Consciousness and Quantum Physics

[Wilikon]

Consciousness is the best tool to apprehend reality.

Your reality or mine?

 

[Wilikon]

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?

A scientific "theory" is testable, provable, and most importantly, disprovable.  Since none of these ideas meet these criteria, they are not scientific theories. 

So then consciousness does not exist...

Something can obviously exist without being a scientific theory.  I am holding a pen in my hand.  "pen" is not a scientific theory, and yet quite obviously the pen exists.  An example of what is a scientific theory would be if I attempted to explain something about the pen.  I could for example, hypothesize that the pen would have a certain displacement if a certain amount of force was applied to it for a certain amount of time, such that say, d= Vi * T + 1/2A * T^2.  This would be an example of a scientific hypothesis.  It is testable, and either correctly describes the displacement of the pen, or it does not displacement of the pen.  There is no ambiguity or room for interpretation, it is quite simply, either right or wrong.  If after conducting numerous tests to the best of our ability, and it passing every test we can come up with, it would then be called a "proven" hypothesis, aka a theory.  There is a bit more to it than that of course but I think that is a good beginning.

How would you describe Consciousness with an equation?

Well I wouldn't.  Consciousness is just a word, and like any word we can give it whatever definition we want.  You have the hypothesis not me, so you tell me the equation and\or repeatable "test" which would prove or disprove your hypothesis.  That's kind of the point I'm trying to make, if you can't describe it specifically, unambiguously, and in a manner we can all independently test, then it isn't a scientific theory (being right or wrong is irrelevant). 

The pen you are describing was born on the monitor of a CAD program, then mathematically fed to a machine tool, or a melting block of plastic. The pen was defined even before it was in your hand, even before it was created from a factory, even before the final CAD file was saved.

The pen isn't really relevant, it was simply a convenient example.  The kinematic equation I provided to you would apply to any object in any situation (this is not 100% but I think it is close enough for the purposes of this discussion).  If it only applied to that specific pen in that specific situation, it wouldn't be of much use to us.

A black hole. We predicted it could exist. We can observe what it does. We are not sure what is inside. Consciousness is like that... kinda.

Well correct.  We do not currently have any model that predicts what happens inside a black hole which is testable.  As such, it would be correct to say we do not have a scientific theory for the workings of the inside of a black hole.  Which is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming as far as consciousness goes. 

[/quote]

As such, it would be correct to say we do not have a scientific theory for the workings of the inside of a black hole.  Which is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming as far as consciousness goes. 

I don't remember pretending knowing what consciousness is in this thread. I am saying we need to trust it exists to define what we observe through/withing it. We need to trust that consciousness is not filtering our measurements and observations. It could be that what we know and understand as The Existence of Everything is trapped withing some kind of an event horizon of a black hole we can never see or observe or measure.

Maybe our universe is trapped to an ultimate beyond imagination gigantic black hole. That could explain what Dark Energy is. What we observe as an acceleration of an expansion is in reality, Everything falling forever toward a black hole. If that is true we could calculate its size, etc. And yet we would STILL need to trust that our consciousness is not distorting what Everything is...

[brian_23452]

I feel like we are arguing in circles here.  The original poster asked " is there any testable/scientific proof that consciousness is a product of quantum phenomena?"  and my response was no, and further more that none of the things mentioned even qualify as a scientific theory or hypothesis. 

You then declared that if that is true, "So then consciousness does not exist...".  This is of course patently false, and belies a complete misunderstanding of what the scientific method (which is what this thread was about, as far as it applies to one specific phenomenon) entails.  So I then attempted to explain in some further detail what a scientific theory is, and what it is not. 

You then one more time rephrased your initial declaration and asked me to define consciousness with a mathematical equation which of course I can't do.  I can't do it, because as I stated right in my very first post that is is not a scientific theory!
Again, I am trying to explain very simply how the scientific method works.  It is not the only method, many people subscribe to various forms of pseudoscience, and other things.  But the OP specifically asked from a scientific standpoint so that is what this topic is about.  Obviously though, it is difficult to discuss when you do not even know what it is.  For example:

I am saying we need to trust it exists to define what we observe through/withing it.

This isn't true at all.  Science is fully capable of describing things that may or may not exist.  You even provided an example yourself, in black holes.  By now it is very likely that they exist, but for a long time no one really knew.  Science was quite capable of saying, "we do not know if these things exist, but if they do, this is how they will behave to an external observer".  It is very, very common for equations to have many possible solutions, and the ones that don't exist are simply ignored. 

