Some people claim that consciousness is a product of quantum phenomena. For example, scientists like Robert Lanza and his Biocentrism Theory, and the (IMO less convincing) "new age guru" (pseudoscientist?) Deepak Chopra with his idea that quantum entanglement creates consciousness.

While these seemingly philosophical ideas make for very interesting reading, they seem to be speculations that are profoundly unscientific, and therefore shouldn't be described as scientific theories.

They tend to rely on misinterpretations of quantum phenomena, eg using the double-slit experiment and the "Observer Effect" to try and prove that conscious beings can influence quantum effects in a specific way (when in fact the collapse of the wave-function in the double-slit experiment is not dependent on the act of observing, it is due to the necessity of interacting photons with other particles so they can be measured, which subsequently change their state. Consciousness, or even life itself is not required to collapse the wave-function - just interaction with any other particles will do this just fine).

A popular theory by Chopra misinterprets quantum entanglement and claims that it can cause the future to affect the past, and can transmit information faster than light. No experiment yet conducted has shown that these phenomena are true, in fact they all seem to show the opposite.

I appreciate that quantum effects undoubtedly affect the mind, after all our brain is merely a collection of neural connections powered by electrons/molecules that all exhibit random quantum phenomena, which could likely change our perceptions/decisions in real life. I like to theorise that these phenomena give us true free will - the innate randomness of quantum effects means human behaviour could never be predicted to 100% accuracy.

But this is a different hypothesis to consciousness being a product of quantum phenomena, which as far as I'm concerned is pseudoscientific.

I'm not a quantum physicist, but I'd like to hear some other peoples thought on this matter - is there any testable/scientific proof that consciousness is a product of quantum phenomena?

 

Just had to chime in here... While I understand your points about the abstraction of god, I think you're reading into the details too much. I think the FSM/teapot analogy is totally valid. The whole point of it is merely to show that it is illogical to assume that anything extraordinary exists without seeing evidence for it. By assuming an entity exists (for which there is no evidence, or even no possible way to even test for its existence), you logically have to also assume that any other such entities are just as likely to exist, and therefore just as valid. It doesn't prove or disprove the existence of god, as much as it shows that assuming such things is illogical and counter-productive.

This thread sure has given me a laugh, and taught me a thing or two. I'm not religious, but I do find it funny listening to religious people try and validate their views by alternately cherry-picking science and quoting the Bible. BADecker - you are probably the worst offender in this respect, one minute you're saying things like: "Machine Universe proves the existence of God", "Evolution is a scientific impossibility" etc, and the next you're quoting Bible passages to back up your claims! Most religious people accept that their beliefs are not provable, that's why they call it "faith" when you believe weird stuff with no evidence.

The fact that some of you seem to be looking to science to rationalise your religious views strikes me as refreshing in a way, as it suggests that you're questioning your views and retaining at least a little open-mindedness. Try and lose the confirmation bias, and you might get somewhere!

Yeah, this is the most popular theory at the moment I think, I'm no astrophysicist but I'll explain what I know.

Historically, the "Big Crunch" was what most scientists believed. This involved a "Big Bang", an expansion of the universe, then after a while the force of gravity would slow the expansion down. Eventually the force of gravity would overcome the initial force of expansion, causing the universe to begin contracting. This contraction would accelerate, ending in a spectacular "Big Crunch", with all the matter in the universe trying to occupy a single point. Some then speculated that another "Big Bang" would occur, and the cycle would continue.

However, in 1998 the Hubble Telescope observed some distant supernovae which showed that, a few billion years ago, the universe was actually expanding more slowly than it is today. Many more experiments have shown this to be true - The universe seems to not only be still expanding, the expansion is actually accelerating. Now this threw the "Big Crunch" theory out of the window, and caused scientists to make new theories involving something called "dark energy". Although no-one really knows what dark energy is, most scientists believe it's a mysterious energy which repels matter, overcoming the force of gravity (which attracts matter to other matter), and causing the accelerating expansion of the universe.

