Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I concur on most points. I am familiar with the Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR model, and of the criticisms of it. I have quoted it many times, but I'll come back to that in a minute.
I have to disagree with this statement:
"In a very universal sense, we can confidently say quantum physics is fundamentally unrelated to consciousness. Whatever consciousness turns out to be, it is not a necessary elementary component of quantum physics."
I'd like to take a quote from a favourite book of mine "The Quantum Universe' by Cox and Foreshaw:
What is being said here is that every physical system at a base level is governed by quantum physical laws. If you accept this statement then you must accept that whatever happens is our brains is governed by them as well. And by extension then consciousness itself must also be a result of those physical laws.
If you are going to flatly rule out quantum mechanics and say it has no relationship whatever to consciousness then what you are saying is that that consciousness exists outside the physical laws of nature - and to me as an atheist, that's not a route I care to go down. Consciousness must exist with the physical laws of nature and quantum to me seems to be the only way to go.
That is not what is being argued. It goes without saying that all of physics is ultimately quantum physics. Quantum physics is needed to describe how atoms exchange electrons, which is needed to describe oxidation-reduction reactions, which is needed to describe combustion, which is needed to describe car mechanics. This does not mean car mechanics is a necessary elementary component of quantum physics. If all cars disappeared tomorrow, quantum physics would remain.
So when I say "Whatever consciousness turns out to be, it is not a necessary elementary component of quantum physics.", I mean precisely that. Quantum mechanics is needed to describe calcium ions, which are needed for voltage gated channels, which are needed for action potentials, which are needed for brain functions, which are needed for consciousness. This does not mean consciousness is a necessary elementary component of quantum physics
Quote:
And this is the genius of Roger Penrose and other geniuses like him- it's the ability to think outside the box. I agree with you that the Orch-OR model is flawed, not only that - it is probably outright wrong and needs a different approach. But to rule out quantum altogether at this stage to me goes against the heart of what science is about. Every avenue must be explored until an answer is found.
In the words of the great Feynman:
Penrose I am sure knows this as well as any scientist out there. That doesn't mean we should stop making guesses, or testing our ideas, because as soon as we do that, that's an end to science. It just means we haven't made the right guess yet.
My feeling is although Penrose's research may have been wrong, his perspective is probably right. Something about the nature of consciousness suggests a quantum process not yet understood.
I hold the opposite view, I find the "consciousness is algorithmic" argument to be more compelling. For example, consider the following statement:
"Cruithne can never know that this statement is consistently true."
I instantly recognise the statement is true, but you will never be able to, no matter how hard you try, as you cannot escape the limitations of the formal algorithmic system that is your mind. The equivalent statement for me would be "Morbert can never know that this statement is consistently true."
It is, of course, not an open and closed case, and an open mind is necessary, but we must also be willing to critically analyse postulates. I merely tender that, as it stands, "consciousness must be a non-computable quantum mechanical process" is not a compelling position.
Quote:
10 years ago nobody would ever have imagined that quantum entanglement might have something to do with how birds navigate but it does appear that this is the case. Perhaps no progress has been made pertaining to quantum mechanics and a relationship to consciousness, but as we understand almost nothing about consciousness at this time, we should not rule it out.
Quantum tunnelling, for example, is responsible for how we smell. That biological systems might exploit quantum physics at the molecular scale is accepted by most people. Consciousness, however, is not merely a molecular process. It involves highly choreographed communications between a macroscopic neural network with all the degrees of freedom that characterise a thermodynamic process. Thermodynamics is ultimately what destroys coherent quantum phenomena.
Don't mind me Morbert, and the high expertise is terrific.
I'm trying to wrap my thinking around all these high tech terms and words that are not common to myself and have a particular annoyance that gets in the way although need serious attention.
Quantum entanglement seems to be playing a major role, and I checked on the known popular theories from wik, and it appears this exact question of consciousness along with science and exact answer is quite the challenge . The clip below is on the entanglement scheme ,
( the beginning of clip is a bit different but the explaining seems understandable. Also this subject itself is a bit annoying because it is an issue of idea's, trying to tell or inform the person, what they are. So if your a person who can't stand flying but would have no problem if the pilot, the subject becomes I guess it could be said distracting.
Mystic, your responses make no sense. How on earth to you infer that I disavow entanglement on any level?
As with matters of relativity, it is becoming more and more clear that you simply do not possess the necessary familiarity with the subject.
Just more arrogant dismissal without any substantive response. I have politely asked to be educated by you, Morbert . . . why do you refuse and continue to denigrate my understanding instead? I realize that was why you were asked to come here by my adversaries . . . but we have had enough interaction for you to know that I am more than capable of understanding whatever you present. When you say the signal and idler photons in the delayed quantum eraser are not entangled . . . what do you mean?
Don't mind me Morbert, and the high expertise is terrific.
I'm trying to wrap my thinking around all these high tech terms and words that are not common to myself and have a particular annoyance that gets in the way although need serious attention.
Quantum entanglement seems to be playing a major role, and I checked on the known popular theories from wik, and it appears this exact question of consciousness along with science and exact answer is quite the challenge . The clip below is on the entanglement scheme ,
( the beginning of clip is a bit different but the explaining seems understandable. Also this subject itself is a bit annoying because it is an issue of idea's, trying to tell or inform the person, what they are. So if your a person who can't stand flying but would have no problem if the pilot, the subject becomes I guess it could be said distracting.
Entanglement is simply correlation in the context of the laws of quantum mechanics. It seems strange and weird because we are used to thinking in terms of the laws of classical mechanics.
Under quantum mechanics, entanglement is a natural consequence of quantum postulates. Under classical mechanics, it appears "spooky". Remember, though, that classical physics is wrong, and quantum physics is right, so we shouldn't be surprised when classical mechanics is violated on a fundamental level.
Just more arrogant dismissal without any substantive response. I have politely asked to be educated by you, Morbert . . . why do you refuse and continue to denigrate my understanding instead? I realize that was why you were asked to come here by my adversaries . . . but we have had enough interaction for you to know that I am more than capable of understanding whatever you present. When you say the signal and idler photons in the delayed quantum eraser are not entangled . . . what do you mean?
[edit]- Ok, I think I have identified the misunderstanding. When I say the probability that the signal photon will be detected at location L on the detector screen is independent of the idle photon, I don't mean they are not entangled. They are absolutely entangled. But entanglement is a correlation, not a causal relation. You cannot affect one entangled particle by interfering with another. If you could, we would have faster-than-light communication.
I think it might be worth me dedicating a post to describing entanglement, which I will do when I get the chance.
Just more arrogant dismissal without any substantive response. I have politely asked to be educated by you, Morbert . . . why do you refuse and continue to denigrate my understanding instead? I realize that was why you were asked to come here by my adversaries . . . but we have had enough interaction for you to know that I am more than capable of understanding whatever you present. When you say the signal and idler photons in the delayed quantum eraser are not entangled . . . what do you mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert
[edit]- Ok, I think I have identified the misunderstanding. When I say the probability that the signal photon will be detected at location L on the detector screen is independent of the idle photon, I don't mean they are not entangled. They are absolutely entangled. But entanglement is a correlation, not a causal relation. You cannot affect one entangled particle by interfering with another. If you could, we would have faster-than-light communication.
So much for quantum computing.
Quote:
I think it might be worth me dedicating a post to describing entanglement, which I will do when I get the chance.
I'm going to attempt to explain everything . ( from what I understand is talked about in the ideas)
Today along with responsibilities and a few extra things as luck would have it I notice there is a dumping of snow. Super. There's something about making an entry before having a bunch of things to do.
Last night I was watching Michio kaku in some of his shows in general things to do with science and realized there is something about the sound of his voice and delivery which is very good . I was thinking if he was the science teacher earlier in the days I may have payed attention.
After watching a few of his shows in general things and thinking a little I came up with a solution to this problem.
Item A :
Imagine going for a nice bike ride on a path in a pleasant park. Your riding along with nothing really on your mind other then perhaps whether or not the vegetable stand will have those huge onions, light things on the mind.
All those light things which have nothing to do with what you are doing on the bike, in the park, in the setting , are things that you are making up, another world of possibilities , needs , expectations and conclusions, arriving and satisfying different imagined questions and answers.
