# Quantum Mechanics and Mind **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 11, 2017, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322 "2017-08-11T07:49:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/41 "2017-08-11T17:33:25Z")
Going down this rabbithole, did any of this exist before _I_ observed it(because mine is the only consciousness I can actually confirm to myself)? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/42 "2017-08-11T17:39:03Z")
> [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > If you want a cold, hard factual answer then the best answer IMO is that the problem of whether consciousness plays a role in quantum mechanics is unresolved. And there is no reason to expect our puny ape brains to be capable of understanding “the universe”. It would be very odd, indeed, if we were capable of doing so. Unless, of course, the universe is a product of our puny ape brains. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/43 "2017-08-11T17:42:24Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Did the Earth exist before there were lifeforms on it to notice its existence? Geologists and paleontologists seem to agree that it did, so are they wrong? Let’s say our hypothesis is that the Universe was in a superposition of states, some with the Earth existing and some with it not, before the first conscious being appeared appeared and made and observation that caused a reduction to a state where the Earth definitely existed. Decoherence can explain why we do not see evidence of this previous superposition. Of course that particular hypothesis does rather beg the question as to how that conscious being came into existence, but my point is that the classical nature of the large scale does not preclude explanations of quantum mechanics which invoke consciousness. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/44 "2017-08-11T17:46:25Z")
This may be a bit off topic, but here are some excellent quotes by Einstein about his concept of religion: “The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.”    - Einstein “…Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who — in their grudge against the traditional ‘opium for the people’ — cannot bear the music of the spheres.”   - Einstein “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”   - Einstein “The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive. However, I am also not a ‘Freethinker’ in the usual sense of the word because I find that this is in the main an attitude nourished exclusively by an opposition against naive superstition. My feeling is insofar religious as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insufficiency of the human mind to understand deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as ‘laws of nature.’ It is this consciousness and humility I miss in the Freethinker mentality.”   - Einstein _In response to a question about what was meant by his ‘cosmic religion’:_ “It is not a religion that teaches that man is made in the image of God — that is anthropomorphic. Man has infinite dimensions and finds God in his conscience. This religion has no dogma other than teaching man that the universe is rational and that his highest destiny is to ponder it and co-create with its laws. There are only two limiting factors: first, that what seems impenetrable to us is as important as what is cut and dried; and, second, that our faculties are dull and can only comprehend wisdom and serene beauty in crude forms, but the heart of man through intuition leads us to greater understanding of ourselves and the universe.\* **My religion is based on Moses: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. And for me God is the First Cause. David and the prophets knew that there could be no love without justice or justice without love** \*. I don’t need any other religious trappings.”   - Einstein ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/45 "2017-08-11T17:49:18Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Without question or doubt, experts in their field. Not a single one, however, an expert in modern neurology. None were even experts in early 20th century neurology. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/46 "2017-08-11T17:51:55Z")
I’m pretty certain that Einstein’s idea of god is _nothing_ like the entity you believe exists. And also, why would I care what Einstein believes about nonexistent things? There’s sure a lot of argument from authority in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/47 "2017-08-11T17:56:52Z")
> [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > Let’s say our hypothesis is that the Universe was in a superposition of states, some with the Earth existing and some with it not, before the first conscious being appeared appeared and made and observation that caused a reduction to a state where the Earth definitely existed. Decoherence can explain why we do not see evidence of this previous superposition. Of course that particular hypothesis does rather beg the question as to how that conscious being came into existence, but my point is that the classical nature of the large scale does not preclude explanations of quantum mechanics which invoke consciousness. No, but the classical nature of the large scale _ **does** _ appear to preclude the large-scale superposition that you just hypothesized. I also have an intrinsic problem with the “does not preclude” argument. I was just in the living room and saw no animal there. That does not preclude the existence of a unicorn there now, munching on the contents of the coffee table. However, I would want to see some credible evidence before I started inventing theories about it. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/48 "2017-08-11T18:12:13Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I’m pretty certain that Einstein’s idea of god is _nothing_ like the entity you believe exists. What makes you so certain that you know what I believe? You most certainly do not. It seems that you like to jump to wild conclusions without evidence. Try not to be so defensive.  :dubious: > [@](#): > > And also, why would I care what Einstein believes about nonexistent things? There’s sure a lot of argument from authority in this thread. Ah, well, if Einstein says something and Begbert2 (without giving any rational argument) says that Einstein is absolutely wrong, I’m personally more inclined to listen to Einstein. I must be very biased.  :D ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/49 "2017-08-11T18:18:36Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > What makes you so certain that you know what I believe? You most certainly do not. It seems that you like to jump to wild conclusions without evidence. Try not to be so defensive.  :dubious: Because I’m pretty certain that the kind of god that Einstein believed in isn’t coherent or interferent enough to generate the kind of believer who would spam a thread with terrible arguments from authority about its existence. > [@GreenWyvern](#): > > Ah, well, if Einstein says something and Begbert2 (without giving any rational argument) says that Einstein is absolutely wrong, I’m personally more inclined to listen to Einstein. I must be very biased.  :D Of _course_ you’re biased. You came into this thread and started spamming it with terrible arguments from authority about some god or another’s existence. This is not the act of an impartial observer. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/50 "2017-08-11T18:19:21Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > This may be a bit off topic, but here are some excellent quotes by Einstein about his concept of religion: > > “The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.” >    - Einstein Why don’t we put that little sentence in context, because it doesn’t have that much to do with his concept of religion when you read the rest of the paragraph: “The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is.” ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/51 "2017-08-11T18:22:55Z")
> [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > That would suggest that when two particles interact there is a spontaneous reduction of the wavefunction which is not the case. From mere particle interaction, no. I think what\*\* Mangetout\*\* means is that the wave function collapses when any detection mechanism intrudes on the system, so that superposition for example collapses to a classical position without literally requiring an “observer”. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > Attempts to link human conscience and quantum mechanics often leave me annoyed. Both very complicated and not fully understood phenomena (least of all by me), that get conflated by people who seem to understand neither and for no explicable reason other than pseudo-scientific fapping. Indeed. The OP appears to be trying to link quantum mechanics and consciousness by naively trying to apply common intuition to profoundly non-intuitive subjects while appearing to lack any understanding of either. ---
**Author:** ![igor\_frankensteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/839c29/32.png) [@igor\_frankensteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/igor_frankensteen)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/52 "2017-08-11T18:27:59Z")
> [@abashed](#): > > This does not seem to address any of my points while simply dismissing them all. > > A reasoned argument would have been better. My point is, that your points are all based on a misunderstanding of the primary subject area which you based them all on. That IS a reasoned argument against them. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/53 "2017-08-11T18:32:44Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > No, but the classical nature of the large scale _ **does** _ appear to preclude the large-scale superposition that you just hypothesized. > I also have an intrinsic problem with the “does not preclude” argument. I was just in the living room and saw no animal there. That does not preclude the existence of a unicorn there now, munching on the contents of the coffee table. However, I would want to see some credible evidence before I started inventing theories about it. Given what we know of the theory about how large systems evolve quantum mechanically then that we do not observe interference effects in such systems is not a problem because quantum mechanics predicts such interference effects are for practical purposes impossible to observe. Of course this does not mean that there is not evidence that quantum mechanics rather than classical physics governs the Universe, but that evidence exists in the observation of smaller systems. The missing ingredient is the explanation of measurement/observation in quantum mechanics, but my point is that the Universe appears classical on a large scale does not preclude that such an explanation could involve consciousness. I’m not saying it doe, I just object to the way everyone thinks there is an easy answer to what is a difficult and unresolved question. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/54 "2017-08-11T18:44:26Z")
> [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > The missing ingredient is the explanation of measurement/observation in quantum mechanics, but my point is that the Universe appears classical on a large scale does not preclude that such an explanation could involve consciousness. I’m not saying it doe, I just object to the way everyone thinks there is an easy answer to what is a difficult and unresolved question. What sort of impact do you imagine that quantum mechanical effects would have on consciousness? Are you picturing it as randomity - noise in the system? (Which the brain would have to be compensating for and filtering out to maintain any appearance of coherence in thought or behavior.) Or are you picturing something else? ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/55 "2017-08-11T18:48:56Z")
> [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > The opening post is a demonstration of how easy it is to completely misunderstand things such as the Heisenberg principle, and why it’s tragically idiotic,that the common way quantum mechanics is described is so insanely stupid. > > Physicists need to STOP declaring that the observation of a wave particle “causes” the quantum field to collapse into one state or another. It’s that kind of semantics that leads to nonsense like this thread. Can you provide what you think is a better description for a non-physicist/expert (like myself)? ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/56 "2017-08-11T18:50:13Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > From mere particle interaction, no. I think what\*\* Mangetout\*\* means is that the wave function collapses when any detection mechanism intrudes on the system, so that superposition for example collapses to a classical position without literally requiring an “observer”. The idea that a detector causes collapses is consistent with quantum mechanics, but there is no test we can practically perform to distinguish it from the idea that it is not until consciousness is brought into the mix that collapse occurs. It is not also not particularly satisfactory explanation, at least without further expansion, as we then have to answer what is special about the system of detector+measured system that causes it to evolve in a way that is different from the evolution of the wave equation? ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/57 "2017-08-11T18:57:01Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > What sort of impact do you imagine that quantum mechanical effects would have on consciousness? Are you picturing it as randomity - noise in the system? (Which the brain would have to be compensating for and filtering out to maintain any appearance of coherence in thought or behavior.) Or are you picturing something else? I think variations of the [many-minds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation) interpretation, particularly when taking a quantum Bayesianism point of view, take a decent stab at offering an explanation of quantum measurement. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/58 "2017-08-11T19:00:07Z")
