To the creosote kid and pothead, welcome To SDMB.
Had anyone thought Penrose to be nuts before he began to toy with QMT? Is he the originator of the theory?
Which reliable source would be the most basic for a layman? (I don’t mind speculation as long as it is labeled as such.
pothead and creosote kid, I just read the cite and your posts, and I have to say holy mackerel.
I’m going to have to go back and read the site again, but it sounds to me like it’s agreeing with a theory I came up with a couple days ago. Basically my theory is that consciousness (soul) is what determines which state entangled particles assume when they de-tangle. Here (if I understand the article correctly) these scientists are postulating that consciousness is quantum entanglement.
It has been my suspicion, ever since physicists discovered the role of the observer in their experiments, that they would someday explain the nature of consciousness and eventually unite science and spirituality.
Uh, do you guys realize there’s a difference between science and making stuff up?:rolleyes:
Huh. So you mean science does not include theorizing or speculating? That’s news to me! Go figure. :rolleyes:
It does seem like a large leap for such a small, minute time difference. This is probably going to be a stupid question. I hope I can play that blonde card one more time. So the neural response aka touch, pain etc. reaches your brain before your visual response? Don’t both of these responses have to quickly go through the part of your brain that accesses and analyzes data from previous experience or if none is available, don’t they have to still be interpreted almost simultaneously, as a whole? Wouldn’t the brain process the final “analysis” with both the neural and sensory data it received, making them seem to coincide. Kind of like, yes one gets there first, but neither can make it to awareness without the other one, so they cross the finish line together? Wouldn’t your cognitive process(?) realize that there was more data than just neural and also access the visual or sensory? Kind of like your brain receives the nerve response and automatically checks to see if there is a witness(visual) to the event.
I’m going to re-word this one more time, so even if you don’t agree, you’ll know what I’m thinking. I’m pain or physical sensation running first in the race toward interpretation. Visual is running a close second and gets to interpretation right behind me. Interpretation is not biased and doesn’t have a watch. It’s going to lump physical sensation and visual input together and when the cognitive process is done, I am unable to differentiate which one showed up first. No time warp, just un-biased analysis using both variables.
Why not think that as opposed to something more complicated? I’m all for proving that we are somehow involved in a higher plane of existence than other animals, but this doesn’t seem like the answer. If this didn’t make sense, I’m sorry. Okay blowero, tell me what’s wrong with this. I can always count on you for that.
(I hope they don’t ask me to clarify anything!)
Oh, you can theorize or speculate all you want. But you must provide testable predictions as well that would clearly demonstrate the validity of the theory.
I’m generalizing a tad here but often in these cognitive threads here, there is an implicit assumption that the brain itself is a sentient organ (as opposed to the brain creating an awareness of the world external to it).
You should read the 2003 Reith lectures by Ramachandran online: The Emerging Mind. They might help give readers a better understanding of the essence of the brain, if not the actual system-level functioning.
Actually, according to the article even single celled eukaryotes (microorganisms) have these microtubules, so it is by no means limited to humans.
Gyan9, how am I supposed to testably predict the outcome of any situation involving consciousness? Condition some entangled photons to never materialize in one spot (bad photon!), and then see if they learn to avoid that spot? Would that prove whether or not entanglement=consciousness?
Let me give that one some thought when it’s not 3:00 AM.
I was just replying to your comment that it is okay to speculate and that can be considered science. To repeat: you can speculate all you what, but it belongs within the framework of science, only if you can present some testable predictions based on which one can clearly determine the validity of a theory. Till then, such speculation is outside the concern of scientific research.
“Can anyone explain the “Quantum Consciousness” model? or its implications?”.
No. Not even Danko Georgiev, although i’m sure he knows what hes talking about.
Could you elaborate on the role of entangled particles and their detanglement as relating to consciousness?
The article only mentions the microtubule/consciousness link only in neurons but considering that microtubules also exist in every cell of the human body as well as countless eukaryotes, there doesn’t seem to be any reason for a similar link not to exist. Then, does consciousness reside in the body as a whole or only within the nervous system?
It seems very difficult to conceptualize consciousness into a product of the sciences. Sure we can say, consciousness is self-realization, self-awareness, purpose, etc. but what does that translate into in terms of neurons, or microtubules as it may be? If consciousness is the simple sum of these pathways, then are we any different from say a very complex mathematical function. That is to say, if x happens to us, we will do y.
iwln; have you perhaps forgotten in the midst of your considerations, that as well as neurons, and cognition,and time etc, that there is a PERSON all mixed up in this?
when sitting in your room, if i ask you to observe, you can look around, and be aware of the tv, the carpet, the wall, or whatever.
this is your mind at work, taking in data from your senses.
if i now ask you to look only at the clock, and nothing else, and ignore any other thought than remaining fixed on seeing the clock, do you feel the tendency of your mind trying to suggest that you should take notice of things other than the clock?
if you can maintain your focus on the clock, despite the pressure from the mind to break it off, that is your intelligence exerting control of your mind.
notice that it is YOUR mind, and YOUR intelligence we are talking about here. that YOU, is the conscious, individual, living entity/person, who is able to desire to focus on the clock, and override the machinery of the body and mind.
there is a distinction between the body and the person who inhabits it. when the conscious entity leaves the body, the eyes no longer see,the ears no longer hear. so is it not possible that what we call consciousness, is the symptom of the presence of the soul, and not the result of chemical combination? (the body)
Perhaps I’m being too literal, but it seems that the happiness you talk about is a self-fulfillment of the soul, a synchronization of the chariot, the driver, the reins, etc. with the passenger. While this seems to be the ultimate goal of existence in many eastern religions/philosophies it rejects the asthetic, which is represented by the horses, entirely.
