Is quantum mechanics a materialistic theory?

[tkadm30]

Can the quantum mechanics (QM) theory disprove scientific materialism by providing evidences of quantum nonlocality in biological systems?

[Strange]

What do you mean by scientific materialism?

 

And why would quantum non locality in biological systems disprove it?

[tkadm30]

What do you mean by scientific materialism?

 

And why would quantum non locality in biological systems disprove it?

 

I refer to materialism as the idea that matter is the only reality.

 

 

Mind (will/intention) can influence the state of the physical world, and operate in a nonlocal (or extended) fashion, i.e. it is not confined to specific points in space, such as brains and bodies, nor to specific points in time, such as the present. Since the mind may nonlocally influence the physical world, the intentions, emotions, and desires of an experimenter may not be completely isolated from experimental outcomes, even in controlled and blinded experimental designs.

 

What do you think about this concept of the quantum mind ?

 

http://opensciences.org/about/manifesto-for-a-post-materialist-science

[Eise]

I refer to materialism as the idea that matter is the only reality.

 

The manifesto you link below is pretty clear that modern physics' materialism is not the same as it once was. That is a reason not to use the concept 'materialism' anymore, but use 'physicalism' instead: the idea that all processes in the world are in the end based on physical processes. But 'based' on physical processes does not mean that every phenomenon can directly be derived from the physical processes. To give an example: evolution in biology is real process. But it is about organisms, not about elementary particles. Organisms are not a study object of physics. And one can study evolution without referencing the physical make up of organisms. But no doubt all organisms are built up of the same particles that dead matter exists of.

 

What do you think about this concept of the quantum mind ?

 

http://opensciences.org/about/manifesto-for-a-post-materialist-science

 

That it is nonsense.

 

To mention a few points (the numbers refer to the numbers in the manifesto):

 

5. However, the nearly absolute dominance of materialism in the academic world has seriously constricted the sciences and hampered the development of the scientific study of mind and spirituality. Faith in this ideology, as an exclusive explanatory framework for reality, has compelled scientists to neglect the subjective dimension of human experience. This has led to a severely distorted and impoverished understanding of ourselves and our place in nature.

 

This is partially true, partially false. The falsity is that there is no logical connection between physicalism and studying other phenomena, like evolution, the mind, society etc. These phenomena can be studied independently of knowledge what the basic building blocks of reality are, as explained above. A game of chess is exactly the same if it is played with wooden pieces on a board, with plastic, via the internet on a virtual chess board, or just in memory (as very good chess players can). Physics has just nothing to say about chess: you never will become a good chess player by studying elementary particles. But no doubt, all of these different physical forms of chess are implemented in physical reality.

True is that humanity became blind for other values than those that can be realised via technology. We enjoy our capabilities to travel anywhere in the world, hearing music at every possible place and time etc etc. The hard sciences are just the most successful, and we can enjoy the fruits of them without understanding them. If you are rich enough. So psychologically and sociologically seen there is a connection between physicalism and materialism as a life attitude. But is, again, not a logical, necessary connection. For many scientists their work is a spiritual endeavour. Surely I consider my interest in physics and astronomy as spiritual.

 

7 (..) Most importantly, QM explicitly introduced the mind into its basic conceptual structure since it was found that particles being observed and the observer—the physicist and the method used for observation—are linked. According to one interpretation of QM, this phenomenon implies that the consciousness of the observer is vital to the existence of the physical events being observed,(...)

 

This is an old fashioned way, and probably minority view, of seeing the measurement problem.

 

7 (...) and that mental events can affect the physical world.

 

Of course mental events affect the physical world! But not by being of an other ontological order (a soul?), but by being implemented in physical substance. But it is true that if we really want to understand these effects, we must have an idea what mental events are. And we cannot understand mental events with physics. Mental events have a certain independence of their material substrate, in the sense that my thinking of moving a pawn from E2 to E4 might be a very different neurological constellation of that of somebody else moving his pawn in the same way. But surely, both events are implemented in a physical reality, the brain.

 

9. Studies of the so-called "psi phenomena" indicate that we can sometimes receive meaningful information without the use of ordinary senses, and in ways that transcend the habitual space and time constraints.

 

Parapsychology has until now found no proof of such phenomena at all. So probably these phenomena only exist for uncritical observers. Under scientific scrutiny nothing is found.

 

10. Conscious mental activity can be experienced in clinical death during a cardiac arrest (this is what has been called a "near-death experience" [NDE]). Some near-death experiencers (NDErs) have reported veridical out-of-body perceptions (i.e. perceptions that can be proven to coincide with reality) that occurred during cardiac arrest.

 

NDEs can also be explained by phenomena that occur in a brain under the stress of oxygen deprivation. The claim that there is empirical proof is empty: no such proof is found under supervision of critical researchers. It is only 'proven' by 'researchers' that want to make their case.

 

14. Moreover, materialist theories fail to elucidate how brain could generate the mind, and they are unable to account for the empirical evidence alluded to in this manifesto.

 

No cognitive scientist agrees with this.

 

Nah, enough is enough. I could go on. Just this last point (OK, it is ad hominem...):

 

We are a group of internationally known scientists, from a variety of scientific fields (biology, neuroscience, psychology, medicine, psychiatry), who participated in an international summit on post-materialist science, spirituality and society.

 

<very big snap>

 

Deepak Chopra, MD, Endocrinology, Mind-body Medicine

Fellow, American College of Physicians; Adjunct Professor, Northwestern University;

Executive Scholar, Columbia University; Senior Scientist, Gallup;

Author of 82 books, 21 NYT best-sellers, USA

 

Surely, there are good reasons to criticise vulgar reductionism (we are nothing but a clump of wet matter), and our concentration on materialistic values, but this manifesto is intellectual rubbish.

[imatfaal]

Lovely post Eise

[tkadm30]

 

 

Surely, there are good reasons to criticise vulgar reductionism (we are nothing but a clump of wet matter), and our concentration on materialistic values, but this manifesto is intellectual rubbish.

 

Why? I don't know really much why Deepak Chopra signature to this manifesto could degrade its intellectual value.

 

Is quantum mechanics incompatible with physicalism? It seems to me that QM is a much more valid scientific theory to understand consciousness beyond the physical (biological) dimension.

[Eise]

Why? I don't know really much why Deepak Chopra signature to this manifesto could degrade its intellectual value.

 

Because nearly everything what he says about physics is BS, so this must be BS too.

I agree this is not a very formal argument, but in practical life it is very valuable.

 

Is quantum mechanics incompatible with physicalism?

 

No, of course not. QM is the most fundamental theory in physics. Stapp seems to equate physicalism with what I would call materialism: reduction to matter in the sense of classical (pre QM) physics. Stapp belongs to those physicists who seem to shy away from the consequences of their discipline for our human self image, and try still to find some 'magic' in nature, that should explain the human factor. Others are Penrose and Josephson.

 

It seems to me that QM is a much more valid scientific theory to understand consciousness beyond the physical (biological) dimension.

 

Who says that we need a dimension beyond physics and biology to understand consciousness? As I said before, we do not need another ontological order to explain consciousness. Read, e.g. 'Consciousness explained', by Daniel Dennett.

[Strange]

Another important point is that scientific materialism (naturalism / physicalism / whatever) is just part of the methodology of science. Science only works with (can, by definition, only work with) things that are measurable and testable. These are the things that we consider "material".

 

But not all scientists are materialists. Many are religious or have spiritual beliefs of some sort. However, they keep these separate from science because they are not quantifiable and hence not part of science.

 

Science doesn't deny the existence of things beyond the material. It just has nothing to say about them. Because they are outside the scope of science.

 

Eise has given an excellent critique of the web site you linked to. I would go slightly further and say that from point 9 onwards, the statements are increasingly dishonest. It is basically a pack of lies.

 

I would also be extremely dubious of anything that has Chopra's name associated with it. It is a very large red flag.

Edited January 7, 2017 by Strange

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Moved out of QM because there's no QM being discussed. Philosophy seems a better fit, but the dubious nature of the support for the OP does not preclude a move to the trash can if things don't improve.

[Eise]

Another important point is that scientific materialism (naturalism / physicalism / whatever) is just part of the methodology of science. Science only works with (can, by definition, only work with) things that are measurable and testable. These are the things that we consider "material".

 

I do not quite agree. For the hard sciences you are completely correct. But I think it does not apply for the social sciences or literature. (Of course you can say these are not really sciences, but then we get into another discussion...)

 

We can investigate mental states: we can look for correlations with other states, we can theorise about what kind of structures are needed that mental states actually can arise (e.g. as in cognitive science), we can investigate intelligence, its different forms and qualities etc etc. So in my opinion one cannot conclude from working with measurable and testable phenomena to 'materialistic method'. But one thing of course is sure: we must at least be able to observe phenomena.

 

But not all scientists are materialists. Many are religious or have spiritual beliefs of some sort. However, they keep these separate from science because they are not quantifiable and hence not part of science.

 

Here it is important that the manifesto discusses science, not scientists. What scientists believe in their private time is not the issue.

 

Science doesn't deny the existence of things beyond the material. It just has nothing to say about them. Because they are outside the scope of science.