We need to trust that consciousness is not filtering our measurements and observations.

We don't need to do anything of the sort.  Again, science is quite capable of measuring and dealing with this, we even have a name for it, the observer effect.  Just one example is an electron, it is physically impossible to observe an electron without effecting it.  Yet we are quite capable of developing fully functional models of how they behave.

And yet we would STILL need to trust that our consciousness is not distorting what Everything is...

No we don't.  And in fact, if any "theory" you come up with requires such assumptions without proof that they exist (thus making them not assumptions), then it is not going to be successful.

[blablahblah]

I feel like we are arguing in circles here.  The original poster asked " is there any testable/scientific proof that consciousness is a product of quantum phenomena?"  and my response was no, and further more that none of the things mentioned even qualify as a scientific theory or hypothesis. 

You then declared that if that is true, "So then consciousness does not exist...".  This is of course patently false, and belies a complete misunderstanding of what the scientific method (which is what this thread was about, as far as it applies to one specific phenomenon) entails.  So I then attempted to explain in some further detail what a scientific theory is, and what it is not. 

You then one more time rephrased your initial declaration and asked me to define consciousness with a mathematical equation which of course I can't do.  I can't do it, because as I stated right in my very first post that is is not a scientific theory!
Again, I am trying to explain very simply how the scientific method works.  It is not the only method, many people subscribe to various forms of pseudoscience, and other things.

Not to derail the topic but the Scientific Method is just a modern-day bible. It's an adjunct to reason, a cookbook that lays down a history of scientific findings, lists best practices and acceptable ways to approach certain types of problems. It's not a substitute for reason or the curious inner child that wants to explore and experiment.

I loosely define consciousness as the 'ego' or the "first person experience" - the something that imagines all that stuff that we're aware of when we're awake or dreaming. Right off the bat it's difficult for the scientific method because it focuses on empiricism as the dominant way of doing things. We're supposed to observe and measure the outside world, not the inside world. And it's easy to get caught in a trap of making too many assumptions:
-that consciousness exists somewhere else as well.
-that it's likely to be tied to some physical location, such as clumps of neurons inside people's brains.
-that it belongs to the category of real things, such as matter or energy.
-observing other's behaviour is as good as experiencing it myself, because I assume that I'm fundamentally similar to everyone else. After all, the images that I see of other people seem similar to the images that I see when I look in the mirror.

Well, what if we're mistaken to assume those things?
In much the same way that in mathematics imaginary numbers have no location on a real plane (or we can think of a separate imaginary plane that is orthogonal or a different dimension), why should our imagination be located in a real location?
I'm reminded that information has no mass or energy either. As far as my computer is concerned, the words on the screen are just meaningless noise that it was forced to draw by a program. So where is the information located?

[brian_23452]

Not to derail the topic but the Scientific Method is just a modern-day bible. It's an adjunct to reason, a cookbook that lays down a history of scientific findings, lists best practices and acceptable ways to approach certain types of problems. It's not a substitute for reason or the curious inner child that wants to explore and experiment.

Not really.  The scientific method is evidence based.  In my experience the people who tend to have most trouble with the scientific method are adherents to things like astrology, numerology, mythology, various pseudosciences, etc.  In other words, things for which there is no repeatable evidence.  Obviously, if you have no evidence to support your claims you will take issue with a methodology that requires evidence.  As for the "inner child" you mentioned, well I mean, what it comes down to really is that the scientific method works.  We know this, as virtually all of our great discoveries were made following it.  I can't think of a single instance where a person abandoned the scientific method and just let their "curious inner child explore and experiment" and discovered anything of any use.

I loosely define consciousness as the 'ego' or the "first person experience" - the something that imagines all that stuff that we're aware of when we're awake or dreaming. Right off the bat it's difficult for the scientific method because it focuses on empiricism as the dominant way of doing things.

Ah, but see, this is exactly what I was just talking about.  You have already decided, before conducting any sort of investigation, just what all these things are and how they work (albeit perhaps not precisely).  No need to investigate really, if you have already decided what the conclusion will be regardless of the evidence discovered.

We're supposed to observe and measure the outside world, not the inside world. And it's easy to get caught in a trap of making too many assumptions:

Well an adherent to the scientific method would not start with any of these assumptions.  You seem to want to dispute the scientific method as being effective, and then repeatedly list flaws that are found in pseudo scientific methods of study but NOT the scientific method, as your reasons for not liking it. 

