I might surprise you on this one. But not enough to get that trip to Bermuda.
The more uncomfortable a concept is, the more likely I seem to have a need to explore it. I’ve always looked under my own bed for the monsters. When I first got involved in religion, I was fairly young. With the involvement came a sense of “doing the right thing”, safety, outside approval, camaraderie, conspiracy, common goals, specialness, etc. Wow, keyboard moment. I guess I never thought about how involved that part of the “indoctrination” was(Pavlov had nothing on them). So, in effect religion, which I completely equated with G-d took on a monumental warm fuzzy feeling. That pattern became well know to me. In reverse, when I feel some or enough of the right combination of those feelings to generate a similar type warm fuzzy, I am now patterned to recognize it as G-d? Although I definitely recognize an element of truth in that, okay, a big element; G-d stays. I’m keeping him. (note to self, stop making so many good points for the “dark side”:eek: )
I actually think it is easier for me to see the PERSON all mixed up in this as opposed to the thought process. I just can’t quite make the leap that consciousness is caused by the soul. I believe in the soul, without a doubt. I also wonder if some people are born without souls or at least without that common thread of connection to other souls. It just seems to me that a soul wouldn’t necessarily be involved in the cognitive part of you, but would be more elemental than that. More a part of the universe, less a part of and limited to our brains. The chemical interactions are fairly well documented and to decide that consciousness doesn’t hinge on them, but on an undefined soul just isn’t working for me. I’m still reading some of the articles on it though. I think of the soul as more like a container of water. Our bodies are the container and without the container, the soul aka water goes back to the main body of water. Even possible taking consciousness with it, but never really the cause or even dependent on consciousness. But then again, this is all conjecture. I’ll go back to reading about it.
IIRC it was discovered several years ago that when an entangled particle is observed, the act of observing it is what causes detanglement.
Here I posted a question having to do with the outcome of a “random” lottery drawing dependent on the laws of classical physics vs. the outcome of detanglement of a particle dependent on quantum physics. In theory, if all the factors influencing a lottery drawing machine are exactly the same each time, then it should produce the same results each time it is run. However, does that still apply to an entangled particle?
I suspect it doesn’t because I fail to see what could possibly influence an entangled particle to “choose” from its possible states. Therefore in absence of any direct cause-and-effect I must assume that it is free will that determines which state it will assume. Free will must be related to quantum entanglement.
Yes, yes, that is theory and conjecture but is there a simpler or more mundane explanation for the nature of free will? (See below.)
As for consciousness, when an observer measures a particle, it is the observer’s consciousness that perceives the outcome. Therefore if it is the act of observing that detangles the particle, then the detanglement is a result of the observer’s consciousness. Either the observer’s free will determines which state the particle will assume, or else the particle itself has free will and the observer merely decides when the particle detangles.
Obviously it would have to reside in the whole body if it is connected to a system that exists in every cell. Although perhaps consciousness is not in the body so much as interacting with it. I back this up with the observation that consciousness is something we all know we have but cannot measure in others (again, see below) therefore might possibly exist outside of space-time. Our scientific instruments are limited to the 4-dimensional realm they exist in, but nothing says there isn’t more “out there” besides this universe.
Self-awareness et al is, again, something that we each know we have but cannot yet prove exists. It sounds highly counterintuitive that this richness of experience might be just a product of the clever switching that goes on in our brains. (If I the consciousness was created by electrical activity in this body then how did I get to be “me”? Why this body? And what will happen to “me” when this body ceases to exist?) We also have free will which is not cause-and-effect mathematical functioning. Stimulus-response is the result of our brains wiring and we have the capacity to make decisions outside of that basic biological functioning. It seems likely to me, as Hameroff and Penrose theorize, that these microtubules are the link between the body and free will/consciousness.
Upon reading the article in full, I found that Hameroff and Penrose also propose the theory that our consciousnesses are somehow entangled with the physical world, so that what we perceive is what actually exists. If true, this might answer a question that has been around for a long time: you and I might both have the capacity to distinguish the color red, but how do we know if our perception of it is the same? For all I know the sensation I perceive for red might be the same one you perceive for green. But if we are somehow observing our surroundings directly, then perhaps our experience of color is directly related to wavelength. In which case redness is a sensation derived from the actual wavelength range of the light, and we all perceive a similar sensation of redness.
