|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 23, 2021 10:52:11 GMT
Crap like Chopra's "quantum mysticism" for one. Of course, to debunk something it has to be scientifically testable to begin with, and BS like Chopra's isn't. Better just to call it woo or pseudoscience, and we can ignore it for the same reason we ignore the idea of extra-dimensional unicorns. I noticed some of the Intelligent Design folks are latching onto it lately. However, quantum biology and its effects on human consciousness is not necessarily pseudoscience. What successful empirical predictions has it made? Because I'm not aware of any, and not making such predictions is a hallmark of pseudoscience. I realize there are a few scientists (Roger Penrose being the most eminent one) that buy into various quantum consciousness stuff, but they're still in the minority and on the fringe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 23, 2021 11:23:48 GMT
What successful empirical predictions has it made? Because I'm not aware of any, and not making such predictions is a hallmark of pseudoscience. I realize there are a few scientists (Roger Penrose being the most eminent one) that buy into various quantum consciousness stuff, but they're still in the minority and on the fringe. Unless human consciousness is a supernatural, God-given attribute, then it has a material, natural explanation. Since quantum sub-particles are matter, then there is no reason to dismiss the idea of quantum matter/forces effecting human thought processes somehow. Or are you saying this is a total impossibility? I think we're talking about different things. I would agree that thought is determined by the physics and matter of a brain, which ultimately boils down to the quantum level like all other matter and physics. That reductive/material view of consciousness is very different than the various "quantum consciousness" ideas out there. I'd recommend reading Wikipedia's page on the matter: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind Though that page just covers the ideas that at least have some interest from serious scientists rather than the complete bunk that Chopra et al. peddle (that's probably covered under the "quantum mysticism" link there). While I wouldn't deny that the mind ultimately boils down to the quantum level like everything else, I'm more skeptical of the idea that specifically quantum events like superpositions have a direct affect on our conscious experience. Max Tegmark has offered, IMO, a pretty devastating critique of that notion by talking of the timescales involved: "(Tegmark's) calculations indicate that quantum systems in the brain decohere at sub-picosecond timescales. No response by a brain has shown computational results or reactions on this fast of a timescale. Typical reactions are on the order of milliseconds, trillions of times longer than sub-picosecond timescales."
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 23, 2021 21:07:40 GMT
I think we're talking about different things. I would agree that thought is determined by the physics and matter of a brain, which ultimately boils down to the quantum level like all other matter and physics. That reductive/material view of consciousness is very different than the various "quantum consciousness" ideas out there. I'd recommend reading Wikipedia's page on the matter: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind Though that page just covers the ideas that at least have some interest from serious scientists rather than the complete bunk that Chopra et al. peddle (that's probably covered under the "quantum mysticism" link there). While I wouldn't deny that the mind ultimately boils down to the quantum level like everything else, I'm more skeptical of the idea that specifically quantum events like superpositions have a direct affect on our conscious experience. Max Tegmark has offered, IMO, a pretty devastating critique of that notion by talking of the timescales involved: "(Tegmark's) calculations indicate that quantum systems in the brain decohere at sub-picosecond timescales. No response by a brain has shown computational results or reactions on this fast of a timescale. Typical reactions are on the order of milliseconds, trillions of times longer than sub-picosecond timescales." But we have quantum level active inside the atoms in our brains don't we? Yes, there's quantum-level activity everywhere, but it's happening on such a small level that it's almost certainly undetectable by our consciousness. The human brain has something like 456 trillion trillion atoms, and there's three particles per atom. Our specific experience of consciousness is almost certainly more a result of the more complex/macro structures that those atoms/particles form and how they move/interact rather than any individual events at the quantum level. It's a bit like asking do we "feel" temperature or the movement of molecules; well, it's both, because the former is just the average measurement of the latter within a given system, but any individual movement of a molecule has such a small effect on our perception of heat that temperature is a much better (more useful) measurement of what we're going to experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 23, 2021 21:39:02 GMT