With these discoveries, it seems that the "Big Freeze" or heat-death of the universe is a likely scenario. In this theory, all matter keeps getting further and further apart, and eventually reaches maximum entropy, where all the energy is spread evenly throughout the whole universe. In such a state, there would be no heat or light, as there wouldn't be enough concentrated energy to sustain the processes. It would be very dark and cold.

However there is the "Big Rip" theory, which I admittedly know very little about, which predicts that the accelerating expansion of the universe will cause it to tear itself apart as a result of dark energy becoming stronger over time. The idea (I think) is that as dark energy gets stronger, it begins to tear apart smaller and smaller objects, until it is strong enough to tear apart subatomic particles, in essence destroying all matter in the universe.

If you think that the theory of evolution cannot explain the diversity of life on Earth then you have not understood it properly. It explains this very well, that is why it is so popular. Of course it doesn't prove it 100% - logically nothing can prove anything with absolute certainty.


Wrong. While we can say "life on Earth is very unlikely", it is illogical to assume it can ONLY have been created by a higher being. We only have ONE data point with which to estimate how likely it is. If we had more data, say if we found self-aware beings on another planet separate from our own, then we could start to estimate the likelihood of such an event. Until then we only know that the laws of probability state that it is relatively unlikely, involving many things to be "just right" (eg carbon atoms readily bonding to other carbon atoms and many other elements, water freezing from the top down, Earth spinning on its axis at an angle, Earth being a perfect distance from the Sun etc.etc.)


Wrong again. The idea of "Survival of the Fittest" does not involve any kind of programming. It is down to random mutations in cells, some of which give an advantage to the organism. The organisms that have an advantage prosper, while the ones that don't tend to die. Rinse and repeat over billions of years, and you get the super-specialized animals that we see in the world today. You can't see all the ones that "went wrong" because they died out, you only see the specialized creatures, which gives the illusion that they were "created".


There is no proof to say that anything programmed anything, and if there does exist a god that programmed this world we live in, then I don't think it's very nice. If it still has influence on what's going on in this day and age, then why doesn't it stop all the pain? If it doesn't have any influence, then it made a bit of a mess.


Please stop with this "atheism is a religion" nonsense. Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

It could be described as an ideology I suppose, and there are certain archaic definitions of religion that it may fit, but it abso-fucking-lutely does not come under the modern definition of "Religion".

I don't want to argue about the semantics, but when people say "Religion", they're implying that a supernatural god exists. They also tend to imply that there exists a moral code which is in line with the supernatural god's wishes, amongst other unprovable, supernatural beliefs. Atheists are simply rejecting that ideology. ALthough it could be argued that they adhere to an "organized system of beliefs", this does not make atheism a religion in the general sense of the word.

I don't quite know what you mean by "high priests called scientists" and "a god of self".

But seriously, think about it. Are people who don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster part of a religion? They adhere to an organized system of beliefs, such as "I believe that the lake is too small and does not contain enough prey to sustain such a huge creature", or "If the monster existed, then some good video footage would have been taken by now." Does that make anyone who doesn't believe in the Loch Ness Monster (or my flying huskies mentioned earlier) religious? No.

While atheism has similarities with religion, it is by the general definition not an actual religion.

Your logic is flawed. What you are proposing is a logical fallacy called anArgument from Ignorance. This is basically the whole "Russel's Teapot"/"Flying Spaghetti Monster" argument. Although you are correct in saying that there isn't any proof that god does NOT exist, this doesn't make each side of the argument equally valid.

If this was the case then anyone could say anything at all, and then could claim that what they said was true because it can't be proven false. I could say for instance, that my electric car was powered by a pack of invisible flying huskies, that cannot be detected with any known scientific apparatus. Such a claim would rightly be ridiculed by most people as it lacks any form of evidence, even though it cannot be proven false.

Ask yourself this, and you may be able to see the flaw in your logic: Do you believe every single thing that anyone tells you? If not, why not?

OK seeing as there's a lot of anti-GM people on this forum I'm gonna have to correct you there.