Can’t you see the irony in this statement? How can “free will” [henceforth called “oogly zoop!”] determine anything without direct cause and effect? This is like saying “since it is impossible for anything to do X, therefore Y must have done X” Eh? The best I make out of your argument is that something you can’t define is interacting with something else in an unknown way. Is that really any better than just saying “I don’t know what’s going on”?
How do you know if you do or don’t have oogly zoop? If it were suddenly taken away from me, how would I notice any difference?
You must assume? Why must you assume? Your conclusion is completely unscientific. I could just as easily say “in absence of any direct cause-and-effect I must assume it is Fred Flinstone that determines which state it will assume.” You’re taking an oddity from a specific experiment in quantum mechanics and trying to apply it where it is not applicable. It might make for a good Star Trek episode, but it’s not good science.
Who says we have free will?
You got to be you by the electrical (and chemical) activity. I don’t get how you say it’s “counter-intuitive” that consciousness can be generated by brain activity, yet you go on to posit an even more bizarre source, without any evidence.
Why not?
You will cease to exist. If you are having trouble imagining a world without you in it, try thinking about the world before you were born.
I don’t see any evidence that we do have such capacity. Just because our behavior is complex doesn’t mean it’s “magic”.
Huh?
Why isn’t it good science? I see no factors which cause a particle to detangle in a particular state. All we have is a probability field and, lo and behold, the particle materializes in one state. What decides which state? Is it free will? When the impossible has been ruled out, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Can you suggest any other explanation for what determines which state an entangled particle assumes?
Say you’re in a store to buy a bolt. (Sorry, this is the best example I can think of at the moment to illustrate free will.) There’s a box of them on the shelf. You reach in and pick one out. They are all identical. Each one has a specific chance that it will be the one you grab, much like a probability field. What decides which bolt you retrieve? Your free will determines whether you aim for the middle, the back, the front, one side, or reach way down in to get at the bottom.
I don’t understand.
A.) How is that “even more bizarre”, and 2.) does the Hameroff-Penrose cite not count as evidence in that science has identified a possible link between quantum physics, consciousness, and the brain?
Touché.
Okay I don’t know if you meant that to sound that way but it is not that I cannot imagine a world without me specifically, it is that I am having trouble imagining a world where any consciousness would cease to exist. And no I don’t have any trouble imagining the world before I was born. I wasn’t physically here in my present form is all.
I never said it was magic. Evidence that we have such capacity can be found whenever people think or act “outside the box”. I see no evidence in what you posted (note I am not specifically attacking you here just pointing out an observation based on your words) that suggests you were responding to me with anything other than a classic stimulus-response pattern.
Thinking “outside the box” here. Maybe I shouldn’t have brought up the color thing.
Apologies for being fashionably late to this party - I hope all that’s left isn’t just some half eaten nibbles and some blue curacao.
Yes, Penrose is considered by some experts in consciousness and cognition to be petting his little theory in a field he is only vaguely familiar with. However, I admire the sheer gall and overarching scope of Quantum Consciousness: a kick in the pants for neuroscience if ever there was one.
I’ll second Gyan’s excellent resource from V.S.Rachmanandran as a primer for the subject in general.
For Quantum Consciousness specifically, Stuart Hamerroff’s webpage at Arizona University is full of useful stuff. Perhaps the best for the beginner (and I’m no expert myself!) is the web-based Lecture Course. (Iaigle and blow have already referenced backwards referral in passing, which he treats as an important part of his work; essential reading for any classical free-will believers). Given my layman status it would be misleading of me to pretend I can summarise the course with any authority, but I’ll try and offer a useful overview.
