Quantum consciousness
Discussion
The brain we have is similar to other animals, yet the defining characteristics of consciousness cannot be fully understood. The theory is that the interaction in the mind taps into the quantum realm, and we have broken the natural system and now think at a level never found before in nature.
We then move onto what we observe in the quantum world, and find an observation we have on experiments, can be changed by what we see and what we expect to see, so even before making a decision.
Is it possible that the consciousness we have is the first step to becoming part of the universe as a whole, the ablity to take into quantum commuincation at an atomic level, we just don't know how to tap into it, but can see the effect in certain experiments?
Maybe we are the key to understanding the whole universe, not a computer?
We then move onto what we observe in the quantum world, and find an observation we have on experiments, can be changed by what we see and what we expect to see, so even before making a decision.
Is it possible that the consciousness we have is the first step to becoming part of the universe as a whole, the ablity to take into quantum commuincation at an atomic level, we just don't know how to tap into it, but can see the effect in certain experiments?
Maybe we are the key to understanding the whole universe, not a computer?
Dr Jekyll said:
It isn't a theory, just a speculation, and a pretty vague one at that.
Consciousness isn't defined by current understanding and mchanics so any hypothesis would be a theory only,The quantum bit comes in as unexplanble actions in the universe usually relate to those at a quantum level? Why is it vague?
The phrase 'taps into the quantum realm' isn't even wrong.
The notion that observation changes experiments in the sense of consciousness affecting events is merely one interpretation.
The phrase 'first step in becoming part of the universe as a whole' again doesn't mean anything. How can you test it?
It all boils down to saying 'we don't know what's going on so it must be something quantum'.
The notion that observation changes experiments in the sense of consciousness affecting events is merely one interpretation.
The phrase 'first step in becoming part of the universe as a whole' again doesn't mean anything. How can you test it?
It all boils down to saying 'we don't know what's going on so it must be something quantum'.
Esceptico said:
Adding the word “quantum” to gobbledygook doesn’t stop it being gobbledygook.
No no, this is gobbledygook at an ATOMIC level, witness:'quantum commuincation at an atomic level'
Where does the writer think quantum stuff happens?!
I'll see your gobbledygook and raise you a b
ks!! Thesprucegoose said:
The brain we have is similar to other animals, yet the defining characteristics of consciousness cannot be fully understood. The theory is that the interaction in the mind taps into the quantum realm, and we have broken the natural system and now think at a level never found before in nature.
We then move onto what we observe in the quantum world, and find an observation we have on experiments, can be changed by what we see and what we expect to see, so even before making a decision.
Is it possible that the consciousness we have is the first step to becoming part of the universe as a whole, the ablity to take into quantum commuincation at an atomic level, we just don't know how to tap into it, but can see the effect in certain experiments?
Maybe we are the key to understanding the whole universe, not a computer?
We're already part of the universe. That's part of our problem I think, in that we see ourselves as distinct from everything around us. So, if we do have quantum consciousness, we still have an inability to realise we are as much a part of the system as any other lump of matter, rather than living outside it. And this is why we struggle with things like climate change and other existential threats.We then move onto what we observe in the quantum world, and find an observation we have on experiments, can be changed by what we see and what we expect to see, so even before making a decision.
Is it possible that the consciousness we have is the first step to becoming part of the universe as a whole, the ablity to take into quantum commuincation at an atomic level, we just don't know how to tap into it, but can see the effect in certain experiments?
Maybe we are the key to understanding the whole universe, not a computer?
Life might be the mechanism by which the universe is discovering itself. And from life we get consciousness, and there appears to be something special about this component. But there's also another component we should consider. Something that emerges from consciousness, and that is empathy. As our consciousness has been elevated as a species, our circle of empathy has widened. We've learned to expand our capacity for empathy beyond our immediate family, to encompass strangers, in the shape of our groups, communities and nations. I think that will be key to our future.
If our consciousness can be raised to a level where our circle of empathy encompasses the entire cosmos, we might be around for a very long time.