Synthetic cannabinoids are not genetically modified cannabis or related to cannabis. Synthetic cannabinoids were never alive, so they do not have any genes to modify. They are lab-produced substances that mimic tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) which is the most active drug present in cannabis. Their pure form is normally powder/crystalline, but they are often dissolved in a solvent and then sprayed on shredded plant material to make a blend. Most originated in research laboratories and were never designed for human consumption.

If you had read my post thoroughly, then you would see that I agreed with you that synthetic cannabinoids can be dangerous, and said I was sorry to hear about your family. There's no need to start shouting about how you want me and my kids to die slowly. And no-one is persuading anyone to take anything, don't know where you got that idea. If safer alternatives like real cannabis/LSD/MDMA weren't outlawed then situations like this would never exist. That's not my fault, it's the fault of the War on Drugs, as I said earlier.

The point I was trying to make was too many people say "all legal highs will kill you" (or the opposite), which simply isn't true. Each one has its own safety profile, and a result some can be dangerous, others not so much. I understand that this is quite an emotional subject for you, but just saying that "all legal highs are evil!!" isn't a rational viewpoint I'm afraid.


The legality of BD-FLY is sketchy, it's still legal in many places, and was legal in many more when the incident occured. My point is that there is always an element of danger with ANY drug, but some are more likely to kill at a lower dosage. I was also using the BD-FLY incidents as an example where a simple mislabelling had serious consequences. I don't think it matters whether the examples are legal or not, I'm just using them to illustrate some basics about how drugs work.

Re: the dose-response curve, no that's not what I mean. You're right that some people have different effects from the same dose, but this is down to physiological differences such as tolerance. A steep dose-response means that there is a fine line between a threshold dose (one where the effects are barely felt) and an overdose (where undesired side-effects appear). For example with 25I-NBOMe, (which was legal in most places until not long ago), 10x the normal dose would be a huge overdose and would probably put the user in hospital if not kill them. But 10x the dose of LSD would cause no physiological damage (although it could be dangerous for your mental health).

If a drug has a steep dose-response curve, then a very small amount over the threshold dose will have a large effect - on the contrary, a drug with a shallower dose-response curve will need a large amount over the threshold for changes in effect. But drugs are complicated, as I said earlier side-effects occur at different dosages with different drugs. Looking at LSD vs 25I-NBOMe, you will get extreme physical side-effects with just a small OD of 25I-NBOMe (such as tachycardia that could cause a heart attack). With LSD, you'd just be away with the fairies for a few days if you took 10-100x the threshold dose. You could get run over or have a really bad time, but the drug itself wouldn't kill you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dose%E2%80%93response_relationship#Dose.E2.80.93response_curve

While this is technically true, the issues are a little more complicated. First off, unless you have access to GC/MS or other analytical equipment (costing tens of thousands of pounds), you'll never know for sure that what you have is what you think it is. However trustworthy your vendor is, everyone makes mistakes. Eg, the whole Bromo-Dragonfly incidents, where a batch was incorrectly mislabelled as 2C-B-Fly (a compound 20x less potent), and quite a few people died.

Also, drugs can have very steep dose/response curves (meaning the difference between a recreational dose and an overdose can be very small). Side-effects of different drugs also manifest at different doses. For example, most humans would probably survive 100x the standard dose of LSD, but would almost certainly die if they ingested 100x the standard dose of Bromo-Dragonfly or 25I-NBOMe (even though all 3 have similar potency).

Some people could also have an allergic reaction to a substance, which could only affect 0.00001% of the population. As a loose example, think of how serious peanut allergies can be, but it is a very rare condition.


While stimulants make up the majority of legal highs, there are many other classes, such as cannabinoids, sedatives, dissociatives, opioids, serotonergic psychedelics etc. All drugs will have different safety profiles and dosages, which will affect how safe they are to use. Don't forget that some drugs can be extremely addictive as well, which is not necessarily dangerous in the short term, but could mess your life up. Eg, it's perfectly safe to be addicted to clinical-grade Morphine or Heroin for your whole life (as we can see from war veterans using it daily for years), but it's not ideal for most people.


Good points. I think many of the people that get into trouble with legal highs haven't a clue what they're taking, and often take too much, too soon.

You're both kinda right with these comments.

Decksperiment, you're pretty much describing the Synth Cannabinoid market here, I think the chemists are now on the "4th Generation" of noids, probably the 5th is in development when the 4th get banned. And as they get banned, the newer ones tend to be even more unpredictable.

laverre, I also agree with you that people should have a choice. After all, if the safer option is illegal, then many people will turn to the option that won't land them in jail.

The real thing here is there should be EDUCATION not PROHIBITION. Many people assume that because a drug is legal, it is safe. This is obviously false, but don't forget that doesn't mean all legal highs are dangerous - they are, after all, simply chemicals.

Some legal highs or "research chemicals" can be dangerous, while others have been shown to be safer. What you ingested was almost certainly herbs impregnated with a synthetic cannabinoid, or a mixture of them. Although they haven't killed many people, synth cannabinoids have a horrible track record of being stupidly strong, and they seem to be very addictive as well. Sorry to hear about your family members getting into trouble btw, nasty business.

[chemistry] This is probably due to most of them being a full agonist at the cannabis receptors, rather than THC, which is a partial agonist. This means basically that many of these synth noids fully activate the CB receptors with a very low dose (making them strong), and are then metabolised very quickly (making the high short-lived, and the user wanting to smoke more). I call them "crack weed". Also bear in mind that real cannabis contains nearly 100 active cannabinoids, some of them such as CBD and CBN have different effects to THC, and can extend and "balance" the high. [/chemistry]

However there are many other classes of synthetic drugs, most of which don't seem to be as dangerous (for at least as long as they've been around, which admittedly isn't very long in most cases). For instance, many phenethylamines first synthesized by Alexander Shulgin, such as 2C-B/2C-I, are still legal in some countries and seem to be relatively benign if dosed carefully. Saying that, there have been many more recent phenethylamines, such as 25I-NBOMe, which are far more potent and have less known long-term effects.

My point is, if you do want to try any new legal highs/research chemicals, be aware that you are basically a guinea pig. Always research what you plan on taking thoroughly - read online reports of subjective effects/dosages/routes of administration etc. Pick your vendor carefully, and avoid products which don't inform you of the ingredients. If dealing with powdered chemicals, buy a good set of scales (accurate to 0.001g), and start very low - just remember you can never "untake" a drug, but you can always try a higher dose the following week. And avoid synthetic cannabinoids, I can tell you from experience that they can be horrible, unpredictable and addictive - just stick with real weed.

The best thing to do really is to just not try any of them, but if you must, PLEASE do your homework - don't become another victim of the War on Drugs. You see, the legal high market only exists because of prohibition, and the governments simply cannot keep up with the chemists that synthesize chemicals designed to circumvent new laws. This means that while safer drugs such as MDMA, LSD and Cannabis remain illegal, there will always be newer/less tested and probably more dangerous drugs being developed.

You may be right about the "thanking god" thing, perhaps I was a bit harsh with my basic reasoning there. It does make more sense the way you describe it - I suppose they may even just be thanking god that they got the chance to exist at all (and therefore become successful), and aren't claiming that they were "chosen" for some reason or another, in a karmic sense.

You also make a good point about self-aware animals, I think I agree with you that the free will of such an animal could be diminished by a master. When I said it was an all or nothing scenario, I was talking about the base idea of free-will vs a predetermined path. I think I understand what you're saying now - perhaps the higher the gap of intelligence, life experience and knowledge between the "slave" and the "master", the easier it is that the "slave" will simply obey the "master" without thinking of other less obvious options?

For instance, although some animals have been proven to be self-aware, maybe their behaviour still mostly operates on an instinctual level, and their lack of experience means they will overlook the other options (stupid example, but maybe if a gorilla is beaten by his master, he has the free will to act a certain way but eg. couldn't steal the keys to his cage, escape and then poison his master's coffee because the gorilla doesn't possess the knowledge of these systems. I suppose the gorilla's free will has been diminished to an extent, but I don't think it will ever be fully suppressed as long as the creature remains self-aware.)

Saw an interesting documentary series all about animal intelligence and self-awareness: Inside the Animal Mind - I think there should still be a torrent of them floating about, well worth a watch (I couldn't stop laughing at one point, where two dolphins are having sex while watching themselves in a mirror  )

But in all seriousness, looks modern to me, probably not worth much. (source: getting stoned and watching daytime antiques programmes on TV) 

Ouch, I haven't heard of this "Whisper" app before, but if true, it's pretty bad that a platform aimed at anonymity is in bed with the NSA et al. I suppose open source is the only option to guarantee privacy, hopefully people will catch on soon that any closed platform is vulnerable to this sort of thing...

Both excellent films, disturbing and confusing, yet gripping.

I will nominate in the serious category:

Irreversible
The Ring (original Japanese version)
[REC] (2007) - yeah it's not exactly original, but something about it really made me very jumpy...

Weird psycho-comedy category (obviously all Japanese haha):

Visitor Q
Tokyo Gore Police
Tetsuo: The Iron Man
Hausu!!

I had a delicious venison pie from a local pub the other day. It was quite expensive, but that's because the meat is deer 

I don't believe in karma, it's pretty obvious that the universe does not reward good behaviour/punish bad behaviour through some supernatural force. If this was the case then why do corrupt billionaires get to live out a long life of luxury, while the devout buddhist monk who never harmed anyone in his life gets killed in a freak Tibetan snowstorm...

I believe in causality in a similar way to you - If you are nice, people will be nice back and you'll generally have a better time. Also, I believe that if you you do good things, you will generally feel better about yourself which will in turn enrich your life. (Is there such a thing as a selfless act? lol I don't know, another thread for that I think...)

Similarly, I find the idea of a god that has influence on reality in realtime very hard to understand. I am an atheist, but even so I understand the concept of a god that created everything and now sits back and watches the outcome  

What I don't get is when people who, for example, win an Oscar and then thank god in their speech. Who the fuck are they to be so arrogant as to think that god "chose" them over, say, a devout priest who gave his life to the church, gave all his money to charity and then got falsely accused of raping a choirboy, and subsequently was hung, drawn and quartered (no source for this but I'm pretty sure it's happened a few times). I just don't get it.

Aaaanyway, to your question about free will. I've thought about this a lot, and firstly I don't believe that beings of higher intelligence can neccessarily influence the will of beings of lower intelligence - I think it's an all or nothing situation - either every self-aware being has free will, or they don't.

I tend to think of the human brain as a computer (albeit a ridiculously complicated one). After all, it does just consist of electrical impulses travelling through specific paths. I've contemplated the idea that theoretically, you could artificially map every single neural pathway in a human brain and predict all behaviour and actions that said human would do, in effect meaning that there is no such thing as free will.

I found this concept quite troubling (what is the point of making any decision if it's already been decided in advance by your physiology?), but recently I've been thinking that maybe it would be impossible to predict such things, mainly due to chaos theory and unpredictable quantum phenomena. Regarding chaos theory - perhaps there are so many variables that there is not enough energy in the universe to predict a humans behaviour past a certain point. Regarding quantum phenomena - perhaps there is an innate quantum randomness that again, would make a humans behaviour impossible to predict. Although I don't believe in any of this fully, It's a reasonable assumption as far as I'm concerned. And it makes life more fun than just thinking "It doesn't matter what I do, I was going to do it anyway so I may as well just jump off a cliff..."

Cheers for the advice. Yeah I bet it was truly nail-biting trading during the big crash... Do you think we'll see a bottom in the stocks soon, or could we be gearing up for another monumental correction/crash? Anyone's guess I suppose...

Dow just dropped to <15900, this is nuts. I've made a little money shorting, but not as much as I should have - the crazy volatility keeps giving me cold feet 

Awesome!