As Quantum Mechanics (QM) was emerging as a complete Theory over the last century, all of its big cheeses were disturbed by the apparent importance of a consciousness in the experiments, most notably in eg. the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox in which a system somehow knows whether a “conscious observation” has been made (or, as one of my physics lecturers Pete Higgs put it “electrons seem to know you’re looking at them”). Subsequent attempts were made to explain this “collapse” caused by an observation in terms of objective phenomena, such as that by Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber:
They propose that for tiny particles, this “localising multiplier” only appears every billion years, say. (Note also that this localisation process is random). Now, as the scale increases, it becomes increasingly difficult to seperate these interacting wavefunctions because the localising procedure occurs increasingly often; the particles are said to be entangled.
Hameroff contends that large-scale quantum coherence, originating in the microtubules of neurons in the brain, is ‘orchestrated’ to a self-collapse that in turn influences brain function. (From Lecture Week 2). For those questioning the temperatures at which this can occur:
(from Week 6).
It is now a while since I read the course, so I think I’ll have another go over the Christmas holidays. Anyone care to join in?
O.K., first of all, just because you don’t know the answer to a question does not mean the answer is whatever you want to make up. Second, you are taking something that happens on a quantum level and trying to apply it on the macro level.
Sherlock Holmes novels are not science. And you haven’t “ruled out” anything. You’ve simply taken a phenomenon that hasn’t been fully explained yet, and used it where it doesn’t apply.
Most likely the “wiring” of your brain. How does postulating that the mechanics of the process resides in microtubules rather than dendrytes shed any light on anything?
What’s not to understand?
Because it’s junk science. There’s no evidence for it; it’s just wild speculation. Wild speculation does not constitute science. It’s more in the realm of science fiction than anything else.
I was directly responding to your question:
And what will happen to “me” when this body ceases to exist?)
You specifically used the word “me”. If that’s not what you were talking about, why on Earth did you write that?
You have no objective evidence that “you” ever existed in another form. You’re simply using your religious belief that you possess an immortal soul and trying to apply it to science. Having religious beliefs is fine, but you can’t use them to prove scientific hypotheses unless there is evidence to support the belief.
Define “thinking outside the box”, and explain how revising our model of how the brain works is necessary for such thinking to be possible, and tell us what evidence supports this conclusion.
Is this supposed to be some sort of droll insult? I really have no idea what you’re trying to say.
It’s not whatever I want to make up. It is free will. How can I show that free will exists? Or consider the moral implications if it doesn’t. So are we all mindless robots, limited to a lifetime of stimulus-response? What do we do with people like Hussein and Bin Laden who do rotten things? They cannot be held accountable for their actions if they have no free will. Should they be allowed to run loose? Should they be destroyed? Where do you draw the line?
The fact that people can choose their actions is what makes us all responsible for our own behavior. There is way to much of this mentality in the world today of “oh it’s not my fault society/mother/drugs/devil/whatever made me do it/made me this way.” Argument that human behavior is entirely based on stimulus-response action lends support to that mentality.
Now why is it exactly that quantum effects do not apply to microtubules and/or microtubules do not affect brain function? That’s basically what Hamerroff and Penrose are saying and I’m in agreement with them. There’s the quantum-macroscopic link right there. It’s a theory. If you can poke a hole in it, do so. Dismissing it as junk science does nothing to logically challenge the validity of the theory.
No kidding. Wisdom can come from anybody, does it matter who originated an idea if it is a good one? Is there any falsehood in the “ruled out the impossible” sentence?
Why doesn’t it apply?
I’m assuming of course that your brain isn’t specifically wired to always reach for a particular part of the bin. But, even if it was, no matter where you reach there’s more than one bolt there, and each has a specific probability that you will select it. Something determines which one. It’s random, but what is randomness?
You said “You got to be you by the electrical (and chemical) activity.” Look at it from the point of view of your consciousness. Ignoring for the moment the question of what exactly consciousness is, something must have decided which human being your consciousness ended up existing in. See what I’m saying here? Out of 6 billion people, why are you you and not me? Is it random, maybe. Is it free will, well we don’t know yet. Is it electrical and chemical activity, I have no idea how that would be possible.
Evidence or not, it explains what consciousness is. I still fail to see how such a level of awareness can come about as a result of electrical activity, and how such awareness can have a beginning or an end. Doesn’t explain why vivid colors, sounds, smells, etc… and not just dull monotonous signals. At this point, the English language fails me. Poets spend their lives trying to express their feelings and experiences with language.