There's also an old theory called panpsychism, which is the idea that all matter is conscious. And this is the basis for our consciousness. This has seen a resurgence in recent times, mainly due to the inability of science to explain the hard problem of consciousness.
Edited by PMacanGTS on Wednesday 20th November 06:04
Why consider consciousness to be such a special thing in the first place? Why isn't it just one of a variety of things that a thing like a brain can do? At one extreme why assume it's a fundamental property of matter? At the other extreme, why assume it is supernatural? In the middle ground, why assume it has any special connection with quantum mechanics (any more or less than any other physical process)?
Loads of species of animals have independently evolved some ability to think about themselves sufficient to allow them to plan what they're going to do. Does that sound like a concrete base for the rather wooly idea we have of our "consciousness"? Haven't we just evolved to specialise that behaviour rather more than any other species has?
Loads of species of animals have independently evolved some ability to think about themselves sufficient to allow them to plan what they're going to do. Does that sound like a concrete base for the rather wooly idea we have of our "consciousness"? Haven't we just evolved to specialise that behaviour rather more than any other species has?
ATG said:
Why consider consciousness to be such a special thing in the first place? Why isn't it just one of a variety of things that a thing like a brain can do? At one extreme why assume it's a fundamental property of matter? At the other extreme, why assume it is supernatural? In the middle ground, why assume it has any special connection with quantum mechanics (any more or less than any other physical process)?
Loads of species of animals have independently evolved some ability to think about themselves sufficient to allow them to plan what they're going to do. Does that sound like a concrete base for the rather wooly idea we have of our "consciousness"? Haven't we just evolved to specialise that behaviour rather more than any other species has?
Life, as we know it, has been at it for over 4 billion years. And millions of species have existed. There are just a handful of species who are self aware, and only one who can contemplate the cosmos and their place in it. I'd say that makes human consciousness pretty special, regardless of how it emerges.Loads of species of animals have independently evolved some ability to think about themselves sufficient to allow them to plan what they're going to do. Does that sound like a concrete base for the rather wooly idea we have of our "consciousness"? Haven't we just evolved to specialise that behaviour rather more than any other species has?
PMacanGTS said:
There are just a handful of species who are self aware
How do you know?I would say the higher levels of consciousness are a function of brain size, ie number of neurons. And if you past 'tools' to 'civilisation', then rather then grubbing for roots and berries every daylight hour, you get to the point where 95% of your life is empty because everything is catered for so your mighty brain can start going off on weird stuff, or playing on the internet.
Thesprucegoose said:
The theory is that the interaction in the mind taps into the quantum realm, and we have broken the natural system and now think at a level never found before in nature.
"theory" is going to confuse any debate - "idea put forward" is more apt.How have we "broken the natural system"? If there was a difference (how do we know what other animals are thinking?) then surely it would be part of the natural system, just a slight change giving an advantage and developing over time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg
2.18 start, explains better than i can.
Sir Roger Penrose — The quantum nature of consciousness
2.18 start, explains better than i can.
Sir Roger Penrose — The quantum nature of consciousness
He rejects the idea that our consciousness could be effectively a classical (in the physical sense) calculational process, and he does so without evidence. It just doesn't feel plausible to him that it could be "a calculation". He might be right, but he's not making a scientific argument, nor a philosophical one. He's really just saying "let's set that idea to one side and see if we can find some other source of consciousness". That's fine. It's worth exploring ideas on their own merit. But he doesn't find an alternative source. And, as said, he hasn't offered an argument as to why consciousness can't be part of the behaviour of a classical system of neurons. Penrose is an absolute genius; a profoundly original thinker. It's always worth listening to what he has to say, but this strikes me as kite flying.
Simpo Two said:
PMacanGTS said:
There are just a handful of species who are self aware
How do you know? ^ Was going to say the same about Penrose; broad, deep and unorthodox, but not necessarily right. 'Quantum effects' may certainly be involved in the process of consciousness or at least its mechanics, but only in the same way as it is in photosynthesis for example, or that's what I think anyway. The emerging of a consciousness from multi-layered Darwinian wetware and the trick it plays on itself to think it's itself is a reasonable one I think. Emotions are chemicals...