Yes, there's quantum-level activity everywhere, but it's happening on such a small level that it's almost certainly undetectable by our consciousness. The human brain has something like 456 trillion trillion atoms, and there's three particles per atom. Our specific experience of consciousness is almost certainly more a result of the more complex/macro structures that those atoms/particles form and how they move/interact rather than any individual events at the quantum level. It's a bit like asking do we "feel" temperature or the movement of molecules; well, it's both, because the former is just the average measurement of the latter within a given system, but any individual movement of a molecule has such a small effect on our perception of heat that temperature is a much better (more useful) measurement of what we're going to experience. That’s only what we know so far and yet all life seems to operate under quantum’s rhythm. Who knows what we will learn if we remain open-minded. Certainly scientists should not interject any spirituality into their work, but that does not mean they can’t go home at the end of the day and ponder what they’ve just discovered in their science lies beyond that science. But it is funny that like with the Big Bang, Christians see a creation story that coincides with their own. With quantum physics, Buddhists and other Eastern faiths see metempsychosis. Not sure what your first sentence means. Like I've said, I agree all life operates under QM, that's different from the argument that we can feel/detect specific, individual quantum effects consciously, the same way we do not detect the individual movement of molecules as opposed to temperature. To me, open-mindedness just means always being willing to revise our beliefs based on new evidence. The minute someone posts evidence that we can consciously detect quantum events, I'll be willing to change my opinion on the matter. Most religions are vague enough or can be read metaphorically enough to interpret science as being in support of them, though much of the time it's just ad hoc rationalization too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 23, 2021 22:26:09 GMT
Not sure what your first sentence means. Like I've said, I agree all life operates under QM, that's different from the argument that we can feel/detect specific, individual quantum effects consciously, the same way we do not detect the individual movement of molecules as opposed to temperature. To me, open-mindedness just means always being willing to revise our beliefs based on new evidence. The minute someone posts evidence that we can consciously detect quantum events, I'll be willing to change my opinion on the matter. Most religions are vague enough or can be read metaphorically enough to interpret science as being in support of them, though much of the time it's just ad hoc rationalization too. A thousand years ago, reality was the universe “revolved” the Earth. A little over one hundred years ago, the quantum realm didn’t “exist” and time only had one arrow. That’s all. Sure, and the thing that changed those incorrect beliefs was scientific evidence. That's what we should keep an open mind about, while speculation remains just speculation.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 23, 2021 22:59:20 GMT
Sure, and the thing that changed those incorrect beliefs was scientific evidence. That's what we should keep an open mind about, while speculation remains just speculation. Since I’m not a scientist, I can speculate all I want. What I won’t do is claim science has proved my personal spirituality. But a person can talk and think about both subjects without mental conflict. Reading this thread ( which I am enjoying immensely ) is what comes to my mind as THE BIG QUESTION. To me it is whether before the brain is formed or forming and after the brain is dead...whether there is any 'residual' or potential molecular or atomic or quantum activity. At present it seems to me that the ONLY way of having any imprint on th past or the future is the evolutionary ihiertance of your parents DNA and the passing on of your own in conjunction with one other set of DNA. It would seem that religious people who believe in life after death propose that there is another way to transcend evolution in some kind of 'whatever' activity after death. This is the greatest problem I see with this discussion. ie the application of knowledge to current beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 23, 2021 23:06:18 GMT
Sure, and the thing that changed those incorrect beliefs was scientific evidence. That's what we should keep an open mind about, while speculation remains just speculation. Since I’m not a scientist, I can speculate all I want. What I won’t do is claim science has proved my personal spirituality. But a person can talk and think about both subjects without mental conflict. Sure, as long as it's idle speculation. Problem with all speculation is that it's only as good as our knowledge and reasoning, and when we're not experts both of those things are bound to be pretty limited. The more you know, the more your imagination is bound by that knowledge and the less it can run away into The Land of Woo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 23, 2021 23:23:28 GMT