Do computers have consciousness? Would they if they were as complex as our brains? Is it only a matter of degree? How can one prove wheter computers are conscious?
I meant “me” as a for example. i forgot, this is GD and every post needs to be a literary masterpiece. :rolleyes:
Ah, as I have posted elsewhere in this forum, there is the matter of me remembering the place where my parents lived before I was born. No it does not prove anything. And anyway I am not a very religious person, just one who has a hard time rationalizing a world where there are no souls.
Eh, another strict definition I’m going to be hit with later. Seems to me IIRC somebody once did an experiment where participants conversed by computer, and tried to guess if they were talking to a real person or a sophisticated program. As I recall it was hard to distinguish them, but let’s see a sophisticated computer program theorize on the nature of consciousness.
Uh, no in fact I specifically said I wasn’t attacking you as a person. Never mind. I withdraw because I don’t want to get in trouble with the Mods.
No, you are positing a difference source of consciousness besides the brain. It’s fine if you want to say “I don’t understand everything about what consciouness is”; I would agree with that. But when you say “consciouness is caused by microtubule activity”, or “consciouness operates on the quantum level”, you are making a positive assertion which requires evidence. Just saying “free will” exists is meaningless.
Maybe.
Why can there not be a specific (albeit highly complex) algorithm for every thought and every action? Bin Laden’s brain is wired in such a way as to reflect his genes, environment, and education. All these things influenced the though process he has today. But it’s still his brain. It doesn’t make him a robot. Why can’t an innate sense of compassion exist genetically, and why can’t learning about consequences of our actions affect our decisions, without necessitating a new explanation for consciousness?
Oh, calm down. Nobody’s arguing for no accountability. Even if we don’t have free will in a cosmic sense, we certainly have the illusion of free will, and can still hold people accountable for their actions.
You’ve got it exactly backwards. You don’t advance a hypothesis and then say “prove it’s not true”. If we’re going to do that, I’d ask you to disprove my Fred Flinstone hypothesis.
First of all, you have gone way beyond Penrose when you said this:
Second, the holes have already been poked. Do you just want me to repeat what’s already been said?
I didn’t “dismiss” it, I concluded that it’s junk science.
Yes, it’s patently false. You are asserting that “consciousness is quantum entanglement”, whatever that means. You claim to have “ruled out the impossible”. What exactly have you ruled out, how did you do so, and how do you know that there aren’t any other possibilities?
Quantum mechanics does not apply on the macro level. That’s what is stymying scientists in search of a unified theory. You can’t just say, “particles don’t appear until we observe them, therefore our minds control the universe”, because you are applying something on the quantum level (particles) to something on the macro level (your brain). There are any number of other interpretations besides “my mind controls the universe”.
If you answer that question, there’s probably a Nobel prize in it for you.
No, I’m not following you. I don’t understand what it is that you are saying can’t be explained on the macro level - why the activity of neurons can’t result in a signal to my hand to reach into a bucket of bolts and pull one out.
Neither does Penrose’s theory.
You’re confusing mysticism with science.
Don’t know. What does that have to do with the question at hand?
Doesn’t have to be a masterpiece, just make some sort of sense.
If you can’t even define what you’re talking about, it’s all meaningless.
Cityboy916
Where I’m getting lost on what you’re saying is, you seem to think that the soul, spirit or whatever you choose to call it has a “someday” provable physical interaction? That it is the sum total of who we are? That we wouldn’t have “free will” without it? Is that true so far?
To me free will is simply anything that isn’t hard-wired in. Things that are hard-wired in have to do with survival, pain response, maternal/paternal instincts, etc. There are other things that are pretty much hard-wired in by our upbringing and experiences. I have no way to respond to many things other than the way I was conditioned to respond. Some can be changed and many are beyond changing. I have an organ/the brain in my head, soaked in fluid to allow optimal electrical activity and also mechanisms allowing for the production of chemicals. The chemicals and electricity stimulate my brain to access memories, response, etc. It makes me who I am. If I have a brain injury, it can alter my personality, which comes from the organ, not the soul. A brain tumor or imbalance can cause me to literally become a monster.