In much the same way that in mathematics imaginary numbers have no location on a real plane (or we can think of a separate imaginary plane that is orthogonal or a different dimension), why should our imagination be located in a real location?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  No number exists on a real plane.  A number is a representation in the same way a word is.  The actual, "thing" the number represents does exist on a real plane, including "imaginary" numbers. 

I'm reminded that information has no mass or energy either. As far as my computer is concerned, the words on the screen are just meaningless noise that it was forced to draw by a program. So where is the information located?

Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  Information is simply the description of energy\mass in a given system.  This is a little bit like saying speed has no motion.  It is technically true of course, but not particularly useful. 

[Tusk]

Consciousness is the best tool to apprehend reality.

Well, what if we're mistaken to assume those things?
In much the same way that in mathematics imaginary numbers have no location on a real plane (or we can think of a separate imaginary plane that is orthogonal or a different dimension), why should our imagination be located in a real location?
I'm reminded that information has no mass or energy either. As far as my computer is concerned, the words on the screen are just meaningless noise that it was forced to draw by a program. So where is the information located?

Both great points! Not sure if you have watched any of Jose Barrera's podcasts? he has done a very interesting series on :-

The Magical Foundations of Society https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxpMIGxNDQU&list=PLWX_Eh6pDqyjR4ZjIrzWUk4EZkil2j46f
Alchemy, Mandalas, and the Gods  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WovQII5yHUI&list=PLWX_Eh6pDqyjR4ZjIrzWUk4EZkil2j46f
Jose Barrera "The Goddess Reason https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AEx_KaMrCs&list=PLWX_Eh6pDqyjR4ZjIrzWUk4EZkil2j46f

All excellent perspectives, I'm not sure which one it is but he points out how the egyptians devoted their time to becoming immortal, and so they have, for as long as the human record remains their legacy will too Besides the pyramids and artifacts like mummified pharaohs etc, the most powerful vessel is their hieroglyphs, which preserved their conscious apprehension and has transported it forward to today.

I also think the book/video by Joseph Atwill, Caesar's Messiah is a brilliant look at how a meme crafted by warmongers has and still to this day grips humanity in a zombie trance of a war God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrCMeQIB7Jg

The work of John Marco Allegro, http://www.johnallegro.org/ Like Jose Barrera, Allegro uses Philology to uncover starteling insights into human history and language. Besides decrypting the copper scroll, his book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross is an amazing thesis of how meme's apprehended by our primitive culture while high on psychoactive agents or hallucinogens have preserved this encoded in language and evolved alongside our culture all be it in somewhat a distorted form to this day dominates the human landscape.

Another great insight is Jan Irvin's  The Pharmacratic Inquisition https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyQOeiY11RA&list=TLUBuY0jHlcHs

I then ask myself what is conciousness? That psychotropic compounds found in nature can imprint in us such profound perceptions that dominate our culture and hence our reality? Are we truly experiencing our reality or is it dictated by the entheogens found in our environment? Reality is truly stranger than fiction.

[Spendulus]

How would you describe Consciousness with an equation?

Well I wouldn't.  Consciousness is just a word, and like any word we can give it whatever definition we want. 

No, consciousness is not just a word.  It has been the subject of extensive study and definition.  This is within the domain of "cognitive psychology."

[brian_23452]

How would you describe Consciousness with an equation?

Well I wouldn't.  Consciousness is just a word, and like any word we can give it whatever definition we want. 

No, consciousness is not just a word.  It has been the subject of extensive study and definition.  This is within the domain of "cognitive psychology."

Not to be pedantic but it IS just a word.  The "thing" the word describes is what has been the subject of extensive study.  The word itself is just a word.  We could just as easily discard the word and choose something else to call it, and the underlying "thing" it describes would still exist, unchanged. 

[BADecker]

“Random”‐ness is known only to ignorance.

Was about to reply to your apple comment, but I don't quite know what you mean by this.

Are you saying that things only appear random while we are ignorant of their cause? eg. Apples appear to fall at random time intervals to the ignorant, however when we find the causes of the falling apples (wind/deterioration of the stalk/increasing weight/gravity etc.) then what once appeared random now becomes predictable and a pattern can be made?

I agree with this, however many quantum effects are truly random, which is very rare in nature. So (according to current quantum theory) we can never predict these effects with certainty, just with various probabilities.

How do we know that quantum effects are truly random? Space is the 3rd dimension. Time is the 4th. Whatever the 5th is like, we can calculate, but it takes all kinds of mental tricks to hold it in the mind and understand it. 6th? 7th? 8th? How many dimensions are there? Might they even be infinite?

I would suggest that quantum is causal just like everything else. It's just that the causes lie in dimensions where we don't have any practical way of even suggesting, much less determining, what the causes are like, to say nothing of what they might be.

On the other hand, there might be a dimension where cause and effect, and randomness meet, where the come together, where they are the same thing, right?

[Wilikon]

Quantum Cognition and Brain Microtubules

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm6Mt9BoZ_M

That was a cool video. This scientist is trying to define consciousness with equations and the mechanism of the how, going beyond the no need to do the hard thinking as consciousness is nothing but a word.

[Spendulus]

“Random”‐ness is known only to ignorance.

Was about to reply to your apple comment, but I don't quite know what you mean by this.

Are you saying that things only appear random while we are ignorant of their cause? eg. Apples appear to fall at random time intervals to the ignorant, however when we find the causes of the falling apples (wind/deterioration of the stalk/increasing weight/gravity etc.) then what once appeared random now becomes predictable and a pattern can be made?

I agree with this, however many quantum effects are truly random, which is very rare in nature. So (according to current quantum theory) we can never predict these effects with certainty, just with various probabilities.

How do we know that quantum effects are truly random? Space is the 3rd dimension. Time is the 4th. Whatever the 5th is like, we can calculate, but it takes all kinds of mental tricks to hold it in the mind and understand it. 6th? 7th? 8th? How many dimensions are there? Might they even be infinite?

I would suggest that quantum is causal just like everything else. It's just that the causes lie in dimensions where we don't have any practical way of even suggesting, much less determining, what the causes are like, to say nothing of what they might be.

On the other hand, there might be a dimension where cause and effect, and randomness meet, where the come together, where they are the same thing, right?

I think we are on sound grounds to say that quantum effects are truly random.  If you speculate otherwise you need to do it at the level of the Uncertainty Principle and the math behind it, not on general philosophical grounds. 

Math easily handles n dimensionalities, example a cube-like object X with volume Z, we can easily compute Z for x^2, x^3, x^4, x^5.  However the last four do not represent physical (3 dimensional) reality.

[bl4kjaguar]

How would you describe Consciousness with an equation?

Well I wouldn't.  Consciousness is just a word, and like any word we can give it whatever definition we want.

No, consciousness is not just a word.  It has been the subject of extensive study and definition.  This is within the domain of "cognitive psychology."

Not to be pedantic but it IS just a word.  The "thing" the word describes is what has been the subject of extensive study.  The word itself is just a word.  We could just as easily discard the word and choose something else to call it, and the underlying "thing" it describes would still exist, unchanged.  

Just like "reality",
"consciousness" is a philosophical concept.
But reality itself is not a concept.
Reality is
(--and we won't give it a name)

[bl4kjaguar]

“Random”‐ness is known only to ignorance.

Was about to reply to your apple comment, but I don't quite know what you mean by this.

Are you saying that things only appear random while we are ignorant of their cause? eg. Apples appear to fall at random time intervals to the ignorant, however when we find the causes of the falling apples (wind/deterioration of the stalk/increasing weight/gravity etc.) then what once appeared random now becomes predictable and a pattern can be made?

I agree with this, however many quantum effects are truly random, which is very rare in nature. So (according to current quantum theory) we can never predict these effects with certainty, just with various probabilities.

How do we know that quantum effects are truly random? Space is the 3rd dimension. Time is the 4th. Whatever the 5th is like, we can calculate, but it takes all kinds of mental tricks to hold it in the mind and understand it. 6th? 7th? 8th? How many dimensions are there? Might they even be infinite?

I would suggest that quantum is causal just like everything else. It's just that the causes lie in dimensions where we don't have any practical way of even suggesting, much less determining, what the causes are like, to say nothing of what they might be.

On the other hand, there might be a dimension where cause and effect, and randomness meet, where the come together, where they are the same thing, right?

I think we are on sound grounds to say that quantum effects are truly random.  If you speculate otherwise you need to do it at the level of the Uncertainty Principle and the math behind it, not on general philosophical grounds. 

Math easily handles n dimensionalities, example a cube-like object X with volume Z, we can easily compute Z for x^2, x^3, x^4, x^5.  However the last four do not represent physical (3 dimensional) reality.

Consider this:

Recent experimental evidence would suggest that the elusive zero point energy (ZPE) vacuum fluctuations can be detected using an electric field.

[BADecker]

“Random”‐ness is known only to ignorance.

Was about to reply to your apple comment, but I don't quite know what you mean by this.

Are you saying that things only appear random while we are ignorant of their cause? eg. Apples appear to fall at random time intervals to the ignorant, however when we find the causes of the falling apples (wind/deterioration of the stalk/increasing weight/gravity etc.) then what once appeared random now becomes predictable and a pattern can be made?

I agree with this, however many quantum effects are truly random, which is very rare in nature. So (according to current quantum theory) we can never predict these effects with certainty, just with various probabilities.

How do we know that quantum effects are truly random? Space is the 3rd dimension. Time is the 4th. Whatever the 5th is like, we can calculate, but it takes all kinds of mental tricks to hold it in the mind and understand it. 6th? 7th? 8th? How many dimensions are there? Might they even be infinite?

I would suggest that quantum is causal just like everything else. It's just that the causes lie in dimensions where we don't have any practical way of even suggesting, much less determining, what the causes are like, to say nothing of what they might be.

On the other hand, there might be a dimension where cause and effect, and randomness meet, where the come together, where they are the same thing, right?

I think we are on sound grounds to say that quantum effects are truly random.  If you speculate otherwise you need to do it at the level of the Uncertainty Principle and the math behind it, not on general philosophical grounds. 

Math easily handles n dimensionalities, example a cube-like object X with volume Z, we can easily compute Z for x^2, x^3, x^4, x^5.  However the last four do not represent physical (3 dimensional) reality.

The fact that people all over the place ask the question, what is it that makes quantum effects random, shows that there is cause and effect behind quantum? Why? Because people in their minds, souls and spirits act quantumly. Yet they ask the question.

[blablahblah]

Not to derail the topic but the Scientific Method is just a modern-day bible. It's an adjunct to reason, a cookbook that lays down a history of scientific findings, lists best practices and acceptable ways to approach certain types of problems. It's not a substitute for reason or the curious inner child that wants to explore and experiment.

Not really.  The scientific method is evidence based.  In my experience the people who tend to have most trouble with the scientific method are adherents to things like astrology, numerology, mythology, various pseudosciences, etc.  In other words, things for which there is no repeatable evidence.  Obviously, if you have no evidence to support your claims you will take issue with a methodology that requires evidence.  As for the "inner child" you mentioned, well I mean, what it comes down to really is that the scientific method works.  We know this, as virtually all of our great discoveries were made following it.  I can't think of a single instance where a person abandoned the scientific method and just let their "curious inner child explore and experiment" and discovered anything of any use.

Well, I didn't mean disparage the aeons of cooperative development that went into creating today's scientific method from the ground up.

I loosely define consciousness as the 'ego' or the "first person experience" - the something that imagines all that stuff that we're aware of when we're awake or dreaming. Right off the bat it's difficult for the scientific method because it focuses on empiricism as the dominant way of doing things.

Ah, but see, this is exactly what I was just talking about.  You have already decided, before conducting any sort of investigation, just what all these things are and how they work (albeit perhaps not precisely).  No need to investigate really, if you have already decided what the conclusion will be regardless of the evidence discovered.

How can we investigate if we don't already have some idea of what we're looking for?

Preliminary scientific aim: "find X" where X is consciousness.

But I've always had some rudimentary a priori knowledge that I'm an "experiential being".
So then I want to "learn more about X".

And so the process seems continuous.


Eventually we get to: "find other instances of X".
Which brings us to the possibility of multiple minds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation

Here, we run into more difficulties simply because the scientific method relies on cooperative effort. We get this problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant


Going further still, we could think of 'reality' as a substrate that provides loose connections between the multiple minds in nature, allowing them to combine to form a larger over-mind.

[brian_23452]

How can we investigate if we don't already have some idea of what we're looking for?

Preliminary scientific aim: "find X" where X is consciousness.

But I've always had some rudimentary a priori knowledge that I'm an "experiential being".
So then I want to "learn more about X".

And so the process seems continuous.