Sure, as long as it's idle speculation. Problem with all speculation is that it's only as good as our knowledge and reasoning, and when we're not experts both of those things are bound to be pretty limited. The more you know, the more your imagination is bound by that knowledge and the less it can run away into The Land of Woo. I don’t know. Both Hawking, Sagan, and many others got pretty woo-ie in their own ways. No matter what the numbers say, humans will be constrained from the pure data because we can only effectively communicate using narratives...like Schroedinger's Cat. It is interesting that a lot of physicists are sometimes openly part-time metaphysicalists. Depends on what Woo you're referring to with Hawking and Sagan. Thing is, speculation and imagination are necessary for science as its the foundation for developing hypotheses; but hypotheses without empirical testing are generally useless and most likely to be wrong, and most scientists realize this. They may disagree on what direction the available evidence is pointing at, but they usually don't get as far out-of-bounds as Chopra and his ilk who are completely ignorant of the science they reference and speculate about. I've opined about the lack of philosophical interest among modern scientists and the lack of sophistication among those who care enough to comment on it. I think part of that stems, at least partly, from the 20th century embarrassment of scientists not being able to explain what QM says about reality compared with the immense utility of using QM calculations. Hence the "shut up and calculate" mantra. That's a big reason why I appreciate Sean Carroll so much, and he's talked about the same thing: www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/23/physicists-should-stop-saying-silly-things-about-philosophy/
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 23, 2021 23:56:50 GMT
Depends on what Woo you're referring to with Hawking and Sagan. Thing is, speculation and imagination are necessary for science as its the foundation for developing hypotheses; but hypotheses without empirical testing are generally useless and most likely to be wrong, and most scientists realize this. They may disagree on what direction the available evidence is pointing at, but they usually don't get as far out-of-bounds as Chopra and his ilk who are completely ignorant of the science they reference and speculate about. I've opined about the lack of philosophical interest among modern scientists and the lack of sophistication among those who care enough to comment on it. I think part of that stems, at least partly, from the 20th century embarrassment of scientists not being able to explain what QM says about reality compared with the immense utility of using QM calculations. Hence the "shut up and calculate" mantra. That's a big reason why I appreciate Sean Carroll so much, and he's talked about the same thing: www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/23/physicists-should-stop-saying-silly-things-about-philosophy/A lot stems for fear too. I think Carroll does keep the possibility open of asking with in science some difficult questions material positivism does not allow. Science itself can be dogmatic and slow to think new thoughts. You dismiss the human brain as incapable of handling quantum activity, but could it be possible we don’t know the mechanism within science to test any quantum brain activity yet? Just like it took decades to prove Einstein’s impossibly expanding universe possible. Or that lightwaves don’t propagate through the aether. Or that most of the stuff in this universe we don’t squat about yet. Believe, I’m not about to call any woo-thing God. God, like all supernatural, is a manifestation narrative from the human psyche. I get what you say about Chopra, he’s a New Age Conman. A kundalini snake oil salesman. Why is it snakes? Always snakes. I'd say scientists (like all humans) can be dogmatic and slow to think new thoughts and/or adapt to new evidence. There's actually been studies that show that, much like with other human activities, younger scientists tend to embrace newer ideas more than older scientists. Science isn't a perfect foil to human biases; it's just the best we have. I don't dismiss the brain as being incapable of handling quantum activity; in fact, I'm quite sure the brain (like everything else) handles quantum activity. My issue is I'm skeptical that we can consciously detect that activity. There's a ton of brain activity that we aren't conscious of. And: ![]()  
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 24, 2021 1:37:47 GMT
I don't dismiss the brain as being incapable of handling quantum activity; in fact, I'm quite sure the brain (like everything else) handles quantum activity. My issue is I'm skeptical that we can consciously detect that activity. There's a ton of brain activity that we aren't conscious of. I wouldn't even go that far. I think the best physical model we currently have for the brain and mind are neural networks, and you don't need to involve quantum mechanics to describe their behavior, any more than you do to come up with a physical model of the heart. The fact that we are composed of atoms that obey quantum mechanics is a detail that is irrelevant to explaining how the brain and heart function, as I see it. Machine/deep learning extensively use neural networks, implemented as computer software (usually run on a GPU for speed), and there's no hint of quantum mechanics in that software. I tend to think that an artificial brain made of silicon electronic components, if sufficiently designed to accurately model human intelligence, will be every bit as conscious as a real human brain. If you listen to a Beethoven symphony on a radio, it sounds like a Beethoven symphony regardless of whether the radio uses vacuum tubes or transistors. I'm of course open to changing my mind about quantum phyics and the brain in the light of new evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2021 1:42:56 GMT