 

Formally you are right. But the more science is able to explain phenomena that were supposed to be 'immaterial', the less people will believe them to be not a possible object of scientific research. Also, even if people say they believe in God, very often they do not have the naive picture of God as a man with a big beard in the sky, or a person who caused the Flood, or somebody who helped the people of Israel to find their way back, or had a son on earth etc etc. Even stronger, people involved in science tend to be more atheistic, or have a very abstract concept of God.

So it is a quite modern view that science has nothing to say about God: it has reduced God to a more and more abstract or vague Something. To be short: I don't buy into NOMA.

 

I would go slightly further and say that from point 9 onwards, the statements are increasingly dishonest. It is basically a pack of lies.

 

That is the short version of my critique...

Moved out of QM because there's no QM being discussed. Philosophy seems a better fit, but the dubious nature of the support for the OP does not preclude a move to the trash can if things don't improve.

 

Thanks for the moving, you are completely correct. But please not to trash. I did so my best to write a nice critique on this manifesto, I would prefer that it it does not disappear into trash...

Edited January 8, 2017 by Eise

[MigL]

Yes you did, Eise.

You have always tempered philosophical discussions with enough 'real' science to make them palatable.

Always look forward to reading your posts.

[StringJunky]

Yes you did, Eise.

You have always tempered philosophical discussions with enough 'real' science to make them palatable.

Always look forward to reading your posts.

He's about the only one of two I can think of here that seems to do it anywhere near properly imo. Ydoaps is the other person that handles it meaningfully but he's got a very firm science grounding as well.

Edited January 8, 2017 by StringJunky

[Strange]

 

Thanks for the moving, you are completely correct. But please not to trash. I did so my best to write a nice critique on this manifesto, I would prefer that it it does not disappear into trash...

 

 

I think we are largely in agreement.

 

And I think you have probably saved the thread from the Trash, single handedly!

[seriously disabled]

General relativity, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory are so hard that I admit that I'm just not smart enough to learn all of the complicated mathematics by myself.

Those of us who become successful theoretical/mathematical physicists must be very intelligent people with a very good brain.

Access to good books is another obstacle in becoming good at physics.

Physics textbooks can be very expensive and right now I simply don't have the money to afford them.

[hoola]

I have long thought that consciousness is a defacto 5th force. Not a fundamental, but an emergent force having an ability via observation to, under certain conditions, modify to varying degrees, the behavior of the actual fundamental forces resulting in a purely physical and very specific change or set of changes. I see an analogy that as matter warps space, consciousness can have.a similar effect on extant reality. The effects are almost always negligible and lie below the threshold of awareness, and when the interaction rises above the trivial,  perceived as a statistical fluke and a meaningless coincidence. Since the quantum has the underlying structure offering up  non locality, based upon an "imaginary" logic structure of an "impossible" sq. rt. of minus one, it seems natural to point to that as possible framework that supports some perceptional  anomalies.  A spectrum of events can occur, making it difficult to pin down an actual cause/effect relation to observed oddities generated by a sort of "feedback loop" between the observer and the observed, very dependent on the situational mental state of the observer, making it difficult to track in a meaningful way an understanding or explanation and largely forming a barrier to even attempting an understanding. This barrier is reinforced by the simple fact that in normal human societal interactions, the effects can be ignored, and do not add to overall societal needs and familial duties. I have considered that since the quantum offers the ability to allow the electron the property of not tumbling into the nucleus, thus negating matter, doesn't this fundamental property mean that the quantum effect may show up in other, less obvious manners in the brain?

Edited August 31, 2017 by hoola

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, hoola said:

I have long thought that consciousness is a defacto 5th force. Not a fundamental, but an emergent force having an ability via observation to, under certain conditions, modify to varying degrees, the behavior of the actual fundamental forces resulting in a purely physical and very specific change or set of changes. I

Any evidence for that? Every experiment I have seen to test psychic abilities either shows no effect or is fundamentally flawed. 

It sounds like you are saying these effects are undetectably small. In which case, they might as well not exist. 

[hoola]

well, I didn't choose the parameters that the universe consists of....and would prefer a more comprehensible one. The odd effects offered up to anyone "paying attention" are not only a taxation on this individual, but are the long term reason for religion in history, with it's usual bigotry and destructive force. It also occurs to me that what we call  the Fermi Paradox, or a barrier to sentience durability wherever it arises in the universe is caused by this pesky quantum. While allowing matter to stabilize and not self destruct, has the perverse property of perplexing it's inhabitants to the point of extinction...I have no desire to go into details of "psychic abilities" with anyone. The "barrier" is there, and perhaps is a basic survival strategy that should be, for the time being, respected...