Some random thoughts

[Bluefinger]

Mar 10, 2009 18:31:11 GMT -5 caretaker said:

*Ignores bickering*

The Human Consciousness Project is dealing with hypotheses such as these. If you listen to the UN Symposium podcasts, you'll hear a discussion from qualified scientists from a variety of specialisations, including quantum physics, discussing the very nature of how thought might arise (it's not yet understood). Largely speaking, this hypothesis is something they want to try and investigate further.

A famous example of research carried out on theory of global consciousness is the Global Consciousness Project, which has been running for over a decade. Results are interesting, even fascinating, but much more work needs to be done before conclusion could possibly be drawn.

String theory is one of the theories that have attracted attention as providing a possible framework to support the non-localised consciousness hypothesis, which in turn supports the global consciousness hypothesis. Decision Augmentation Theory is here investigated as regards anomalous mental phenomena - I'll confess right now that I didn't read that one personally.

A simple web search can provide you with parapsychological studies carried out on a huge variety of subjects - the background reading, exploring the controversy of results and criticisms, is a good place to start when tackling the idea of non-localised consciousness or thought produced at quantum level and its possible implications.

And finally, it's just an idea, guys, and frankly? I'd rather hedge my bets on this than a two thousand year old fairytale that wants me to hate gay people. Just my two pence.

Problem with applying it to Quantum Mechanics is that what goes on inside the brain is mostly Chemistry and synaptic interactions. How does biochemistry transfer itself into Quantum mechanics in such a way that it allows for non-localised consciousness?

Wouldn't a simpler explanation be that it may just be the result of humans not actually being that different from each other (with regards to how we process information we receive)?

[caretaker]

Chemistry and synaptic interactions have been found wanting in the explanations for how a sense of self arises in the brain. I recommend reading the links and generally trying to dig up the background for precisely why this has led certain scientists to quantum physics (not trying to sound patronising, just - really, the links are difficult for somebody like me to summarise effectively).

And I'm slightly thrown - what 'it' are you referring to? The theories of non-localised consciousness aren't about similarities in people's minds/behaviours/whatever - was something like that in the OP?

Edit: This might help?

The "problem" revolves around understanding how electrochemical brain processes may also generate the mysterious substance and intimate inner world of the complex "self" and our thoughts. Despite increasing interest and extensive research, scientists at the dawn of the 21st century still do not understand how our sense of self arises, nor can they adequately explain the nature of the complex relationship between the mind and the brain.

(From here; the keynote lectures introduction from the symposium. Like I said - I can't summarise for shit). That's the starting point, and they throw out the hypotheses about it from there on during the podcast.

[ausador]

Sorry Blue that was purposefully baiting you to respond because I knew you couldn't let what I said go without a response. Einstein never claimed to have any evidence to disprove quantum theory and neither do I, he just said that he found it unlikely that it was how things worked.

Well people said we couldn't fly, couldn't go to the moon, etc, etc...also.

Basically without being a mathematician I understand the principle as best I can, and still find myself agreeing with what Einstein said. Something is obviously still missing...something large...the math does not add up.

Numerous theories exist to try to close the equations, none with universal support or any real testable proof. We are getting closer to a unified field theory but there have been no breakthroughs since Stephen Hawking postulated a couple of ideas 20 years ago. (that also havn't been proved)

The entire feild is so far beyond how most people think and what they can comprehend that only maybe one out of ten thousand or less can actually envision the ideas involved. While I wait for a cognizant unified theory...I will stand with Einstein and simply say "I don't think that is how it works."

[Vene]

Mar 10, 2009 16:47:08 GMT -5 Angel Kaida said:

Pretty sure peanutfan wasn't trying to propose a radical new theory that would overthrow science, or anything, aus. Quite sure, in fact. Just speculating and looking for support or correction for his fundamental assumptions. Pretty sure that's how you get to the "hypothesis" phase.

Sorry, I couldn't let this be ignored. That is not how to reach a hypothesis. Evidence first, speculation second. At the least speculate and then find evidence to support it.

And from somebody who actually studies things like biochemistry and molecular biology, there are chemical explanations for much of the brain's workings. This is why drugs (chemicals) can change how the brain functions.

[Angel Kaida]

Mar 10, 2009 18:48:21 GMT -5 Vene said:

Evidence first, speculation second.

I was taking the incorrect understanding of the existing research on quantum mechanics and the nature of consciousness to be his basic assumptions, his understanding of consciousness to be the evidence, and his speculation as the way to link them. Anyway he'd be way back in the flailing stage long before the hypothesis one

And aus, if you're not just being defensive and are actually looking to improve your posting, you might look at the other individuals who ARE successfully having a productive discussion about the non-evidenced speculations in the first post. Blue, caretaker, and Vene seem to be doing a pretty good job of something you apparently found impossible.

[Bluefinger]

Mar 10, 2009 18:45:01 GMT -5 caretaker said:

Chemistry and synaptic interactions have been found wanting in the explanations for how a sense of self arises in the brain. I recommend reading the links and generally trying to dig up the background for precisely why this has led certain scientists to quantum physics (not trying to sound patronising, just - really, the links are difficult for somebody like me to summarise effectively).

And I'm slightly thrown - what 'it' are you referring to? The theories of non-localised consciousness aren't about similarities in people's minds/behaviours/whatever - was something like that in the OP?

Edit: This might help?

The "problem" revolves around understanding how electrochemical brain processes may also generate the mysterious substance and intimate inner world of the complex "self" and our thoughts. Despite increasing interest and extensive research, scientists at the dawn of the 21st century still do not understand how our sense of self arises, nor can they adequately explain the nature of the complex relationship between the mind and the brain.

(From here; the keynote lectures introduction from the symposium. Like I said - I can't summarise for shit). That's the starting point, and they throw out the hypotheses about it from there on during the podcast.

Problem with all that is still on how do Quantum Mechanical effects translate into a meaningful and observable model that can pinpoint not only behavioural aspects, but also show how certain processes evolve within the brain. The means to generate consciousness is there in the brain, and damage to the brain will incur alterations to said consciousness. This at least highlights the biological 'anchor', not something rooted in Quantum mechanics. As Vene pointed out, drugs alone can alter one's consciousness. How does this get explained via a Quantum Model as opposed to a chemical and biological one?

There are computers built on neural networks, which work just fine, though they are nowhere as near in terms of computing power as a human mind, but they are getting there. Unfortunately, until we understand what creates self-awareness and the sense of self, I doubt we'll see self-aware AI any time soon, at least, not by intention.

Non-locality might just be something completely different and a lot simpler, like the fact that we humans evolved to think in certain ways, and no matter how complex our society becomes, these behaviours are hard to break out of. Just because we don't know exactly how consciousness emerges out of biological systems, does not mean it needs to invoke concepts like quantum consciousness, etc, because all that does is create a whole new bag of issues that come along with it.

Mar 10, 2009 18:46:04 GMT -5 ausador said:

Sorry Blue that was purposefully baiting you to respond because I knew you couldn't let what I said go without a response. Einstein never claimed to have any evidence to disprove quantum theory and neither do I, he just said that he found it unlikely that it was how things worked.

So that post was just baiting? Isn't that a troll-like thing to do, to only do a post for the intention to incite a specific reaction?

Mar 10, 2009 18:46:04 GMT -5 ausador said:

Well people said we couldn't fly, couldn't go to the moon, etc, etc...also.

Thanks to Quantum Physics, we have lots of things, more importantly, an understanding of transistors, electron tunneling effects (which are ever so important to know when you are shrinking electronics to the nanomatre scale), MRI's, lasers, etc.

The computer you are using is a testament to the success of Quantum Physics.

Mar 10, 2009 18:46:04 GMT -5 ausador said:

Basically without being a mathematician I understand the principle as best I can, and still find myself agreeing with what Einstein said. Something is obviously still missing...something large...the math does not add up.

If you are not a mathematician, how can you come to the conclusion that the maths does not add up? Who are you to question Matrix mechanics when you yourself admit not to understanding it, only the generalised concepts.

Mar 10, 2009 18:46:04 GMT -5 ausador said:

Numerous theories exist to try to close the equations, none with universal support or any real testable proof. We are getting closer to a unified field theory but there have been no breakthroughs since Stephen Hawking postulated a couple of ideas 20 years ago. (that also havn't been proved)

Quantum phenomena are 'real' (in the sense that the maths and models accurately predict and quantify observable phenomena) and have to be taken into account with any sort of unifying theory. Because of the Correspondence Principle, any new theory that comes to supplant an older one must show how the old one worked the way it did and when it doesn't work, and then how to improve it. When Einstein came up with Special Relativity, it did not throw away Newtonian Mechanics completely. It took what worked, explained the circumstances in which it didn't work, then came up with a solution.

Mar 10, 2009 18:46:04 GMT -5 ausador said:

The entire feild is so far beyond how most people think and what they can comprehend that only maybe one out of ten thousand or less can actually envision the ideas involved. While I wait for a cognizant unified theory...I will stand with Einstein and simply say "I don't think that is how it works."

So you again, you use the Argument from Einstein. Just because it is a little too complex for most people does not make it invalid, just because one prominent Scientist (who ironically started off Quantum Physics) disagreed with it does not alone invalidate the work of other prominent Scientists. Einstein is NOT an authority on physics.

[caretaker]

Mar 10, 2009 19:59:05 GMT -5 Bluefinger said:

Problem with all that is still on how do Quantum Mechanical effects translate into a meaningful and observable model that can pinpoint not only behavioural aspects, but also show how certain processes evolve within the brain. The means to generate consciousness is there in the brain, and damage to the brain will incur alterations to said consciousness. This at least highlights the biological 'anchor', not something rooted in Quantum mechanics. As Vene pointed out, drugs alone can alter one's consciousness. How does this get explained via a Quantum Model as opposed to a chemical and biological one?

If I had a transcript of the symposium, I could quote what the quantum physicist says as regards the first, and main, issue - but Bob knows I have enough sense not to try and put it in my own words (I barely passed Single Award Science >>). At any rate, it was... really comprehensive, though at one point he ended up on a full geek!rant about how mainstream science is full of dickheads (which was rather lulzy, incidentally).

Anyway - biology does account for a staggering amount of awareness, consciousness, sense of self etc - just look at the God Spot that at work during 'religious euphoria'. The best way I can summarise it - fear the incoming layman muddle! - is that the hypothesis treats the brain as a receptor that processes consciousness, like a TV. When your TV craps out, it doesn't mean the signal isn't still broadcasting, your TV just can't do anything with it anymore.

I hate to hold my hands up in a debate, but to get proper, scientific detail, I can only point mutely at the various links. I think I may already have done some damage with my telly analogy >>;

As to the rest, I simply have no rejoinder - you're right. All the same, I find the hypothesis interesting, and I'm quite happy to follow the studies and see if anything comes of it.

(If this has made little to no sense, it's because I haven't slept in a very long time ^^;)

[Bluefinger]

Mar 11, 2009 3:33:47 GMT -5 caretaker said:

If I had a transcript of the symposium, I could quote what the quantum physicist says as regards the first, and main, issue - but Bob knows I have enough sense not to try and put it in my own words (I barely passed Single Award Science >>). At any rate, it was... really comprehensive, though at one point he ended up on a full geek!rant about how mainstream science is full of dickheads (which was rather lulzy, incidentally).

Ranting on about Scientists being dicks is kinda a warning sign. Scientists ARE dicks, purely for the fact that they operate within a strict meritocracy. If you aren't being a dick and trying to punch holes through someone's ideas, then most likely, you are doing it wrong. That's just Science though, and criticism and critique can get very harsh.

Mar 11, 2009 3:33:47 GMT -5 caretaker said:

Anyway - biology does account for a staggering amount of awareness, consciousness, sense of self etc - just look at the God Spot that at work during 'religious euphoria'. The best way I can summarise it - fear the incoming layman muddle! - is that the hypothesis treats the brain as a receptor that processes consciousness, like a TV. When your TV craps out, it doesn't mean the signal isn't still broadcasting, your TV just can't do anything with it anymore.

A receptor? Well then, the problem with that hypothesis is it shifts the source of consciousness away from the brain and what we can actually measure and observe. If the brain is only a receptor, what is the source and how does that relate to the evolution of the brain, how certain behaviours get modified via chemical means, etc. I know these questions may be beyond your scope to answer, but I'm highlighting them to point out at least to you and everyone that these questions are serious problems with regards to that quantum consciousness hypothesis. Moving the source of consciousness away from the brain only creates problems as to figure out what the source is and how to detect it empirically, etc.

Also, computers and CPU's directly work at the level where quantum mechanical effects are serious considerations, and yet, whilst we know the machines work within strict architectures and the like, what is stopping an inorganic structure from taking part in the quantum consciousness. It works at the level where quantum mechanical effects are big enough to incur design considerations, and they are complex enough to warrant some serious computational power. I'm guessing this has to do more with organic origins and means, at least consciousness as we know it, but should we make an artificial synaptic network working at the nanometre scale, would it not be unreasonable to expect consciousness to be created from such a device, as long as it is able to work with quantum mechanical effects? Assuming of course if the hypothesis is correct.

Mar 11, 2009 3:33:47 GMT -5 caretaker said:

I hate to hold my hands up in a debate, but to get proper, scientific detail, I can only point mutely at the various links. I think I may already have done some damage with my telly analogy >>;

As to the rest, I simply have no rejoinder - you're right. All the same, I find the hypothesis interesting, and I'm quite happy to follow the studies and see if anything comes of it.

(If this has made little to no sense, it's because I haven't slept in a very long time ^^;)

That's fine, but I am just being a sceptical bastard. I am kinda wary of ideas/hypothesises like Quantum Consciousness, especially when they concern themselves with things we currently understand quite well via other means. Again, whilst we may not know how consciousness emerges, we know it does emerge from the brain, and that we can alter and modify the state through drugs and damage. I have little reason to suspect an external source for consciousness.

[peanutfan]

Ok, sorry it took so long for me to reply.

First off, to those who've taken it upon themselves to correct my misunderstandings, thank you. I should have included links in my original post, but caretaker has stepped into that space quite well, and I thank him for it.

Secondly, I resent being compared to creationists. I never made a positive claim in my original post; I freely admitted that it was based on a layman's understanding and misunderstandings, and I never tried to say that the scientific community was wrong in any of its fields the way creationists do. As several of you pointed out, my post doesn't even reach the level of hypothesis; it's speculation, and I never tried to paint it as anything more. If I ever come out and make a claim that I am correct IN SPITE OF THE EVIDENCE the way creationists do, please direct me to the nearest museum of science and lock me in until I've gotten my head screwed on straight.