Quantum Physics and Consciousness: metaphorically similar? Physically consistent?

[Johnny_Ace]

@rat_avatar

You are ignoring the big difference here, Science changes it’s views when it is proven wrong and the entire scientific method is meant to combat the falacies of human thinking that result in this fully unrealistic ideas.

Science does not simply revert to the “god of the gaps” which is exactly what the woo around quantum consciousness does.

It is magical thinking because you believe that consciousness is some special fundamental property. There is no evidence at all to point to anything except that it is a side effect of physical events. As your side is making the extraordinary claim it is up to you to provide evidence for this fact.

I could claim that the world is run by invisible zombie elephants that squirt milk across the ether to allow sentient beings to communicate but it doesn’t make it true.

But lets be clear, while there is the spooky action at a distance it does not convey information nor does it invalidate the speed limit of causality which is often referred to as the speed of light.

There is also the problem of using the lay meaning of “theory” within a discussion relating to the scientific method. A “theory” is not random opining, A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

So if you have a “theory” provide the observations and experiments that provide this evidence.

Here is exactly where I have a problem; you make your claim with no evidence, just a ‘feeling’ that because certain actions/reactions are deterministic then all actions/reactions must be deterministic. Not the way logic, science, or the scientific method work.

You’ll note that I prefaced my original comment with “I think” (in the sense that I believe). You present your claim as established fact, which it most assuredly is not. So please try to avoid the ‘magical thinking’ concept when you are partaking in it equally.

[rat_avatar]

@Johnny_Ace

Here is exactly where I have a problem; you make your claim with no evidence, just a ‘feeling’ that because certain actions/reactions are deterministic then all actions/reactions must be deterministic. Not the way logic, science, or the scientific method work.

You’ll note that I prefaced my original comment with “I think” (in the sense that I believe). You present your claim as established fact, which it most assuredly is not. So please try to avoid the ‘magical thinking’ concept when you are partaking in it equally.

Did you reply to the wrong post? Where did I ever claim that “because certain actions/reactions are deterministic then all actions/reactions must be deterministic”

In this post I was pointing how how invalid it is to make any correlations between two unrelated emergent properties.

But feel free to prove me wrong…I will even provide a less obtuse set of subjects.
Besides the fact that both are the product of emergence what fundamental connection can be made between twitter and an ice cube purely because they are the product of emergence?

Or are you just trying to build up a strawman?

[Johnny_Ace]

@rat_avatar

Did you reply to the wrong post? Where did I ever claim that “because certain actions/reactions are deterministic then all actions/reactions must be deterministic”

In this post I was pointing how how invalid it is to make any correlations between two unrelated emergent properties.

But feel free to prove me wrong…I will even provide a less obtuse set of subjects.
Besides the fact that both are the product of emergence what fundamental connection can be made between twitter and an ice cube purely because they are the product of emergence?

Or are you just trying to build up a strawman?

Sorry, it was wolfpup who said that; I haven’t been on the board in a couple of days and I mixed them up.

[rat_avatar]

@Johnny_Ace

Never been a big fan of that one either. My take on it is, regardless of who is observing (or if no one is), or whether the box is open or closed, in actuality the cat is either alive or dead, not both at once. It’s just a highly contrived application of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.

ETA: That must be the poorest, most-abused feline in the history of the universe.

While you may want to avoid the crisis of faith caused by a though experiment surrounding free will you missed the point of the above thought experiment

The Copenhagen interpretation, and explicitly quantum superposition is very valid. The cat was an analogy used as a visualization tool, but in reference to the state of the radioactive atom it can be in both states at one time.

Do not confuse a visualization tool as conflating that the cat actually exists in both states at one time. Superposition as quite real, and this intentionally ridiculous thought experiment does not change that fact.

This “cat state” has been achieved with photons, beryllium ions and experiments have even observed a piezoelectric “tuning fork” simultaneously in vibrating and non vibrating states.

While there is very real observational evidence for superposition I have reviewed this thread and found thing except for claims of Irreducible complexity in relation to Consciousness.

There are ethical concerns that limit epidemiology to the soft side science but several of the processes are either fairly well understood at a basic level or are being worked on. Ethics will be the primary blocker on major advancements and not some irreducible complexity.

I have seen zero evidence at all to even believe that consciousness is anything but a biological emergent property, and there has been no cites to even consider Consciousness “quantum consciousness” outside of a misunderstanding of what QFT even is.

I can point you at information on how voltage-gated sodium channels and calcium channels affect action potential. Can you provide anything except for opinion or baseless speculation to support your side.

Note that free will is a Red Herring. Free will doesn’t require “quantum consciousness” nor would it even require consciousness to have some non biological component.

Those are fully unsupported, baseless claims and claims intrinsically flawed by fallacies like the divine fallacy, argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance.

[wolfpup]

@Johnny_Ace

Sorry, it was wolfpup who said that; I haven’t been on the board in a couple of days and I mixed them up.

You’re mixed up about what you think I said, too. I’ll ask the same question as rat avatar: Where did I ever say that “because certain actions/reactions are deterministic then all actions/reactions must be deterministic”? If you got that from anything I’ve said here, it was a gross misinterpretation. Perhaps you could quote where you think I made that statement and how you arrived at that interpretation from anything I actually said.

[WordMan]

@rat_avatar

This “cat state” has been achieved with photons, beryllium ions and experiments have even observed a piezoelectric “tuning fork” simultaneously in vibrating and non vibrating states.

While there is very real observational evidence for superposition I have reviewed this thread and found thing except for claims of Irreducible complexity in relation to Consciousness.

There are ethical concerns that limit epidemiology to the soft side science but several of the processes are either fairly well understood at a basic level or are being worked on. Ethics will be the primary blocker on major advancements and not some irreducible complexity.

Snipping ths bit of your post out.

Cool. “Cat state” - hadn’t heard that and love it. The quoted part above is where I am seeing things stand for me as I reviewed this thread. I think a bit of your post got autocorrected wrong, but a fundamental point is that irreducibility is…evidenced? ;)…very differently for QM vs. Consciousness. You state that Consciousness is certainly reducible but we are limited about what we can test ethically.

I am not prepared to accept that Consciousness is 100% reducible, but that’s a separate issue. Regardless, the question in my OP feels responded to. There is a metaphorical similarity between Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness, not some underlying physical relationship. I’ve appreciated the discussion.