There is a difference between saying "let's find X, and I bet it has abc properties" and "let's find x, which we know for a fact has abc properties".
The first is a demonstration of a rudimentary scientific hypothesis.  We expect it to have abc characteristics, but are willing to discard them if we discover we were mistaken.
The second is an example of psudeoscience.  We have decided it has abc characteristics, and if we discover it does not, we discard the contrary evidence and maintain that it does in fact have abc characteristics.  That is what an assumption is, assumed to be true.  This is why any fact based study tries to avoid them whenever possible.

Eventually we get to: "find other instances of X".
Which brings us to the possibility of multiple minds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation

Here, we run into more difficulties simply because the scientific method relies on cooperative effort. We get this problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant


Going further still, we could think of 'reality' as a substrate that provides loose connections between the multiple minds in nature, allowing them to combine to form a larger over-mind.

That is a very poor example of what peer review is.  To continue with that analogy, you feel the elephant's toe and describe it as a certain way.  Everyone else then feels the exact same toe and either confirms your feeling, or says no you're nuts it feels like this.  The whole point is that everyone is testing the exact same thing, so that if you came to an erroneous conclusion we are much more likely to find it.

[ObscureBean]

I addressed this topic from a logical point of view earlier in this thread. Now I'm gonna sidestep into the metaphysical realm 

is there any testable/scientific proof that consciousness is a product of quantum phenomena?

You should maybe reconsider your last question/(wish?). If we take quantum physics to be a figment of consciousness (the grounds for this assumption [debatable] is that humans thought up the theory), then you're actually seeking to give a figment power over your very existence. The implications are far-reaching and should not be taken lightly. How does becoming a slave of your own creation sound? 

[btcusury]

Aristotelian ontology retarded us so much...

Consciousness is within, not without. There is nothing outside.

[Tusk]

The United Nations, New York - September 11, 2008 - Consciousness Without Brain Activity: Near Death Experiences - Dr. Bruce Greyson



Beyond the Mind-Body Problem: New Paradigms in the Science of Consciousness

An excerpt of Bruce Greyson, MD, PhD, from the panel discussion "Beyond the Brain: The Experiential Implications of Neurotheology", speaking about how the brain does not equal the mind, and how near death experiences can contribute to knowledge about the mind-body connection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_qBIw7qyHU&feature=youtu.be

The Cardiologist on the Near-Death Experience 1

Uploaded on Nov 1, 2011
Bedside proof of the non-locality of Consciousness...
Dr. Pim van Lommel on the fact of a Consciousness Beyond Biological Brain Life... Like the bottle contains the beer, but DOES NOT produce the beer... Similarly: The brain contains consciousness, but the brain DOES NOT produce consciousness!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICdizzVY5h4

[BADecker]

The United Nations, New York - September 11, 2008 - Consciousness Without Brain Activity: Near Death Experiences - Dr. Bruce Greyson



Beyond the Mind-Body Problem: New Paradigms in the Science of Consciousness

An excerpt of Bruce Greyson, MD, PhD, from the panel discussion "Beyond the Brain: The Experiential Implications of Neurotheology", speaking about how the brain does not equal the mind, and how near death experiences can contribute to knowledge about the mind-body connection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_qBIw7qyHU&feature=youtu.be

The Cardiologist on the Near-Death Experience 1

Uploaded on Nov 1, 2011
Bedside proof of the non-locality of Consciousness...
Dr. Pim van Lommel on the fact of a Consciousness Beyond Biological Brain Life... Like the bottle contains the beer, but DOES NOT produce the beer... Similarly: The brain contains consciousness, but the brain DOES NOT produce consciousness!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICdizzVY5h4

This is the exact reason that science has avoided the idea of consciousness. Scientists don't have any kind of a handle on it, yet.

The further we get into the quantum state of consciousness, the further we get away from a concrete, real-life understanding of it. But, we just may get some kind of a handle on it.

Herein exists a problem. Ancient as well as modern day witch-doctors write and speak their incantations as they dance around the fire. They believe the things that they are doing, even though their success isn't 100%. Anybody who wants to take the time can learn the incantations and the rites.

Scientists write and speak their math symbols as they hover over their computers. They believe the things that they are doing, even though their success isn't 100%. Anybody who wants to take the time can learn the math and the ways to use it.

When math and science start to get into the quantum entanglement of the conscious mind, science will of a truth be dabbling in the "black arts."