Topic: Consciousness and Quantum Physics - page 4. (Read 11994 times)

I hope to read through it a bit later.
In the mean time, I've got a couple of light-weight thoughts on the subject...

It's easy for people who are just starting out on this topic to put their faith in science. Unless they ultimately re-do the experiments and interpret it for themselves then they're simply putting someone else's lessons on a pedestal. I'm not saying ignore everything you read, just be aware how pervasive the act of believing is. Beliefs crop up everywhere.

I've participated in a couple of discussions here regarding the role of science in studying consciousness. IIRC, I figured that there's something called a Demarcation Problem in this area, because although consciousness is a very interesting "something" that we might like to study, empirical science seems ill-equipped because it has the wrong category of tools to do it. In plain English, consciousness is a very personal, experiential, phenomenal "something", that I experience, manipulate, create, do, and make choices with. I also assume that other people have a conceptually similar consciousness of their own, even though its qualities might be entirely different and unimaginable to me.

When we focus on our a priori, 1st-person knowledge of consciousness, we can gain plenty of insights:
-we already know what our own sense of consciousness is like. We don't need other scientists to write their interpretations. In this case we are the scientist.
-we can sense a vast gap between cook-book methodology where we study behaviour, never really knowing if it's some philosophical zombie operating mechanically, versus the metaphysical idea of a telepathic connection between minds.


I've been curious about the idea of Leibniz's Monads lately. Antiquated idea, for sure, but to me it seems it was needlessly abandoned in that dark 19th-20th century era of Materialism and Positivism, and substance prohibition. AFAICT the idea of living atoms was never debunked. Instead, it seems science didn't find it very useful to incorporate metaphysical ideas into newer models. Now it seems we've come full circle: with quantum behaviour being so strange, it could be worth revisiting the idea that 'elements' also have elements of consciousness.

We would be in heaven.  When you see the fullness of the present, you gain control over manifesting your reality.

The recent discovery of quantum vibrations in "microtubules" inside brain neurons corroborates the Orch OR theory.

Reply to Criticism of the 'Orch OR qubit' - Orchestrated objective reduction is scientifically jusfiied.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

These are not speculations, they actually comprise the best theory of consciousness available in science today.

Yes, you have to do a lot of reading; no surprise there:


http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

Deepak Chopra is mentioned...

Imagine if our forefathers had thought like this.  We'd still be in the stone age.

the Big Bang Theory. “We are asked by science to believe that the entire universe sprang from nothingness, and at a single point and for no discernible reason. This notion is the limit case for credulity. In other words, if you can believe this, you can believe anything.” - Terence McKenna.

The only valid definition I have found of the universe was offered by Buckminster Fuller, the Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated non simultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences.

Once you come to realise that each of our existence, experience and interpretation has been, is and will always be unique, there can be no definitive definition of the universe or its meaning. This is the mystery of life and consciousness itself. While certain patterns are predictable and there there probability can be quantified by science. Science cannot be used to explain or refute that which cannot be measured, consciousness.

Magic is the ability to induce desired emotional responses in others through art. With the skilful manipulation of the five senses and the combination of ritual the results are more profound and compelling. Science is the set of tools we have devised to try and define that which is common about these experiences, art is the creative means by which we convey meaning to the our experiences by evoking shared emotions in others by manipulating their five senses.

I can confirm that googling retrieves relevant information.

Tons of results from my err scientific image search...

You guys are overthinking quantum mechanics into something complicated, which it is not.

Everything just is.  Labels do not change that truth that it just is.

Consciousness is all, quantum phenomena is constant.

They are one.  You are the creator, the source.

Good points. I can't really defend their work, I just posted it because it seems related to the title. I also have a bias. The intersection of Physics and biology is what I am most interested in. My Physics friends always want a "unified theory" that unites quantum and relativity. As I biologist I don't think you have anything until you can explain what life is. This was a rare attempt to explain how life works and so I'm a sucker for that stuff.

Whatever life is, it sure must be a harder problem than chemicals and electricity. By the 1950s most scientists thought we would be creating life from scratch by now. So far it seems life only happened once.

I agree with your sentiments, but had to comment about the rather strong new-age taste of the Penrose article because of it's inability to form testable hypothesis, and in particular, the use of poorly defined terms to which effects were glibly attributed.   

It's certainly true that at many levels of inorganic and organic, sentient and non sentient systems we see what might be called "tendencies toward organization" which are pretty much unexplained.

This is a different question, though; it addresses the biological origin of consciousness.  I would comment that is secondary and of little importance.  We can model activity of a neuron or an amoeba.  Theoretically, given a large enough stack of paper punched cards (might exceed the atoms of the universe of course) we could model a conscious entity with punched cards.

So what would you have then, a conscious deck of cards? 

Just don't play poker with it and you'll be fine....

Submit to publisher.

"...If you are new to Mathematical Physics, you may also wonder what a relativist is.

A relativist is a disciple of the late Pastor Al Einstein (1879 - 1955), founder of the
Church of Relativity. This sect is a branch of the religion of Mathematical Physics.

In a nutshell, Pastor Al was deluded into thinking that space is a physical object.
A schism in the Church later produced the two micro-world sects known as
Quantum Mechanics and String Theory.

I will refer to a member of any of these sects of Mathematical Physics as a

        relativist


because a person who believes in the poppycock of relativity usually believes in the
nonsense of Quantum Mechanics too. Many of them also believe in an even greater
idiocy known as String Theory.

So allow me to summarize who Pastor Al's followers are and what they believe in..."

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/


ha! ha! ha!!!    I love this site!!!

Okay.

Quantum Tits.

Adding "quantum" to a book title increases sales ten fold.

A lot of people explain things in a poor way. A lot of people understand things that are explained well in a poor way.

Suggesting that proof be confirmed by saying "prove it," doesn't necessarily mean that the proof exists or doesn't exist when the explanation fails to prove.

One simple example of this is the word "science." This word has taken on so many meanings among the various peoples, that without a detailed explanation of the meaning being used, it becomes very difficult to explain whether or not something is scientific.

In addition to this, many of us are deeply aware of several of the "meanings" of the word "science." Because of this, we sometimes accidentally go afoul of our own, stated definition when using it.

Proof was difficult when there were only a few scientists and a few scientific subjects. For example. You go to 5 different doctors with a problem. You explain the problem in exactly the same way to each of the doctors. They all examine you. And they all come up with differing diagnoses. Why? Because your symptoms can fit a thousand different maladies that have been discovered.

This is cool and all, but what's your point?

"....Planck tried a mathematical trick.  He presumed that the light wasn't really a continuous wave as everyone assumed, but perhaps could exist with only specific amounts, or "quanta," of energy.  Planck didn't really believe this was true about light, in fact he later referred to this math gimmick as "an act of desperation."  But with this adjustment, the equations worked, accurately describing the box's radiation..."

source: http://www.pbs.org/transistor/science/info/quantum.html