Theories about a link between the human mind and quantum physics
bbc.com
bbc.com
QM just doesn't add _any_ new explanations or make any predictions for consciousness. Until it does, or we meet something we really cannot explain, it does not make sense to obsess over it.
But at the core of the modern QM lies a mathematical theory that, unfortunately, only rarely is seen as something that is independent from the QM's concrete physical aspects. That theory is a kind of probability theory that is different from the one that we all know and love (or hate). It is exactly that difference that makes QM unreachable for our intuition. But as a mathematical framework it can be expected to be useful in describing behavior of some other systems that have nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics and which could possibly include mechanisms of consciousness.
Local minima'maxima and the unyeildy nature of large numbers of nuerons are both currently being dealt with utilising probabilistic methods
the mind functions on electrical signals and should be able to be understood through modeling
This is the case regardless of where you stand on dualism
The reason that I brought up Chalmers is that he, and others, will say that physical states don't map to subjective consciousness or qualia. Don't get me wrong, I'm much more of a "physicalist" in this regard. I'm not trained and I don't work in the field, but I can't help but think that humans overestimate the complexity and capabilities of consciousness. I think that there is a brain and, like you say, there is some function of it that results in consciousness. I think that we end up with a problem of definitions because the thing that Chalmers et al are describing, I think, doesn't exist. BUT if we are talking about the thing that Chalmers an co are talking about, then no...I don't see a way that you get to qualia and consciousness from protein.
I'm kind of rambling. Sorry, it this isn't very coherent.
I think you meant this question to be rhetorical but I think this is a reasonable question to consider. It's speculation without evidence but it is interesting (to me) speculation.
> Quantum mechanics adds no explanatory power
Occam's Razor indicates that we should prefer the simplest explanation that explains a phenomenon. Unfortunately we don't have anything like a good explanation for consciousness so discarding hypotheses for not being simple enough isn't necessarily helpful.
> No electrical activity, no consciousness.
It seems that this is necessary, but that doesn't mean it is sufficient, to explain consciousness.
> or we meet something we really cannot explain, it does not make sense to obsess over it.
Like the hard problem of consciousness? This is something we really can't explain with our current level of knowledge (unless you are in the "there is no hard problem" camp).
It may well be the case that consciousness can be explained within our current understanding of physics but given the uniqueness of the phenomenon it doesn't seem unreasonable to keep something of an open mind.
Yeah, I am with Dennett and the others that think the Hard Problem is basically made up. My thinking is pretty close to what Thomas W. Clark has written on the subject (http://www.naturalism.org/philosophy/consciousness/the-expla... basically, that your consciousness and awareness actually _is_ the experience that your physical brain is having in response to stimuli and self-reflection.
"If indeed qualia are identical to certain functional informational processes, then the hard problem of consciousness (what Chalmers more or less takes to be the easy problem) is the empirical one of discovering just what these processes are."
But why should certain "functional informational processes" be a certain experience? Even if Clark is correct it doesn't seem to really explain anything. I'm not sure it's even scientific; is it at all testable?
It seems to me that no one has come up with a good explanation of what consciousness is, or even made any sort of dent in the problem. Saying that consciousness is the physical experience of the brain, or that it's quantum mechanics, or it's an illusion or whatever are interesting guesses but they haven't led us anywhere.
If the brain's activity _did_ somehow give rise to experience, wouldn't _this_ experience--the one you are having right now, reading this sentence, thinking these thoughts, breathing, etc, even the sensation of the redness of red--have to be exactly that? Moreover, if the brain's activity gave rise to a _different_ experience, then we'd experience _that_ instead. In other words, _if_ there is an experience that is _produced_ by the signaling behavior of brain, then _this_ must be it.
Stead a direct link between qm and consciousness, as in protein strands exhibiting superposition, I think both utilise, and thus are consequence of, the same, or similar, underlying mathematics
There are flaws in both that require probability for us to even get a glimpse of what is happening
it is my intendeded inference that with a new mathematical model that solves high dimensional problem spaces we will understand both more
For me qm and consciousness are intuitive evidence that p=np, but we will only be able to show that indirect relation when we have proven the math
As an aside, how would scientists develop/validate explanations for long-term behaviors, i.e., behaviors that occur over a longer period incrementally with low-energy processes? I think we're lucky to have have astronomical data to observe physics at logarithmic time scales, but I wonder about the general case of low-energy, long-term system behavior that may not exhibit itself in astronomy.
https://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/
When I read your comment I immediately recalled this article about an experiment that designed tone discrimination circuits on FPGAs by stochastic processes (genetic algorithm). The highlight is that at the end of thousands of rounds of controlled evolution, the researchers obtained a circuit that achieved unexpected efficiency through mechanisms they initially failed to explain. There were closed circuits within the overall structure which only interacted with the main structure passively. Its design was the product of its unique electro-magnetic environment to the extent that results could not be replicated on another board of the same type.