I do believe that we have a soul, but it’s interaction is possibly influence, but not in a mechanical way, an abstract way, a spiritual way. I think it may even color or influence the part of the brain that stores memory and also emotion. It has an affect on us, but not literally in a physical way. I guess I even believe that our brain affects the soul, in that the soul carries our experiences after we die. I can’t prove any of that. It is only what I feel. It doesn’t make me feel like less than me to know that who I am is governed by physical bodily functions. Especially since I believe we were created with these functions by G-d or whatever you want to call him. I don’t believe you will ever find a physical manifestation of the soul. I think it’s more like music. It fills us, we feel because of it; but it’s actual physical response on us isn’t really measurable.
Don’t confuse things being pre-wired with them being hard wired. Lost of things in the brain come pre-wired, but are nonetheless mutable.
I see nothing wrong with questioning the prevailing belief that consciousness results from brain activity.
Of course the illusion of compassion can exist without the need for a soul. In fact, IIRC there was an article in Discover magazine back in '97 about an experiment where a robot was imbued with simulated emotion. But what I’m saying about morals is, you know you have consciousness but can only assume that I have consciousness. Morals exist because we have the assumption (which IMO is a true assumption) that other people have awareness too and doing wrong to them causes them suffering.
Okay 
smiley mode is indicated here. Didn’t mean to sound defensive or emotional. Just noting that the “no free will” argument could be used to that end which is one of the reasons why I disagree with it.
Heh. I can always count on the skeptics to formulate an intentionally ridiculous claim just for the sake of arguing their point. 
First it was the IPU, now it’s the FFH.
Does not a scientist propose a hypothesis and then attempt to prove or disprove it? There do not seem to be any ways at my disposal to either prove or disprove this hypothesis. Similarly, there does not appear to be a way to disprove the Fred Flinstone hypothesis, so if the FFH feels right to you then it is not my place to try to discourage you from believing in it.
How is it false? When all false explanations have been discarded, whatever remains must by definition be true or else nothing remains.
Guess this needs to be addressed more specifically. Say you have a light source that emits photons one at a time, spread out rather than collimated into a beam. Say you also have a target and a detector which registers where the photon hits the target. Each time a photon is ejected from the light source, it propagates as a wave until it hits the screen at which point it manifests as a particle and the detector registers the event. When you the observer see the reading on the detector, there will be an event registered at one specific point. There are no factors which can influence where that point is. We can rule out temperature, pressure, gravity, etc., as well as obstructions in the path of the light because then either the photon hits the obstruction or it doesn’t. There is nothing that can influence where the photon appears. It is entirely arbitrary. It is random. So if randomness is not free will, then what else could it be?
Chemical reactions apply on the macro level, and they are ultimately governed by the energy levels (quantum!) of electrons in atoms and molecules. Hamerroff theorizes that quantum mechanics apply on the level of microtubules, and it is not a stretch to assume that microtubules influence the function of neurons which govern our sensory and motor functions on the macro level.
That’s a different interpretation. That goes back to if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound.
No I don’t mean that actions themselves must be by definition free will, just suggesting that free will is what decides exactly where your hand reaches. Okay the bolts thing was a bad example but there are not many good examples to choose from.
:rolleyes:
If consciousness is a result of electrical activity, then a sufficiently complex computer would be conscious.
Get too specific and the whole theory, definition and all, gets thrown out on a technicality.
Someday provable, maybe. Maybe it will never be proven.
Absolutely. Who we are and all that we’ve ever been.
Yes that is my stance.
Right, and if a behavior is not hardwired then it occurs randomly or spontaneously; free will. If there are no factors that determine which of two or several actions a system takes (be it a human brain or an entangled photon) then it is random. To me it does not seem like an unreasonable idea that a person’s randomness and a photon’s randomness are the same.
I disagree on being beyond change. There’s always the ability to learn something new.
Only if you do not choose to not become a monster.
Not sure what you mean here. 
Agreed.
