quite clear that Chomsky is stating, as he summarized in the above interview, that because language for humans is so amazingly picked up based on minutiae of meaning, and also because human language, unlike other animals' symbolic language, is not tied to any external references, inherently - therefore there is some deep logic of the human mind, as understanding.

So what is interesting is Chomsky is accepting the science arguments and reviewing them and he gives a lot of emphasis to Joseph Priestly's critique of mind-body dualism, post Newton. And then Chomsky basically update's Priestly's argument with more recent claims of a type of panpsychism - showing how it is more extreme than Priestly - specifically the claim of Strawson.

And here is the minor quirk I noticed in Chomsky's book. The book does not have a bibliography but in his end notes he gives the references for the books he cites - yet for Strawson he just lists the title of the books, without the publisher, year of publication, etc.

It would seem to be no big deal - and it's not - except only that Chomsky is favoring Strawson's argument overall - what Strawson calls micro-panpsychism or rather:

micopsychism/panpsychism

So in terms of the  mind-body dualism - the argument is that physicality (the body) can be reduced to any measurement in the spacetime continuum.

But as Chomsky emphasizes: Quantum mechanics changed all of this - and he then defers to Stojar's analysis.

So the Strawson source title is, Consciousness and Its Place In Nature.

Let's look up the publisher and date of publication. 2006.

Consciousness and Its Place in Nature: Does Physicalism Entail ...

ndpr.nd.edu/.../consciousness-and-its-place-in-nature-does-physicalism-entail-panpsyc...

May 4, 2007 - Galen Strawson et al., Consciousness and Its Place in Nature: Does Physicalism Entail Panpsychism? (ed. Anthony Freeman), Imprint ...

Published by "Imprint Academic"? Never even heard of it!

Strawson must be a professor for his book to carry weight.

This volume originated as a special issue of the Journal for Consciousness Studies (Volume 13, Numbers 10-11, 2006). Galen Strawson provides the lead article: "Realistic Monism: Why Physicalism Entails Panpsychism." ("RM" for short, 3-31)

So for Chomsky to embrace this claim is in itself quite radical - it builds on Thomas Nagel's previous critique of NeoDarwinian physical "emergence."

This, in itself, is quite amazing on the part of Chomsky - as panpsychicism is itself almost a religious worldview. The issue at hand is then is it possible for pure consciousness to exist - as a "nonexperiential reality" or will consciousness always be tied to the physical aspects of the body as an extension of the mind (i.e. the brain).

Strawson argues:

"we know enough about the physical to know that the experiential cannot be physical."

But as Chomsky points out - this claim was rejected by Eddington and even by Joseph Priestly - instead a panpsychic physicalism - a geometric convergence of consciousness as a physical experience is embraced.

Which is to say are there "nonexperiential" truths since science is based on the physical as experiential truth?

And here Chomsky turns to quantum physics as the ultimate answer, as it is well-accepted that quantum physics is the new foundation of reality for physical experiential truth in science.

Chomsky points out John Wheeler's claim that the foundation of reality is just "bits" of information - the "It from Bit" model.

Chomsky then quotes H.P. Stapp, a quantum physicist focused on consciousness studies, "increments of knowledge" are the foundational "experience" of quantum physics.

And so Chomsky, based on these claims, leans back toward modern science - that experience is indeed fundamentally physical and so then must consciousness. But there is one final caveat:

Chomsky defers to Stojar who "invokes the ignorance hypothesis" after the quantum revolution, namely that, post-Newton, "physical facts" (he puts in quotes now) are a "rhetorical device of clarification, adding no substantive content." Here he is referring to Newton acknowledging that gravity's action at a distance was purely mathematical and then onto the quantum revolution, another mathematical construct that does not claim to experience fundamental reality in itself.

So then Chomsky comes down from that plateau of scientific ignorance to state there are "lesser grades of mystery" and ends the book returning more to linguistics and the mind-body connection based on a deeper "gestalt" or "sympathy of parts" or a "psychic continuity."

So the issue at hand, that which I contend can be solved, is based on an insight that Joseph Priestly made, the claims of whom, Noam Chomsky greatly respects. 1777:

In fact, there is the same reason to conclude, that the powers of sensation and thought are the necessary result of a particular organization, as that sound is the necessary result of a particular concussion of the air.

So my claim is that Priestly in this insight hit the nail on the head without realizing it! The origins of modern science were closely tied into an analysis of Pythagorean mathematics of the musical string - and what is the vibration of an infinite string, for example.

So if we go back to the above Chomsky interview from this summer - he is asked somewhat innocuously if his view of the origin of consciousness from the origin of internal thinking is similar to David Bohm's model of consciousness as the "implicate order."