Ok,
Having read the Reith Lectures 2003, and thought about it in combination with the posts above, I’ve reached a rather despondent conclusion.
Consciousness is an illusion. When faced with overwhelming stimuli, such as the peak shift example with the sea gull chicks and the stick with the red stripes Ramachandran provides, the viewer is basically a slave to innate hardwired pathways that are out of his control. In this sense consciousness or sentience if you will is inextricably paired with free will. Ramachandran argues that just as the chicks are subject to neural pathways, so are we, and ultimately that is one of his ten laws of art.
The fact that there are processes that we don’t realize, parts of our self that aren’t self-aware, the part that we are self-aware of can only be an illusion of what we think it to be. the creosote kid you may say that in such a case the soul is overwhelmed by the mind but I think such a thing as the soul simply doesn’t exist. :eek:
hi again pothead, when i gave the horsey chariot picture, that was describing the situation that the soul is in when in this temporary, material world.
the soul, being eternal, is looking for ETERNAL happiness, but that is not possible in a body which is is temporary, and in a world that is temporary. on top of that, the uncontrolled mind is the only tool we have to understand who we really are.
if the mind is controlled, it is your best friend, but if it is uncontrolled, then it is your worst enemy.
i do not say that the horses can be rejected, but unless they are under the control of the driver of the chariot, who is acting under the order of the passenger, then there will be little chance that they will lead where the soul wants to go to, but first things first. – unless we can (even theoretically) accept that "i am not this body,i am not this mind, " then we are “down the well”, thinking that the well is all there is.
dont get me wrong – i tried to get comfy in the well, and accept that there is no more, but subjects like this one just wont let me believe that`s the way it is.
hi pothead,
what part of YOU doesn`t believe in the existence of the soul?
is it YOUR brain? or YOUR mind? is this “belief” (or non-belief) a product of chemicals, or neurons interacting inside your head ?
if so,would it be possible then to introduce “belief” by juggling the chemicals?
i think ramachandra is a bluffer, he has nothing to say about consciousness, if you check the comments on the web site you`ll see that i am not alone in thinking this
So, do you remain open to the idea that some of the areas that we’ve talked about that are at present outside the theoretical framework of science may someday be considered legitimate scientific territory for exploration?
I am not speaking of “proving the existence of God.” I am thinking about alternative perceptions of reality, consciousness, clairvoyance, etc.
Given some of the surprises of quantum physics, why would clairvoyance seem like such a stretch now?
Just trying to remain open-minded…
What’s wrong with it? Nothing; it’s flawless. That happens to be a very prevalent theory, and it’s backed up by the research I mentioned earlier. Why is there a time lag between an event and our perception of the event? Quite obviously, to give the brain time to process the info and come up with a Gestalt. One of the major functions of the brain, if not the major function, is as a pattern-recognition machine. Imagine trying to survive with a series of billions of disjointed stimulus inputs, and no way to connect them; it would be impossible. The brain takes all the input from our senses and forms a cohesive picture. It does it very fast, but not instantaneously. In your example, you probably did experience the tactile and visual sensations seperately, but they are synthesized into one experience, and that single experience is what gets implanted in your memory. I suspect that’s why when people are in auto accidents, for example, they sometimes feel that things are going in “slow motion”, because the sensory input is coming too fast for your brain to make sense of it. The sleeping mind seems especially susceptible to rewriting events. I don’t know if this has happened to you, but on more than one occasion, I have dreamed that my alarm clock was going to sound right before it actually sounded. Rather than believing I can foretell the future, I find it more likely that my brain, in the confusion of waking, simply synthesized the events in the wrong order, so I had a false memory of dreaming about the alarm clock before it went off, when it actually occurred afterwards.
I know you won’t agree on this point;), but I suspect that the reason so many people believe in a religion is because we’re a little too good at pattern recognition, and sometimes make up explanations for things that aren’t real.
But to be scientific, a new theory has to have some sort of testable premise. What’s that point of ruminating as to whether it “may someday” be true, if there’s currently no way to distinguish it from fantasy? I can give you a million “maybe somedays”: Maybe Saddam Hussein is God; maybe there’s a Starbucks on Jupiter. Figure out some way to test the link between these microtubules and consciousness and devise a controlled experiment; then we’ll have something to discuss.
A lot of people, Penrose included, use this quantum consciousness as an argument to suggest that Artificial intelligence would not be possible;
even if quantum effects are required, and microtubules are necessary, I see no reason that these effects could not be incorporated eventually into an artificial mind;
if it is necessary to reverse causality then the AI’s will do it better than we do, and certainly better than a paramecium;
if quantum consciousness implies a soul, then a ‘soul’ they will have.
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html