Generally speaking, belief is largely unfounded and often illogical, basing itself on concepts with no empirical evidence. While its easy to say we “feel” a certain way and that we “believe” these feelings are based on a higher realm (ie. a soul) its all heresy to me. If we were to continue debating in this manner, I have no doubt it would be eternally pointless.
Having said that, the only path left is one where logic pervades. So, assuming that Penrose’s theory about quantum consciousness is true at the most fundamental level, can we derive any further logical conclusions based on the body of empirical data available to us? Sure it may be all an exercise in futility but what isn’t.
Free will: What is it? You’re entirely a cross-product of your genes, your upbringing, and the random neural patterns that dominated your brain when you developed as a fetus. The counter-argument to the logical/empirical one is one thats based entirely on faith. Because each is explicit in its reasoning, they could be the correct argument since ones actuality would refute the other. Additionally, the most fundamental point is that the system of logic thats used to determine truths in the empirical world completely falls apart in the spiritual and what we are left with is no means of comparison between the two. Everything in the spiritual “Just Is” while everything in the physical has a reason behind it, although we take the system of reasoning to be true. In one sense the spiritual isn’t so different from the physical. Whereas only logic “Just Is” in the physical, every “fact” in the spiritual is as basic as logic.
I had a whole logical proof that refuted free will but I just realized it assumed the lack of free will to begin with. Don’t you just hate that. :smack:
I don’t think thats true at all. Theres no moment of choice to not become a monster if a chemical imbalance or accident changes you. Think about it. If you get silly drunk (I’m choosing alcohol since its a more common drug, but the more illicit drugs would serve as a better example) your actions would not be you, they would be a chemical imbalance. For the period of time that you’re intoxicated, your consciousness, or your previous self will cease to exist.
To better illustrate this point of ever changing “moods” if you will: When you’re happy and you reflect on a moment of complete despair or sorrow, it really doesn’t matter because at that moment you’re happy. All your past selves, your past moments are lives within themselves, and each is as transient as the next and as the last. No sooner do you change a mindset do you look upon the previous one to be a stranger and the one you occupy now as your self.
The current electrical signals that run through your brain are only aware of themselves, and since you are aware of those signals as being the present and all others as memories, you are those signals and little else.
Where? How? What is it already? What consciousness “is” is one of the biggest questions of philosophy these days. But I don’t see how Penrose et al come ANY closer to answering the question than does a guy claiming that it works by rubbing two sticks together. The problem is not to find a mechanism to explain HOW consciousness works, which is all Penrose can do with his theory, no better or worse than the stick rubbing. The question is why the operation of any given mechanism “feels like” something.
So I don’t think you’re thinking out of the box. Your argument falls squarely in a very predictable realm of hand waving.
Hmmm…There may be a reason for that.
You would need a valid definition or proof of a soul or whatever name you’re giving “it”, to even begin to prove physical interaction. u(undefineable)+i(invisible)-c/e=WTF:eek: Sorry kidding(sort of)
[quote]
Right, and if a behavior is not hardwired then it occurs randomly or spontaneously; free will. If there are no factors that determine which of two or several actions a system takes (be it a human brain or an entangled photon) then it is random. To me it does not seem like an unreasonable idea that a person’s randomness and a photon’s randomness are the same.
You’re young “Grasshopper”:), some is forever unchangeable, but there is always change.
There is no choice for some things. Everything you have been and are will still be there, but unable to “communicate” itself anymore.
Why would something above what we know as natural law, or at least as far as we believe, be dependent on photons, chemicals or nerve impulses? But with no definition, no point in speculating.
So this entangled proton is something they know exists, but don’t know why or how? Sorry to be dense, I have read some info on it. I’m just not totally sure what I read or whether I was conscious when I read it.:o
Humans have no instincts. There is no maternal/paternal instinct that is “hard-wired in.”
Patently false. Consider the sad case of Phineas Gage.
In the OP, I asked folks to remain in the realm of science, with BRIEF forays into theology where required. “Evidence or not” explanations are not scientific and fall into the forbidden “fruitflies on God’s banana” category.
I emailed Danko and asked him to make a special guest appearance. Maybe he will have some helpful thoughts.