Item B :
Also juring the ride on the bike at one of the turns a bird chirped on a branch close to the path. This experience caused attention to the bird. So there is the setting and now the bird .
The bird dramatizes the setting in the experience. It changes the texture of the journey and the setting . The bird collapses the wave function in the brain and forces the brain to re-evaluate , start all over for the experience in the setting. Similar to the wave going through the slit.
In this new analogy the living pulse and metabolism allows for a respectable hypothesis that its circumstance in the setting produce's waves of thought.
Waves of thought collapsing and continuing both consciously and unconsciously as things are in a state of being measured, either by the bird in the tree or conclusions in abstract thinking, the imagined world for protection throughout the journey in the setting.
Man is not a detector as a group of cameras may be talking about over lunch .
Man is the whole double slit experiment. ( Item A & Item B
The beat of the pulse is an electron.
The setting consciously and unconsciously( abstract) is always presented to man in its distribution pattern, presented to the brain and then measured...automatically , a two line result representing our measure or what I guess you could say product, in both conscious and unconscious worlds we are able in the building of the human. Oh..the bird would also have the collapse as well being startled by the rider.
So the hypothesis.. there would be a wave coming from the detector which would be in the same park, crossing on the same path as the electron. And to my thinking the detector is also acting a boundary achieved.
So if man is coming around the corner on a bike, and decides to pretend he is at the end of the path by covering the camera, and then go on through the path, he can't expect the bird not to chirp.
The camera behind the curtain for the eraser idea, is only pretense until waves collapse and confirm the mutual experience in mans observing and the experiment . Relative to both, man and experiment, in the whole experiment the camera behind the curtain is only an idea. Because reality for both has not been resolved in the collapsing. Two worlds. Also two world which man is working from in order to conjure up all these things, but there is a bias, man's world is held in a bias .
Anyway I'm not that hugely concerned with this exactly , and more enjoy trying to get at things in general which seem to be different or unusual, and trying to figure it out in a comfortable way.
I can hear snow plows, more then one so better get going.
Last edited by alexcanter; 02-02-2014 at 09:31 AM..
It's a bit complicated but basically all you need to know is 2 particles (these can be photons or other types of particle) become 'entangled' with each other. The movement of one determines the movement of the other even though they are physically separated. There doesn't to be any restriction on how far apart the particles are away from each other and the effects seem to be instantaneous.
NASA is looking into quantum entanglement in a big way and tests will soon be made in space to see how far apart particles can be and still interact with each other:
Hi there Hiker,
I'm back to try to explain quantum entanglement a little better.
To start with, if you find anything about quantum physics confusing then don't worry, you are in good company. There are many quotes about quantum mechanics such as this one by physicist John Wheeler that sums it up:
“If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it”.
Much about quantum mechanics is counter intuitive but stick with it.
I'm just going to deal with quantum entanglement here but for future reference it would be worthwhile for you to look at Quantum superposition, wave-particle duality and quantum tunnelling too.
Two very important things to note in dealing with any quantum mechanics as far as we understand it are this:
sub atomic particles can exist in many different states simultaneously but it is only when they are observed or measured, that they assume one particular state.
Quantum theory deals with probabilities, not certainties because some aspects of nature are governed by chance.
At the end of the post I'm going to leave you with a superb video that takes you through some of these issues. It's very down to earth and very easy to follow but I guarantee by the end of it, your mind will be blown, especially when you get to the end of the double-slit experiment.
Quantum entanglement can be defined like this: In quantum physics, entangled particles remain connected so that actions performed on one affect the other, even when separated by great distances. The phenomenon so riled Albert Einstein he called it "spooky action at a distance."
First of all note that two particles have to be 'entangled' before they are separated.
Examples of entangled particles can be electrons or photons or potentially other particles.
Lets look at the electron example. Where there are two electrons in an atom; one electron will always be required to be spin up while the other will always be required other spin down. We can physically separate the electrons (theoretically to opposite ends of the galaxy) and then measure the spins of the electrons. The spin of one when measured instantaneously determines the spin of the other when measured even though they are now separated.