It should be understood that the collapse of the waveform in the Copenhagen Interpretation (which is one of the oldest and most widely taught interpretations) is a mathematical formalism that is not itself observed or measured; it is just a starting place for calculation which is no more realistic than instantanous mixing of gases or infinite impulse transfer in momentum. The lack of an physical ontology is problematic insofar as everything we do observe appears to be constructed in a way that has an objective reality without conflict between interactions. The Copenhagen interpretation, as useful as it is in teaching the basic operations of particle interactions at a quantum level without getting wound up with hidden variables or many worlds interpretation, is almost certainly wrong; a toy model that only works with very restricted assumptions. As for consciousness and cognition, as much as we understand the processes of it (which is a hierarchy of different levels of processes distributed throughout the brain), there is no reason to believe it is dependent upon quantum mechanics beyond the decohered level that all chemistry obeys, and certainly not just based on the fact hat we don’t understand either quantum mechanics or cognition very well. This is purely a false equivilence. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/59 "2017-08-11T19:02:45Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Because I’m pretty certain that the kind of god that Einstein believed in isn’t coherent or interferent enough to generate the kind of believer who would spam a thread with terrible arguments from authority about its existence. > > Of _course_ you’re biased. You came into this thread and started spamming it with terrible arguments from authority about some god or another’s existence. This is not the act of an impartial observer. Then it follows that the point from **GreenWyvern** collapsed… 🙂 But yeah, even the mechanisms proposed about how the human mind could use quantum mechanics are not as impressive as the believers of that think it is. > **[On the quantum theory of consciousness - Mapping Ignorance](https://mappingignorance.org/2015/06/17/on-the-quantum-theory-of-consciousness/)** > > quantum theory of consciousness > [@](#): > > The Penrose–Hameroff theory of orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) claims that quantum computations in the brain account for consciousness 1. The communication among neurons by the secretion of neurotransmitters is based on synaptic vesicles distributed along their axons. The neuronal cytoskeleton has a key role in the dynamics of these vesicles. In the 1990s, Stuart Hameroff, psychologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson, USA, and Roger Penrose, mathematical physicist at the University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, proposed that microtubules, the smallest units of the cytoskeleton, are channels for the transfer of the integrated quantum information responsible for consciousness. > > The cell cytoplasm is like an over-crowded dance floor at disco. The cytoskeleton strongly interacts with water molecules, metabolites, and moving proteins (like kinesins). These interactions are structural, signaling, and sometimes to orient the internal cytoskeleton. There is no known mechanism for protecting microtubules (rigid tubes made of the tubulin protein) from decoherence, the environmentally-induced destruction of quantum coherence, the unavoidable coupling of a quantum system with the environment. Quantum computing requires quantum coherence in order to use superpositions of quantum states to solve certain problems much more quickly than its classical counterpart. Without a protecting mechanism, the role of quantum computation in microtubules in the emergence of consciousness recalls to me water memory, Benveniste’s proposal to explain the mechanism by which homeopathic remedies work 2. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2017, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322/60 "2017-08-11T19:03:44Z")
> [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > Given what we know of the theory about how large systems evolve quantum mechanically then that we do not observe interference effects in such systems is not a problem because quantum mechanics predicts such interference effects are for practical purposes impossible to observe. > > Of course this does not mean that there is not evidence that quantum mechanics rather than classical physics governs the Universe, but that evidence exists in the observation of smaller systems. I’m not trying to dispute that at some fundamental level the universe evolves quantum mechanically, and indeed one could argue that it _ **has** _ to be true. But there is nothing in QM that requires us to take such a totally unwarranted anthropocentric view of what “observer” means in the context of wavefunction collapse that we leap to conclusions about consciousness as a causative factor, which are even more unfounded than my unicorn hypothesis. That’s not science, it’s woo. > [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > The missing ingredient is the explanation of measurement/observation in quantum mechanics, but my point is that the Universe appears classical on a large scale does not preclude that such an explanation could involve consciousness. I’m not saying it doe, I just object to the way everyone thinks there is an easy answer to what is a difficult and unresolved question. ISTM that the only one here who thinks there’s an easy answer is the OP. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-mechanics-and-mind/793322.md?page=4)