Consciousness and Quantum Physics

[protokol]

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?

[1715157180]

1715157180

[1715157180]

1715157180

[1715157180]

1715157180

[1715157180]

1715157180

[1715157180]

1715157180

[Spendulus]

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?

No, it is incredibly dumb stuff peddled to the ignorant.

Also in a sense, you could babble that since electro chemical and synapse interactions were ultimately based on quantum phenomena VOILA! 

But you use the phrase in a different sense, that of the heisenburg principle, cat in the box, etc.

[RodeoX]

That new age stuff is garbage. But... There is an interesting theory to connect consciousness with quantum states. It's real science from Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose. This work is early and will change as more is known, however they are proposing that life itself is a quantum phenomena and linked to consciousness. It's the best theory so far to explain living things.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchOR.html

[Spendulus]

That new age stuff is garbage. But... There is an interesting theory to connect consciousness with quantum states. It's real science from Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose. This work is early and will change as more is known, however they are proposing that life itself is a quantum phenomena and linked to consciousness. It's the best theory so far to explain living things.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchOR.html

Really, it looks like more new age garbage to me....

[cocos]

".....The idiots of Quantum
say that a cat can be
simultaneously dead
and alive !...."

Source: http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/11Blog/1Math/M0011Tegm.html

[beetcoin]

the only way to experience is to sit down and meditate. once your mind gets concentrated enough, you can feel the dissolution of matter (one of the states of subatomic particles). the buddha spoke of them, and termed them as "kalapas" during his time.

quantum physics does not prove any of this stuff, it only supports it.

[protokol]

That new age stuff is garbage. But... There is an interesting theory to connect consciousness with quantum states. It's real science from Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose. This work is early and will change as more is known, however they are proposing that life itself is a quantum phenomena and linked to consciousness. It's the best theory so far to explain living things.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchOR.html

Yeah I've read a bit about Penrose, I'm not sure about his idea that human thought and consciousness cannot be explained through known scientific effects, so he says it must be a result of unknown quantum effects. Seems like a pretty outrageous claim without some really good evidence (but I will read some more about his work, as I'm not very familiar with it.

[protokol]

".....The idiots of Quantum
say that a cat can be
simultaneously dead
and alive !...."

Source: http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/11Blog/1Math/M0011Tegm.html

Well that website is a big horrible mess.

Not only does it look like it was made in the mid 90s by a schoolkid who just found out about html color tags and MSpaint, but it just seems to be some guy ranting at quantum physicists because he doesn't believe them. From what I could read before I got a headache, he doesn't have many good arguments to prove them wrong. One section is dedicated to disproving Special Relativity, which has been shown to be accurate in real life situations multiple times (eg timing of GPS satellites).

[RodeoX]

That new age stuff is garbage. But... There is an interesting theory to connect consciousness with quantum states. It's real science from Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose. This work is early and will change as more is known, however they are proposing that life itself is a quantum phenomena and linked to consciousness. It's the best theory so far to explain living things.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchOR.html

Really, it looks like more new age garbage to me....

I know what you mean, it's way out there and may turn out to be plain wrong. But Penrose is no slouch. He is one of the worlds top scientists. I am interested because there are so few theories to explain living things and this one at least has some explainable process. the basic idea is that all life is conscious at some level and that is what makes life different from non-life. Hameroff is a professor of anesthesiology and was initially interested in thought and consciousness. He points out that what you heard in school about thinking being an effect of neurons working together is know to be wrong. An amoeba can hunt, hide, move away from pain, etc. It is doing some thinking, but it is only one cell and has no neurons. Something else is happening and it could be a quantum effect in the cytoskeleton of living cells.

Whatever the real answer to life is it will be mindblowing. That is why I'm not writing this theory off yet. Even though some scientists are very skeptical of this work.

That new age stuff is garbage. But...