Reading this thread ( which I am enjoying immensely ) is what comes to my mind as THE BIG QUESTION. To me it is whether before the brain is formed or forming and after the brain is dead...whether there is any 'residual' or potential molecular or atomic or quantum activity. At present it seems to me that the ONLY way of having any imprint on th past or the future is the evolutionary ihiertance of your parents DNA and the passing on of your own in conjunction with one other set of DNA. It would seem that religious people who believe in life after death propose that there is another way to transcend evolution in some kind of 'whatever' activity after death. This is the greatest problem I see with this discussion. ie the application of knowledge to current beliefs. If you think as individual brain activity as the source of all consciousness, that means there are X number of consciousness out there, each living and dying. DNA passes on the ca What do you mean by that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 24, 2021 1:53:54 GMT
I don't dismiss the brain as being incapable of handling quantum activity; in fact, I'm quite sure the brain (like everything else) handles quantum activity. My issue is I'm skeptical that we can consciously detect that activity. There's a ton of brain activity that we aren't conscious of. I wouldn't even go that far. I think the best physical model we currently have for the brain and mind are neural networks, and you don't need to involve quantum mechanics to describe their behavior, any more than you do to come up with a physical model of the heart. The fact that we are composed of atoms that obey quantum mechanics is a detail that is irrelevant to explaining how the brain and heart function, as I see it. Machine/deep learning extensively use neural networks, implemented as computer software (usually run on a GPU for speed), and there's no hint of quantum mechanics in that software. I tend to think that an artificial brain made of silicon electronic components, if sufficiently designed to accurately model human intelligence, will be every bit as conscious as a real human brain. If you listen to a Beethoven symphony on a radio, it sounds like a Beethoven symphony regardless of whether the radio uses vacuum tubes or transistors. I'm of course open to changing my mind about quantum phyics and the brain in the light of new evidence. I essentially agree with you here, and this is basically what I've been trying to explain to PaulsLaugh. Even if all physical matter boils down to the quantum level, understanding stuff like how brains work is much more about understanding larger structures like neural networks. Talking about such things in terms of QM is like trying to talk about a film by describing the bits that make up each pixel. Your second paragraph is a subject of some controversy among those in the philosophy of mind sphere (including scientists): is it merely the structure and functions of the mental network that produces consciousness, or does the material components contribute something to that? I'm very agnostic on this issue. I'm inclined to think that it could be a bit of both, that there are some aspects of consciousness produced by the structure and functioning of the brain, but perhaps the material nature of those structures contribute something to the "qualia" of how it feels. Not sure the radio analogy is a good one since what we're hearing are the actual acoustic waves being produced, and both transistors and tubes can power the amplifier that produces them; can different materials arranged in the same network produce the same experience of consciousness? My guess is that it would probably be similar, or at least be something, but I'm not sure what and how similar.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2021 4:17:48 GMT
I essentially agree with you here, and this is basically what I've been trying to explain to PaulsLaugh. Even if all physical matter boils down to the quantum level, understanding stuff like how brains work is much more about understanding larger structures like neural networks. Talking about such things in terms of QM is like trying to talk about a film by describing the bits that make up each pixel. Your second paragraph is a subject of some controversy among those in the philosophy of mind sphere (including scientists): is it merely the structure and functions of the mental network that produces consciousness, or does the material components contribute something to that? I'm very agnostic on this issue. I'm inclined to think that it could be a bit of both, that there are some aspects of consciousness produced by the structure and functioning of the brain, but perhaps the material nature of those structures contribute something to the "qualia" of how it feels. Not sure the radio analogy is a good one since what we're hearing are the actual acoustic waves being produced, and both transistors and tubes can power the amplifier that produces them; can different materials arranged in the same network produce the same experience of consciousness? My guess is that it would probably be similar, or at least be something, but I'm not sure what and how similar. When we speak to one another, we are exchanging information. But if we do not convey all of our thoughts to someone else, then that information will die with us. I am guessing that Neanderthals and later humaniods' missed the boat except in a few cave paintings and their DNA( of which co-incidentally, as my heritage is European where the last Neaderthals lived I have .4 % which is high) and their consciousness is absent from the consciousness record?.. as with all other evolutionary forms of human and prehuman consciousness ?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2021 4:38:51 GMT