Note that there is no travelling going on between the electrons here so nothing is travelling faster that the speed of light, however it does raise an interesting question 'What kind of communication is going on with entangled particles, if any?'
Some think that it doesn't imply communication at all. Here is a thought experiment I found to help explain this:
Quote:
Say you agree to send out two beams of light to your two friends who live on opposite sides of the galaxy (you live in the middle). Ahead of time you tell them that if one of the beams of light is red the other will be blue. So you send the blue beam to your friend on one side and immediately she knows that your other friend is receiving a red beam at the same time. Aha! You say, my friends have now communicated at a speed faster than the speed of light and violated relativity, but no real information has been passed between them. You have told both of them at a normal sub-luminal speed about what you just did and that's all. (A way of proving there's no faster than light communication is that you could lie and send them both the same coloured beam of light and they would never know!).
With QM is gets a bit more complicated because theoretically no-one knows the state of the particle until it has been observed, but you still cannot affect the state of the particle so the argument is the same.
It's tricky I know, but it is a real observed and measured phenomena that has been known about for decades.
I'm going to leave you with Jim Al-Khalili and this fabulous very easy to follow video. It's very long but trust me its really worth it if you can find the time.
You will love the double slit experiment (skip to 24 minutes in).
Seems to me there are a variety of things being discussed in this thread.
I think its okay for me to chip in and put my point of view across about a particular issue that I thought needed clarifying. Actually I think it was an important point to make.
Quote:
It goes without saying that all of physics is ultimately quantum physics. Quantum physics is needed to describe how atoms exchange electrons, which is needed to describe oxidation-reduction reactions, which is needed to describe combustion, which is needed to describe car mechanics. This does not mean car mechanics is a necessary elementary component of quantum physics. If all cars disappeared tomorrow, quantum physics would remain.
So when I say "Whatever consciousness turns out to be, it is not a necessary elementary component of quantum physics.", I mean precisely that. Quantum mechanics is needed to describe calcium ions, which are needed for voltage gated channels, which are needed for action potentials, which are needed for brain functions, which are needed for consciousness. This does not mean consciousness is a necessary elementary component of quantum physics
I hold the opposite view, I find the "consciousness is algorithmic" argument to be more compelling. For example, consider the following statement:
"Cruithne can never know that this statement is consistently true."
I instantly recognise the statement is true, but you will never be able to, no matter how hard you try, as you cannot escape the limitations of the formal algorithmic system that is your mind. The equivalent statement for me would be "Morbert can never know that this statement is consistently true."
It is, of course, not an open and closed case, and an open mind is necessary, but we must also be willing to critically analyse postulates. I merely tender that, as it stands, "consciousness must be a non-computable quantum mechanical process" is not a compelling position.
Quantum tunnelling, for example, is responsible for how we smell. That biological systems might exploit quantum physics at the molecular scale is accepted by most people. Consciousness, however, is not merely a molecular process. It involves highly choreographed communications between a macroscopic neural network with all the degrees of freedom that characterise a thermodynamic process. Thermodynamics is ultimately what destroys coherent quantum phenomena.
I understand where you are coming from here. The brain is a complex network of nerve cells, transmitting electrochemical signals to other areas of the brain responsible for functions such as cognition, memory, attention, perception, emotion and the senses. So I get what you are saying about consciousness suggesting a thermodynamic process. But given that even all we know about the structure and systems within the brain, we still don't know how all of that actually gives rise to consciousness so the operative word here is suggest.
In any case, since quantum physics encompasses the study of all matter and energy at a quantum level, we seem to be in agreement anyway, since my point was that consciousness must exist with the physical laws of nature and quantum to me seems to be the only way to go.
Where we differ is here:
Quote:
"consciousness must be a non-computable quantum mechanical process" is not a compelling position.
On this point I side with Penroses stance that the brain-as-computer view fails to account for things like:
* Distinctions between conscious and non-conscious.
* 'Non-computable' thought and understanding.
* 'Binding and synchrony', the problem of how disparate neuronal activities are bound into unified conscious experience.
* Measurable brain activity corresponding to a stimulus often occurs after we've responded (seemingly consciously) to that stimulus.
Last edited by Cruithne; 02-02-2014 at 10:54 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