Yeah I've read a bit about Penrose, I'm not sure about his idea that human thought and consciousness cannot be explained through known scientific effects, so he says it must be a result of unknown quantum effects. Seems like a pretty outrageous claim without some really good evidence (but I will read some more about his work, as I'm not very familiar with it.

I don't know either. But I am a biologist and I also don't know what life really is? 

[protokol]

“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.

[brian_23452]

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. 

[cocos]

".....The idiots of Quantum
say that a cat can be
simultaneously dead
and alive !...."

Source: http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/11Blog/1Math/M0011Tegm.html

Well that website is a big horrible mess.

Not only does it look like it was made in the mid 90s by a schoolkid who just found out about html color tags and MSpaint, but it just seems to be some guy ranting at quantum physicists because he doesn't believe them. From what I could read before I got a headache, he doesn't have many good arguments to prove them wrong. One section is dedicated to disproving Special Relativity, which has been shown to be accurate in real life situations multiple times (eg timing of GPS satellites).

"....Planck tried a mathematical trick.  He presumed that the light wasn't really a continuous wave as everyone assumed, but perhaps could exist with only specific amounts, or "quanta," of energy.  Planck didn't really believe this was true about light, in fact he later referred to this math gimmick as "an act of desperation."  But with this adjustment, the equations worked, accurately describing the box's radiation..."

source: http://www.pbs.org/transistor/science/info/quantum.html

[protokol]

".....The idiots of Quantum
say that a cat can be
simultaneously dead
and alive !...."

Source: http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/11Blog/1Math/M0011Tegm.html

Well that website is a big horrible mess.

Not only does it look like it was made in the mid 90s by a schoolkid who just found out about html color tags and MSpaint, but it just seems to be some guy ranting at quantum physicists because he doesn't believe them. From what I could read before I got a headache, he doesn't have many good arguments to prove them wrong. One section is dedicated to disproving Special Relativity, which has been shown to be accurate in real life situations multiple times (eg timing of GPS satellites).

"....Planck tried a mathematical trick.  He presumed that the light wasn't really a continuous wave as everyone assumed, but perhaps could exist with only specific amounts, or "quanta," of energy.  Planck didn't really believe this was true about light, in fact he later referred to this math gimmick as "an act of desperation."  But with this adjustment, the equations worked, accurately describing the box's radiation..."

source: http://www.pbs.org/transistor/science/info/quantum.html

This is cool and all, but what's your point?

[BADecker]

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.

...
 

A lot of people explain things in a poor way. A lot of people understand things that are explained well in a poor way.

Suggesting that proof be confirmed by saying "prove it," doesn't necessarily mean that the proof exists or doesn't exist when the explanation fails to prove.

One simple example of this is the word "science." This word has taken on so many meanings among the various peoples, that without a detailed explanation of the meaning being used, it becomes very difficult to explain whether or not something is scientific.

In addition to this, many of us are deeply aware of several of the "meanings" of the word "science." Because of this, we sometimes accidentally go afoul of our own, stated definition when using it.

Proof was difficult when there were only a few scientists and a few scientific subjects. For example. You go to 5 different doctors with a problem. You explain the problem in exactly the same way to each of the doctors. They all examine you. And they all come up with differing diagnoses. Why? Because your symptoms can fit a thousand different maladies that have been discovered.

[IflotsEgroj]

Adding "quantum" to a book title increases sales ten fold.

[Spendulus]

Adding "quantum" to a book title increases sales ten fold.

Okay.

Quantum Tits.

[cocos]

"...If you are new to Mathematical Physics, you may also wonder what a relativist is.

A relativist is a disciple of the late Pastor Al Einstein (1879 - 1955), founder of the
Church of Relativity. This sect is a branch of the religion of Mathematical Physics.

In a nutshell, Pastor Al was deluded into thinking that space is a physical object.
A schism in the Church later produced the two micro-world sects known as
Quantum Mechanics and String Theory.