I am guessing that Neanderthals and later humaniods' missed the boat except in a few cave paintings and their DNA( of which co-incidentally, as my heritage is European where the last Neaderthals lived I have .4 % which is high) and their consciousness is absent from the consciousness record?.. as with all other evolutionary forms of human and prehuman consciousness ? That's true. We can never know what they were thinking unless they could articulate into a written language of some sort. And even then we are the mercy of the narrative and cultural story telling conventions for their day. The question is, is consciousness a form of information or not. ... as I said previously...it is possible(?) from generation to generation... IMHO NOT so much after death of the brain despite th DNA transfer.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2021 5:22:25 GMT
... as I said previously...it is possible(?) from generation to generation... IMHO NOT so much after death of the brain despite th DNA transfer. I think spiders transfer information via their DNA to the next on how to build a web. Humans can leave a hardcopy of any information they possess. How?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2021 5:51:31 GMT
Spider DNA builds a new spider offspring with the information how to build a nest hardwired in its brain, I'm assuming via process of elimination...unless you know of spiders that teach their children how to make a complex web design. And you know what a hardcopy is, so.... So are you saying that because I can knit socks that my children also can knit socks?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 24, 2021 8:00:22 GMT
I essentially agree with you here, and this is basically what I've been trying to explain to PaulsLaugh. Even if all physical matter boils down to the quantum level, understanding stuff like how brains work is much more about understanding larger structures like neural networks. Talking about such things in terms of QM is like trying to talk about a film by describing the bits that make up each pixel. Your second paragraph is a subject of some controversy among those in the philosophy of mind sphere (including scientists): is it merely the structure and functions of the mental network that produces consciousness, or does the material components contribute something to that? I'm very agnostic on this issue. I'm inclined to think that it could be a bit of both, that there are some aspects of consciousness produced by the structure and functioning of the brain, but perhaps the material nature of those structures contribute something to the "qualia" of how it feels. Not sure the radio analogy is a good one since what we're hearing are the actual acoustic waves being produced, and both transistors and tubes can power the amplifier that produces them; can different materials arranged in the same network produce the same experience of consciousness? My guess is that it would probably be similar, or at least be something, but I'm not sure what and how similar. When we speak to one another, we are exchanging information. But if we do not convey all of our thoughts to someone else, then that information will die with us. Not sure what that has to do with what I said, but OK.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2021 8:10:11 GMT
So are you saying that because I can knit socks that my children also can knit socks? Not automatically unless you are a nasty little spider and it seems reasonable to assume that you are one. I was just answering your question, Funny Web, that some of our personal information can live on after we die. And no, the unlucky kid in your house did not inherit the trait of sock knitting, however if you'd get off the internet and teach the poor little soul how to do it, your information will live on after you die. Sheesh. I know you are not this stupid and you understand the difference between learned behaviour and genetically inherent transfer of information... No? ...unless you think that sock knitting is instinctual...whatever that is...in the DNA somehow or in those little teesny weensy micro whatvers that can live on after we humans die?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 24, 2021 8:22:49 GMT
Not sure what that has to do with what I said, but OK. I'm just trying to figure out if our self aware consciousness is information in the same way our memories are. I don't think it's even been established just how consciousness exists inside the human brain. Depends on what you mean by "information." Information is mostly a conceptual idea or category that we then classify certain things under.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 24, 2021 10:38:14 GMT
Depends on what you mean by "information." Information is mostly a conceptual idea or category that we then classify certain things under. If information is just conceptual, then what tangible thing are we using to conduct this dialogue? Language, in which our brain associates certain words with objects or ideas. Note the conceptual aspect with language too: a string of text doesn't really any objective (as in something that's innate to the text itself) information without the mental association of that text with its referents.
|
|