Chomsky then smiles and says something like "maybe." I'll have to rewatch the video - but that is the gist of his response.

The key emphasis we need to realize is that there are some 25 different and yet valid interpretations of quantum mechanics.

So Chomsky quotes H.P. Stapp but what he maybe doesn't realize is that there was a big debate between H.P. Stapp and B.J. Hiley about the meaning of quantum mechanics - Hiley being the continuation of the Bohm implicate order model.

Actually there is no reason for Chomsky to have known about this debate - as it seems only to be preserved by Jack Sarfatti who is commenting on their various claims.

[Stapp, prev]
So it is indeed true that Bohm does succeed in eliminating consciousness
from the quantum level: he puts it back where it was in classical physics,
with a very different problem of the connection between the classical
physical world and consciousness.

[Sarfatti]
This is a completely false characterization of Bohm's position as Hiley has
already remarked on.

 So we can see how Chomsky deferring to H.P. Stapp for the quantum foundation of reality is problematic when Chomsky is asked about Bohm's Implicate Order. If Chomsky had, which he did, relied on Stapp, then clearly Chomsky would not properly understand Bohmian's view on consciousness!

But there is a way out of this problem for Chomsky - in the above interview from this summer, he is also asked about the language of mathematics. What Chomsky states is that there is arithmetic and then the rest of mathematics - that arithmetic is special. What Chomsky means by this is that his claim is what makes humans different from other animals is that our counting system of infinity is discrete, originally. Chomsky then states that even though some human cultures only have words for numbers up to a few or several - when these peoples are put into markets requiring larger numbers, they clearly already have an understanding of larger units of numbers as quantity. 

And so this goes back to John Wheeler's claim about quantum "bits" but what makes quantum "bits" as 1/0 different than computer bits is that the quantum information exists in superposition - in two places at the same time, until the "collapse" or "measurement" problem occurs: The conversion of the Schrodinger Equation to the actual probabilities of the physical parameters or eigenstates.

So what Bohm and Hiley are claiming is that the wave function as math is part of the consciousness continuum and that at time zero, before the "collapse" there already always exist an implicate order of consciousness as a purely infinite formless awareness that is not physical. Hiley calls this a novel "self-force" or new "quantum" force.

The key point here is one that both Stapp and Hiley acknowledge but approach differently in terms of the quantum mathematics! Both Hiley and Stapp emphasize that quantum math is noncommutative due to the measurement problem. But for Hiley the quantum "uncertainty" of position and momentum is just a later derivation from a more fundamental noncommutative math - a quantum algebra that is inherently noncommutative from the get-go.

In other words it is not just that humans rely on arithmetic, as Chomsky emphasizes, but this arithmetic as quantum "bits" are not just superimposed as quantum entanglement at zero time, but these quantum bits are inherently noncommutative - as noncommutative phase, the 5th dimension of reality. Paul S. Wesson, the astrophysicist, published more details on this model in 2015.

So the big contention between Stapp and Bohm (as represented by Sarfatti) is Stapp is claiming quantum math is inherently not classical or physically based experience. Sarfatti on the other hand is saying no the quantum math used by Bohm is not classical math, as Stapp claims it is still classical math. And what is the real sticking point here? Where the "noncommutative" property enters into the equation! For Bohm and Sarfatti, the noncommutative principle is there at time zero, but for Stapp the noncommutative property emerges after the measurement collapse occurs!

And so as Chomsky relies on Stapp he is missing this crucial bridge to the foundation of reality via logic. Now things get complicated again as Hiley himself does not support de Broglie's pilot wave model - as Hiley considers de Broglie's model to be too classical, whereas Bohm's model starts from Schrodinger's equation that has already avoided any use of relativity. De Broglie's wave mechanics arose from his critique and reliance on Einstein's relativity.

So then Penrose, who worked with Hiley, is claiming that in fact it is this relation to relativity that causes the measurement problem itself - it is the mass in the brain that causes the "collapse" to the classical (externalized) reality of language-based consciousness.

So we can see here that the mathematical logic is quite varied - and subtle in its differences and the debate between Sarfatti and Stapp just ends in a stalemate.

But based on de Broglie's original pilot wave model, the quantum physicist Bernard d'Espagnat argues that the nonlocal quantum consciousness can be logically inferrred even though it can not itself be used to send signals.