I will refer to a member of any of these sects of Mathematical Physics as a

        relativist


because a person who believes in the poppycock of relativity usually believes in the
nonsense of Quantum Mechanics too. Many of them also believe in an even greater
idiocy known as String Theory.

So allow me to summarize who Pastor Al's followers are and what they believe in..."

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/


ha! ha! ha!!!    I love this site!!!

[IflotsEgroj]

Adding "quantum" to a book title increases sales ten fold.

Okay.

Quantum Tits.

Submit to publisher.

[Spendulus]

That new age stuff is garbage. But... There is an interesting theory to connect consciousness with quantum states. It's real science from Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose. This work is early and will change as more is known, however they are proposing that life itself is a quantum phenomena and linked to consciousness. It's the best theory so far to explain living things.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchOR.html

Really, it looks like more new age garbage to me....

I know what you mean, it's way out there and may turn out to be plain wrong. But Penrose is no slouch. He is one of the worlds top scientists. I am interested because there are so few theories to explain living things and this one at least has some explainable process. the basic idea is that all life is conscious at some level and that is what makes life different from non-life. Hameroff is a professor of anesthesiology and was initially interested in thought and consciousness. He points out that what you heard in school about thinking being an effect of neurons working together is know to be wrong. An amoeba can hunt, hide, move away from pain, etc. It is doing some thinking, but it is only one cell and has no neurons. Something else is happening and it could be a quantum effect in the cytoskeleton of living cells.

Whatever the real answer to life is it will be mindblowing. That is why I'm not writing this theory off yet. Even though some scientists are very skeptical of this work.

That new age stuff is garbage. But...

Yeah I've read a bit about Penrose, I'm not sure about his idea that human thought and consciousness cannot be explained through known scientific effects, so he says it must be a result of unknown quantum effects. Seems like a pretty outrageous claim without some really good evidence (but I will read some more about his work, as I'm not very familiar with it.

I don't know either. But I am a biologist and I also don't know what life really is? 

I agree with your sentiments, but had to comment about the rather strong new-age taste of the Penrose article because of it's inability to form testable hypothesis, and in particular, the use of poorly defined terms to which effects were glibly attributed.   

It's certainly true that at many levels of inorganic and organic, sentient and non sentient systems we see what might be called "tendencies toward organization" which are pretty much unexplained.

This is a different question, though; it addresses the biological origin of consciousness.  I would comment that is secondary and of little importance.  We can model activity of a neuron or an amoeba.  Theoretically, given a large enough stack of paper punched cards (might exceed the atoms of the universe of course) we could model a conscious entity with punched cards.

So what would you have then, a conscious deck of cards? 

Just don't play poker with it and you'll be fine....

[RodeoX]

I agree with your sentiments, but had to comment about the rather strong new-age taste of the Penrose article because of it's inability to form testable hypothesis, and in particular, the use of poorly defined terms to which effects were glibly attributed.   

It's certainly true that at many levels of inorganic and organic, sentient and non sentient systems we see what might be called "tendencies toward organization" which are pretty much unexplained.

This is a different question, though; it addresses the biological origin of consciousness.  I would comment that is secondary and of little importance.  We can model activity of a neuron or an amoeba.  Theoretically, given a large enough stack of paper punched cards (might exceed the atoms of the universe of course) we could model a conscious entity with punched cards.

So what would you have then, a conscious deck of cards? 

Just don't play poker with it and you'll be fine....

Good points. I can't really defend their work, I just posted it because it seems related to the title. I also have a bias. The intersection of Physics and biology is what I am most interested in. My Physics friends always want a "unified theory" that unites quantum and relativity. As I biologist I don't think you have anything until you can explain what life is. This was a rare attempt to explain how life works and so I'm a sucker for that stuff.

Whatever life is, it sure must be a harder problem than chemicals and electricity. By the 1950s most scientists thought we would be creating life from scratch by now. So far it seems life only happened once.