In other words, a circuit appeared to originate with properties that would not have been arrived at by applying the conventional theory of circuit design.
Considering that organic brains are made up of many trillions of unit neurons, which grow into networks that will be trained by stochastic processes, it makes sense to expect them to exhibit a similar level of exploitation of their environment. If that environment is one in which quantum phenomena can result in real effects on the behavior of the system, why shouldn't we expect them to be exploited by real brains?
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YycAzdtUIko - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YFrISfN7jo - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-MNSLsjjdo - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLeEsYDlXJk - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADiql3FG5is - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWfRWdeuPb4 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stXhGMVJuqA - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMuFCpxnUQ
Are Space and Time An Illusion? | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YycAzdtUIko
The Geometry of Causality | Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YFrISfN7jo
The Quantum Experiment that Broke Reality | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-MNSLsjjdo
Quantum Biology: An Introduction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLeEsYDlXJk
Quantum Biology: The Hidden Nature of Nature
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADiql3FG5is
Consciousness: Explored and Explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWfRWdeuPb4
The Mind After Midnight: Where Do You Go When You Go to Sleep?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stXhGMVJuqA
Rebooting the Cosmos: Is the Universe the Ultimate Computer?
Argh. Brain-hurting levels of bad science writing.
For some reason the mathematics of QM is extremely good at explaining counter intuitive phenomena that classical probability theory cannot (necker cube is a good example, where the mental state can be said to be in a superposition of the two cube orientations).
Mind you, this doesn't say anything about the actual mechanism. It could or couldn't be quantum but we'll never know if we just shrug the entire thing off as crackpottery.
The answer is there, in the last panel ;)
Alarm bells ringing around! Path and position are not the same thing, and that's quite an important distinction in quantum mechanics!
this claim has always frustrated me
can someone who agrees with it defend it from first principles?
However, single photon double slit experiments don't show this - the particles act as though they are interfering with each other even though a photon detector will show photons arriving one at a time, at a rate which shows only one photon could have been traversing the apparatus at a time.
> If we place a detector inside or just behind one slit, we can find out whether any given particle goes through it or not. In that case, however, the interference vanishes. Simply by observing a particle's path – even if that observation should not disturb the particle's motion – we change the outcome.
when we place an observer at one of the slits we lose the previously ambiguous diffraction and instead get a clump pattern, but we are definitely probing where it is
almost as silly as a chiropractor making adjustments on a turtle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=693MsUkQzsA
The writer watched some Big Bang theory for well-known physics concepts, mashed in some Deepak Chopra, and ensured all the relevant sentences are phrased as questions.
Be warned it is a difficult read, not because of complicated concepts (there are many mentioned, but they are certainly not examined), but because of lack of any cohesive or binding logic between the smattering of phrases.
On the other hand, they may not. It's the concept of holding both of these "facts" as eventual truths (irrationally resolved in the future) in one's mind at the same time that leads to dissonance. That's a good excuse for the scientific process, if there ever was one.
What is obvious, anything which could not be captured by the senses and does not directly influence the chances of survival and reproduction cannot be represented into a brain structure and cannot be the source of related intuitions.
Abstract concepts and generalized notions would necessarily reflect observable empirical phenomena, not imaginable.
In other words, this is another hipster's nonsense.
He just attributed it to some metaphysical abstractions, perhaps due to being prejudiced by all the religious dogmatic nonsense, and the social consensus which refused to consider a man being mere a machine and everything in the universe as an unfolding of one single process.
Many untestable, unprovable theories in the past were considered nonsense and later proven true.
I think the way you're using the word "theory" here dilutes its technical meaning. More accurate to call it speculation or philosophizing.
Good discussion from bad article.
I found surprising link between quantum objects and socks. Socks can be left, or right. They cannot be partially left, or partially right, but they can be left and right at same time! Trust me, I checked that.
Moreover, when nobody is watching, socks are spreading in the room in wave-like pattern. It demonstrates wave-particle duality of socks. However, if somebody watching, socks are demonstrating particle only behavior. Moreover, they are demonstrating particle only behavior even if somebody will watch them in future!
Socks can be entangled, so if one sock is the right sock, then other one is instantaneously collapses to the left sock via spooky action at distance. This feature of socks can be used for FTL communication.
I have theory, it's called «string theory». In this theory, our Universe is made of little strings, which are creating space-time fabric, in which socks are living. In the process of entanglement, socks are somewhat connected by a string, which allows them to communicate via large distances.
Can anybody suggest me how to create a powerful theory from that, e.g. x in power of 10 at least?