I just cited a similar argument from parapsychology use of quantum physics - their is a superluminal signal sent but for it to be "decoded" requires the linear causation of classical physics. And so this logical inference is actually, as per arithmetic as noncommutative superposition, actually a fundamental resonance of reality, what Louis de Broglie modeled as the Law of Phase Harmony. In other words, the true meaning of arithmetic is actually Pythagorean number that is neither discrete nor the geometric continuum, but inherently based on complementary opposites as noncommutative phase.

This is the secret kernel of philosophy that Chomsky has not apparently encountered nor understood - and the reason being (I think) is that his linguistics was deeply based on Newtonian mechanics, with his encounter of quantum physics as a later development.

This is the problem that I learned in my first year of college from Professor Herbert Bernstein - quantum physics should be taught first, before anyone learns classical physics, because quantum physics with entanglement is the foundation of reality. Indeed the first physics class I took was from quantum physicist Herbert Bernstein (I still remember his amusement at my deep look of shock and awe as he explained entanglement. I was literally stunned into a deep mental silence). And so the reason d'Espagant received the Templeton Award in 2009 is because he did not rule out spiritual consciousness.

Since then, d’Espagnat has written and lectured extensively on the philosophical significance of the universal truths of quantum mechanics. He notes, however, that quantum physics merely predicts observational results. As far as describing reality, it suggests that not only our plain, everyday concepts of objects but also our scientific concepts refer only to phenomena – that is, to mere appearances common to all.

Still, d’Espagnat warns, experiments often falsify theories and so there must exist, beyond mere appearances, something that resists us and lies beyond the phenomena, a “veiled” ultimate reality that science does not describe but only glimpses uncertainly. In turn, contrary to those who claim that matter is the only reality, the possibility that other means, including spirituality, may also provide a window on ultimate reality cannot be ruled out by cogent scientific arguments. Although d’Espagnat concedes the theological implications of the term “veiled reality,” he guards against using it as justification for specific religious doctrines which can be falsified by reason and facts.

 And so I have quoted the mathematician Alain Connes who realizes that his noncommutative unified model of reality is actually, in its most simplified form, found in music theory! Keep in mind this is not "western" music theory but the empirical truth of infinite harmonics!

And then quantum physicist Eddie Oshins expanded that noncommutative foundation of quantum consciousness to realize it is also the secret of nonwestern mind-body resonance training (i.e. Taoist Neigong alchemy). I have simply made the connection that nonwestern shamanic alchemy training is based on the empirically true Pythagorean music harmonics - and so the bridge is now complete - only that Western science, based on the "deep pre-established disharmony" of commutative logic has destroyed right-brain dominant ecology on the planet.

a “universal scaling system”, ... this discrete scaling manifests itself in acoustic systems, as is well known in western classical music, where the two scalings correspond, respectively, to passing to the octave (frequency ratio of 2) and transposition (the perfect fifth is the frequency ratio 3/2), with the approximate value log(3)/ log(2) ∼ 19/12 responsible for the difference between the “circulating temperament” of the Well Tempered
Clavier and the “equal temperament” of XIX century music. It is precisely the irrationality of log(3)/ log(2) which is responsible for the noncommutative [complementary opposites as yin/yang] nature of the quotient corresponding to the three places {2, 3,∞}. -

Math professor (field medals) Alain Connes on quantum music as noncommutative time-frequency origin of reality from infinite spiral of perfect fifths!

Our brain is an incredible ....receives moments of space of the photons we receive and manufactures a mental picture. Which is geometric. But what I am telling you is that I think ...that the fundamental thing is spectral [frequency]....And somehow in order to think we have to do an enormous Fourier Transform...on geometry. By talking about the "music of shapes" is really a fourier transform of shape and the fact that we have to do it in reverse. Alain Connes, 2012

Stanford Quantum physicist Eddie Oshins:

This representation only works for the (more fundamental) 1/2-integral representations (i.e. spinors/turns/quaternions) but also lets one build the vector and tensor representations. The converse does not hold....this property of "noncommutivity" in itself might be valuable in some way.

My claim, and original idea, has been that this is circumnavigating a T'ai Chi (Yin/Yang) symbol! More recently (Oshins, 1993b) I have suggested that this proximate technique can be used to realize Wing Chun kung-fu's "bong sau/tan sau" movement out of the Kauffman/Oshins "quaternionic arm" discussed and referenced below in end note 5.

I believe that this may be a way to get mind to code the relative relationship of part of oneself with respect to the rest of oneself (self-referential motion) and can explain the concepts of being "centered"/"one"/"integrated"/"extended"/"whole" etc. which one strives for in meditation.

Oshins, E. (1993). A Test for Classical Psychospinors. (pdf) In Abdullah, F. (Ed.) Conservation and Invariance. Cambridge, UK: Alternative Natural Philosophy Association, London England.