Our 'empathy' stems largely from the frontal cortex - one of the distinguishing characteristics of the human brain [30% bigger than closest great ape] - it gives pause to action which means we don't bite immediately but consider briefly, this allows manipulation and creates empathy as we can process and appreciate the context and the effect of actions better to our advantage.
Self-awareness in animals brings into question the dichotomy of intelligence without consciousness, seen perhaps in the Octopus, and the 'white noise' vestigial consciousnesses of other creatures.
'The Ego Tunnel' by Metzinger [a pop version of 'Being No One', thank god], is perhaps one of the more important recent neurological/psychological/philosophical perspectives on the 'theory' of consciousness I think. Interesting reading.
Our 'empathy' stems largely from the frontal cortex - one of the distinguishing characteristics of the human brain [30% bigger than closest great ape] - it gives pause to action which means we don't bite immediately but consider briefly, this allows manipulation and creates empathy as we can process and appreciate the context and the effect of actions better to our advantage.
Self-awareness in animals brings into question the dichotomy of intelligence without consciousness, seen perhaps in the Octopus, and the 'white noise' vestigial consciousnesses of other creatures.
'The Ego Tunnel' by Metzinger [a pop version of 'Being No One', thank god], is perhaps one of the more important recent neurological/psychological/philosophical perspectives on the 'theory' of consciousness I think. Interesting reading.
Simpo Two said:
PMacanGTS said:
There are just a handful of species who are self aware
How do you know?I would say the higher levels of consciousness are a function of brain size, ie number of neurons. And if you past 'tools' to 'civilisation', then rather then grubbing for roots and berries every daylight hour, you get to the point where 95% of your life is empty because everything is catered for so your mighty brain can start going off on weird stuff, or playing on the internet.
TX.
If you focus the definition of consciousness as being able to spout pseudo scientific crap on a forum for car and bike enthusiasts then yes, only your good old Homo sapiens have it.
There are arguments for defining consciousness much more broadly, which would mean that most large animals and birds would be treated as conscious.
I certainly treat my dog as if he is conscious: he is a thinking, feeling being and although we can’t talk to each other with spoken languages we still manage to communicate (to the extent that wife and daughter get envious!)
There are arguments for defining consciousness much more broadly, which would mean that most large animals and birds would be treated as conscious.
I certainly treat my dog as if he is conscious: he is a thinking, feeling being and although we can’t talk to each other with spoken languages we still manage to communicate (to the extent that wife and daughter get envious!)
Esceptico said:
If you focus the definition of consciousness as being able to spout pseudo scientific
What specifically is this?The reason is as I've posted, Quantum consciousness is a theory of Sir Penrose. I had actually thought about it before finding out he had thought of it as well.(I am no way at his level just a thinker)
Anyway another article.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830500-30...
''Is quantum physics behind your brain's ability to think?
From consciousness to long-term memories, the human brain has some peculiar computing abilities – and they could be explained by quantum fuzziness''
It's certainly tempting to explain brain activity in terms of quantum effects.
Newtonian mechanics mean that the current position and velocity of every particle dictates what will happen in the future, so if you had that information for everything the future would be 100% predictable, This makes free will difficult to explain if not downright impossible.
The fact that quantum mechanics indicates that it's impossible to have that information even in principle provides a possible get out.
But that's very different from saying consciousness implies quantum 'communication' on a universe wide level.
Newtonian mechanics mean that the current position and velocity of every particle dictates what will happen in the future, so if you had that information for everything the future would be 100% predictable, This makes free will difficult to explain if not downright impossible.
The fact that quantum mechanics indicates that it's impossible to have that information even in principle provides a possible get out.
But that's very different from saying consciousness implies quantum 'communication' on a universe wide level.
Dr said:
Newtonian mechanics mean that the current position and velocity of every particle dictates what will happen in the future, so if you had that information for everything the future would be 100% predictable, This makes free will difficult to explain if not downright impossible.
The other way to look at it is to say there isn’t free will... 
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff