quantum consciousness

[gib65]

Has anyone heard of quantum consciousness? Here's a website that describes it:

 

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

 

Any thoughts/comments? How close is this to being "real science"?

[aaronmyung]

I'm not a scientist or anything, but thats really interesting, I'd love to hear what everyon has to say about this.

[swansont]

Has anyone heard of quantum consciousness? Here's a website that describes it:

 

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

 

Any thoughts/comments? How close is this to being "real science"?

 

Judge for yourself: Step 1 on the way to being science: Does he have testable hypotheses? Is the idea falsifiable?

[bascule]

Consciousness is a mechanistic process of the brain. This seems like a vain attempt at Cartesian Dualism, which Daniel Dennett debunks extensively in Consciousness Explained.

[gib65]

Judge for yourself: Step 1 on the way to being science: Does he have testable hypotheses? Is the idea falsifiable?

 

Yes, these are certainly criteria for being real science, but what I'm wondering is overall, how strongly does the scientific community of the world consider this to be fact as opposed to speculation. You know what I mean? Take string theory, for example. Today, string theory is still not completely accept by 99% of scientists and it has yet to be seen if it will one day be considered "the truth", but it's way more scientifically grounded than, say, Jung's theory of the collective unconscious. Where does quantum consciousness stand in this regard?

[Bluenoise]

This looks really cool.

[bascule]

This looks really cool.

 

What he's saying will eventually happen as consciousness and not chaos becomes the dominant force in the universe. In fact, it may happen Real Soon Now, but it sure isn't happening yet.

[Royston]

I think the idea of a quantum consciousness is so appealing that someone would dedicate their whole life trying to prove it. If you're going to base science on subjective accounts (out of body experiences under anaesthetic et.c) it's bound not to be taken seriously, and just breaks down to philosophy again. (I've tried and embarrassed myself).

 

Whatever models you construct to prove it, the maths have to agree...string theory has thrown out multiple dimensions through it's equations which will (we hope) be whittled down through super symmetry, but it is just a theory (hence the name). If string theory hasn't yet provided us with a complete equation of our observations, how can you possibly have a viable model for conscious thought.

 

I think that's the pinnacle of science, to answer the question 'why I am here', or 'why you are there'. I'd be very uneasy if they knew why 'I was here' but couldn't account for anyone else.

 

Though the answer may manifest in a completely unpredicatable fashion...a technological breakthrough, and if anything has accelerated our understanding of the universe it's technology.

 

I would also say that foundationalism is fundamental if you need to compare a viable theory e.g the foundation of physics is about as viable as you can get, against one mans quest to unlock the awesome power of consciousness. It isn't taken seriously by physicists because it's taking a huge jump.

 

I believe conscious thought is unique, but probably best to work out the system around us than to work out something that can manipulate the system. One step at a time, or you end up with books like 'conversations with God', which makes me feel quite nauseous.

[CanadaAotS]

I've heard of this before, its like the photon going through 2 slit holes, it seems like it goes through both, until its observed and then consciousness dictates what the photon actually did... quantum consciousness sounds plausible, since consciousness already can dictate things like light.

[bascule]

I've heard of this before, its like the photon going through 2 slit holes, it seems like it goes through both, until its observed and then consciousness[/i'] dictates what the photon actually did

 

Or perhaps particles exhibit particle-like behavior when interacting with other particles and wave-like behavior when they're not. Consciousness really has nothing to do with it; a "which path" detector will destroy the interference pattern exhibited by the double slit experiment regardless of if there is a conscious entity there to observe it or not.

[pljames]

This is totally new to me. I feel it is on the edge of the Neuroscience field. I have two software programs which goes into this mindmapping thought. One is like a flowchart and the other is multiple list like synapses of the brain with inconnected links. Like a map. Theres something there that attracts me to it. Can anyone relate to where I am coming from and tell me wher I can get more information about mindmapping? pljames

[DV8 2XL]

Since the publication of Roger Penrose's two books The Emperor's New Mind (1989), and Shadows of the Mind (1994), there has been a tremendous resurgence of interest in exploring possible connections between quantum mechanical phenomena and consciousness. But there have been those who have been exploring the connection for many decades. In this essay, I will first briefly run through Penrose's main ideas, especially as they have been developed in collaboration with Stuart Hameroff. I will then discuss some of the reasons that people have had for trying to defend some such connection since long before the Penrose-led resurgence.

 

Penrose's main argument

 

Penrose's main argumentative line can be summed up as follows (this summary is taken from Grush and Churchland (1995)):

 

Part A: Nonalgorithmicity of human conscious thought.

 

A1) Human thought, at least in some instances, is sound , yet nonalgorithmic (i.e. noncomputational). (Hypothesis based on the Gödel result.)

 

A2) In these instances, the human thinker is aware of or conscious of the contents of these thoughts.

 

A3) The only recognized instances of nonalgorithmic processes in the universe are perhaps certain kinds of randomness; e.g. the reduction of the quantum mechanical state vector. (Based on accepted physical theories.)

 

A4) Randomness is not promising as the source of the nonalgorithmicity needed to account for (1). (Otherwise mathematical understanding would be magical.)

 

Therefore:

 

A5) Conscious human thought, at least in some cases, perhaps in all cases, relies on principles which are beyond current physical understanding, though not in principle beyond any (e.g. some future) scientific physical understanding. (Via A1 - A4)

 

 

Part B: Inadequacy of Current Physical Theory, and How to Fix It.

 

 

B1) There is no current adequate theory concerning the 'collapse' of the quantum mechanical wave function, but an additional theory of quantum gravity might be useful to this end.

 

B2) A more adequate theory of wave function collapse (a part, perhaps, of a quantum gravity theory) could incorporate nonalgorithmic, yet nonrandom, processes. (Penrose hypothesis.)

 

B3) The existence of quasicrystals is evidence for some such currently unrecognized, nonalgorithmic physical process.

 

Therefore:

 

B4) Future theories of physics, in particular quantum gravity, can be expected to incorporate nonalgorithmic processes. (via B1 - B3)

 

Part C: Microtubules as the means of harnessing quantum gravity.

 

C1) Microtubules have properties which make certain quantum mechanical phenomena (e.g. super-radiance) possible. (Hameroff/Penrose hypothesis.)

 

C2) These nonalgorithmic nonrandom processes will be sufficient, in some sense, to account for A5. (Penrose hypothesis.)

 

C3) Microtubules play a key role in neuron function.

 

C4) Neurons play a key role in cognition and consciousness.

 

C5) Microtubules play a key role in consciousness/cognition (by C3, C4 and transitivity).

 

 

Therefore:

 

C6) Microtubules, because they have one foot in quantum mechanics and the other in conscious thought, provide a window for nonalgorithmicity in human cognition.

 

 

Conclusion:

 

D) Quantum gravity, or something similar,via microtubules, must play a key role in consciousness and cognition.

 

Part A takes up a large chunk of Penrose (1994), and although I think his argument ultimately fails, I cannot imagine anyone doing a better job of trying to make that argument. Part B gets into much of Penrose's non-consciousness-related thought, in particular a theory of quantum gravity that he has been working on for some time. Part C is due mostly to Stuart Hameroff (see, e.g. Hameroff (1994)), who has been conjecturing on the computational capacities of microtubules for a while, but was inspired by Penrose's work to work out a theory of quantum mechanical effects in microtubules.

 

Details on Penrose's argument are best found in his Shadows of the Mind (1994), and details of the criticisms can be found in Grush and Churchland (1995) [a draft of this paper is available here]. Penrose and Hameroff (1995) is a brief reply to the criticisms of Grush and Churchland. Furthermore, there are on-line papers by both Penrose and Hameroff, listed below, that will provide more details from the proponents themselves.

 

Motivations for quantum theories of consciousness

 

Apart from Penrose's work, there are many who have drawn connections between quantum mechanics and consciousness. There are a number of motivations that have driven people to look for such a connection. Here are a few of the more influential:

 

1. Free will. Many people are convinced that humans have free will, and yet are also convinced that the Newtonian-mechanical goings-on of things as large as neurons makes no room for free will. They thus turn to quantum mechanics in the hope that the non-determinism of the collapse of the wave function will provide a foot in the door for free will. Of course the wave function collapse is, according to current theory, random, and it is not clear that this is any better than determinism when it comes to explaining free will. Nevertheless, the hope seems to be that, at least in some cases, consciousness exerts its influence on the world through effecting some collapses, presumable some in the brain somewhere, in one way rather than another.

 

2. The unity of consciousness. It is claimed that consciousness has a unity, or wholeness to it, that cannot be explained by reducing consciousness to a scattered group of neurons. Rather, many think that quantum mechanical coherence (a phenomenon whereby many different objects can share a single wave function, and in some respects behave as a single particle) gives an explanation for this. Of course, it could be objected that this line of reasoning rests on a blatant content/vehicle confusion. From the fact that some of our introspections have a content with certain properties (we perceive our consciousness to be non-scattered, for example), it is concluded that the vehicle of this content must also have these properties (being non-scattered, for example). Of course this line of reasoning fails horribly. The bank's computer represents my checking account as a more or less unified entity, but the electromagnetic objects that constitute the vehicle of that representation are scattered widely, and could be scattered over a large geographic area -- perhaps even distributed with parts of record from other accounts --, depending on how their computer hardware is set up. One can write the word 'red' in blue ink. In general, there need be no match between the properties that characterize a content, and the properties of the vehicle that carry that content. Given this, there seems to be little motivation to try to explain the unity of consciousness via quantum mechanical coherence.

 

3. The mysteriousness of consciousness. Consciousness appears to be an extremely mysterious phenomenon. It is not clear how a collection of molecules whose chemical composition is not unlike that of a cheese omelet could be aware of anything, to feel pain, or see red, or dream about the future. Quantum mechanics also seems to be very mysterious -- particles going traversing two paths at the same time, for example. So perhaps they are the same mystery. Nobody phrases it that way, of course, but this seems to be a line of intuition that motivates many people. It is often argued that mere neurons could not be conscious or aware, and this seems to be because one can imagine all the working of of a neuron, or even a large group of neurons, without seeing how consciousness could be implicated. But because the mechanisms underlying quantum mechanical phenomena are less viaualizable, or comprehensible, or whatever, it seems not to be as clear that something as mysterious as consciousness couldn't work its way into the machine somehow. Clearly, this intuition survives only as long as the mechanisms of quantum mechanics are mysterious to the person making the argument.

 

 

Rick Grush

[Bio-Hazard]

If I comprehend this correctly, this guy is creating a metaphysical proposal as to how the mind is awakened by environmental factors on a quantum scale.

 

Suppose that are things are chemical within the brain, certain psychophysics creating energy waves interpreted by the body which make the minds chemical structure change. We are simply not "living" but reacting to a exponential amount of energy fluxuations in nature that have become a biological predispostion.

 

Which would probably come to an idea of why emotions are created from physiological change.

 

The idea of physiological change which changes emotion must be prebuilt and wired into our human brains which aided our survival for billions of years. I think environment is going to have a lot to do with this.

[ashennell]

C3) Microtubules play a key role in neuron function.

 

C4) Neurons play a key role in cognition and consciousness.

 

C5) Microtubules play a key role in consciousness/cognition (by C3, C4 and transitivity).

 

 

Therefore:

 

C6) Microtubules, because they have one foot in quantum mechanics and the other in conscious thought, provide a window for nonalgorithmicity in human cognition.

 

This part of the quantum theory of consciousness has always bothered me. Microtubules are not specific to neurons, they occur in all cell types as far as I am aware. There functions across different cell types are similar and usually structural. Specifically, there is no known link between microtubules and the information processing role of neurons.

 

Wikipedia gives a bit more info -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtubules

 

So maybe their is a quantum explanation for consciousness but I doubt that it would have anything to do with microtubules.

[Ophiolite]

The Penrose argument, as ably summarised by DV8 2XL, appears to be analogous to the following:

 

1. Rocks are made of minerals.

2. Some Universities are made of rocks

3. Minerals can often be green or white or brown etc

4. Therefore colours cause advanced centres of learning to be built

 

It's not wholly convincing.

[gib65]

This part of the quantum theory of consciousness has always bothered me. Microtubules are not specific to neurons' date=' they occur in all cell types as far as I am aware. There functions across different cell types are similar and usually structural. Specifically, there is no known link between microtubules and the information processing role of neurons.

[/quote']

 

Hey, I didn't know this. So microtubules are not specific to neurons? What about their roll in determining whether or not a neuron fires? As far as I am aware, only neurons fire. So even if microtubules are common among many different cell types, could their function still be said to be unique for neurons?

[ashennell]

Hey, I didn't know this. So microtubules are not specific to neurons? What about their roll in determining whether or not a neuron fires? As far as I am aware, only neurons fire. So even if microtubules are common among many different cell types, could their function still be said to be unique for neurons?

 

Microtubules have structural functions - they are part of the cytoskeleton. they are also involved in intracellular transport. I think they are involved in transport of chemicals along axons e.g. neurotranmitters.

 

However, what I can say for certain is that after studying neuroscience for 8 years I have never come across any case where microtubules make a significant impact on the way neurons process information. there are some very detailed single-cell models of different neuron types arounf. They mimic the electrical properties of real neurons quite well. The important factors in achieving this are a similar morphology (e.g. dendrite length and diameter) and matching the ratio of the different ion channels present. Microtubules are not required.

[bascule]

Microtubules, because they have one foot in quantum mechanics and the other in conscious thought, provide a window for nonalgorithmicity in human cognition.

 

Oh god, I didn't see this buried before in that enormous pile of BULLSHIT.

 

Why are people so obsessed with finding some way to demonstrate that consciousness is somehow non-deterministic, as if "random" behavior would somehow allow for free will when deterministic behavior does not.

 

I think there's this sort of desperation to find a quantum mechanical link to the operation of consciousness because people think that if there were then you have a doorway to some sort of Absolute Metaphysical Free Will (i.e. a soul)

 

Keep looking folks; you aren't going to find it. In the end you'll have to abandon your foolish Cartesian Dualism and accept that consciousness is an innately materialistic process.

[ashennell]

Why are people so obsessed with finding some way to demonstrate that consciousness is somehow non-deterministic, as if "random" behavior would somehow allow for free will when deterministic behavior does not.

 

Have you been reading Dennet's new book ?

[gib65]

Oh god' date=' I didn't see this buried before in that enormous pile of BULLSHIT.

 

Why are people so obsessed with finding some way to demonstrate that consciousness is somehow non-deterministic, as if "random" behavior would somehow allow for free will when deterministic behavior does not.

 

I think there's this sort of desperation to find a quantum mechanical link to the operation of consciousness because people think that if there were then you have a doorway to some sort of Absolute Metaphysical Free Will (i.e. a soul)

 

Keep looking folks; you aren't going to find it. In the end you'll have to abandon your foolish Cartesian Dualism and accept that consciousness is an innately materialistic process.[/quote']

 

I do, and I don't, agree with you, Bascule. I think the whole problem with free-will is that we define it as non-deterministic but without being able to imagine any other meaning for "non-deterministic" than randomness. Is it possible for there to be a third option other than determinism and randomness?

 

I don't want to argue about whether or not we truly have free-will, but if you are a hardnosed determinist, let's suspend that belief just for the sake of this discussion. Suppose there is such a thing as free-will and we have it. I think we can rule out "randomness" as a perfect description simply because if it was truly random, the behavior that would ensue from it would be completely chaotic, disorderly, and unpredictable even to the one exercising it. That is, I could be on my way to the store, and unbeknownst even to me, I could spontaneously jump out into traffic screaming and yelling like a mad man saying "Look at me!!! I'm exercising my free will!!!" If free will were truly random, I'd be afraid to step one foot out the door incase I do something as erratic, embarrassing or life-threatening like this.

 

The fact of the matter is, however, everything I choose to do is under my control. If I plan to go to the store, that's what I'll end up doing. Even if half way there, I decide not to go to the store after all, it will only be because I sudden had a rational idea or reason why I shouldn't (I forgot my wallet at home perhaps). This seems pretty orderly to me. Sure, others may not be able to predict my behavior, but that's just because they can't read my mind to see what my reasons for enacting certain behaviors are.

 

But I still say it is non-deterministic in the sense that by behavior isn't completely predetermined for the entire history of the universe, like physical processes might be. So the question is, if it's not random, how can it still be non-deterministic? That's why I think there's a third option. I don't think we have the capacity to understand what this third option is, but if for no other reason, I believe in it simply because my will (if it indeed is free-will) doesn't feel random but it doesn't feel completely deterministic either. If anything, I'd say this third option has to do with the nature of consciousness or mental experiences. I say there is something behind our freely chosen decisions, but it is not something mechanical like physical causes-and-effect. It is mental. We make our choices based on reasons or desires or plans - all mental phenomena. These mental phenomena serve the same purpose as the physical cause-and-effect mechanisms of matter and energy in that they are the motivating force behind the effect (i.e. behavior), but I don't think mental phenomena are as deterministic as mechanical cause-and-effect. But I don't think they are completely random either. This is the third option I speak of, but because it is difficult to understand what mental phenomena are or how it works, it is difficult to understand what makes it a third option.

 

But again, I only say this in the context of a suspension of belief in full determinism. I understand that you, Bascule, and other materialists have the problem of mind and matter "solved" with Identity Theory. If anyone wants to debate the validity of materialism with me, I'd be glad to do so, but I feel I've already digressed enough from the topic of this thread that it would only be appropriate to do so in another thread.

 

PS - I'm actually kind of glad to see that most people don't buy into the theory of Quantum Consciousness as it sounds shaky at best.

[ashennell]

Is it possible for there to be a third option other than determinism and randomness?

 

I dont think so. Even probablisitc changes are based on determinsitic processes - chaotic determinism. I think the important point is that from our viewpoint the world is probablistic - not random and not deterministic.

[DV8 2XL]

Big problem with this whole line of thought is that at my last count there have been 15 quantum consciousness theories put forward over the years. I summerized them in this Wikipedia article:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness

 

Which I started working on largely as a result of this thread.

 

The main argumentative line can be summed up as follows: Human thought, based on the Gödel result, is sound , yet non-algorithmic, and the human thinker is aware of or conscious of the contents of these thoughts. The only recognized instances of non-algorithmic processes in the universe, based on accepted physical theories are purely random or the reduction of the quantum mechanical state vector. Randomness is not promising as the source of the non-algorithmicity needed to account for consciousness, therefore certain quantum mechanical phenomena must be responsible.

 

Critics deride this comparison as a mere "minimization of mysteries," ( A term coined by David Chalmers, the idea that since quantum and consciousness are both mysteries, they must be related.) and point out that the brain is too warm for quantum computation, which in the technological realm requires extreme cold to avoid "decoherence" (i.e. the loss of seemingly delicate quantum states by interaction with the environment.)

 

I'd like to draw everyones attention to the Criticisms part of the article, even trying to keep an even hand, it came out rather devestating.

[gib65]

Big problem with this whole line of thought is that at my last count there have been 15 quantum consciousness theories put forward over the years. I summerized them in this Wikipedia article:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness

 

 

Yet another thing I wasn't aware of about quantum consciousness. This keeps getting better every time.

[ashennell]

DV8 2XL - thanks for the link to this article you have made. You certainly seem to know this topic inside out. So, I have a question for you.

 

I dont understand the reasoning right at the beginning. Human thought processes are non-algorithm (which I agree with) therefore a quantum exaplanation is required. Why can't the brain just use a heurisitic mechanism with any necessary pseudo-randomness required being derived from processing noise within the system or small chaotic deviations in the environment? What does it mean to say that human thought is sound? If these are the main reasons people give for needing a quantum explanation could you explain a little more. TIA.

 

I don't know but it seems to me that something being deterministic is not that important - what is more important is whether you can predict it or not. i.e. something that is deterministic is not necessarily predicatable given limitations on the model you can use.

[Zero Wing]

I had a nano-conversation about this with a physics teacher in my school, and he said one of the reigning theories concerning conciousness was that everything percieved at any given point in time was the product of wave function fluxuations, which is supposedly how the brain retains (and perhaps archives) memory.