Consciousness and Quantum Physics

[dank]

You guys are overthinking quantum mechanics into something complicated, which it is not.

Everything just is.  Labels do not change that truth that it just is.

Consciousness is all, quantum phenomena is constant.

They are one.  You are the creator, the source.

[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...

[Wilikon]

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

Okay.

Quantum Tits.

Submit to publisher.

Tons of results from my err scientific image search...

[IflotsEgroj]

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

Okay.

Quantum Tits.

Submit to publisher.

Tons of results from my err scientific image search...

I can confirm that googling retrieves relevant information.

[Tusk]

the Big Bang Theory. “We are asked by science to believe that the entire universe sprang from nothingness, and at a single point and for no discernible reason. This notion is the limit case for credulity. In other words, if you can believe this, you can believe anything.” - Terence McKenna.

The only valid definition I have found of the universe was offered by Buckminster Fuller, the Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated non simultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences.

Once you come to realise that each of our existence, experience and interpretation has been, is and will always be unique, there can be no definitive definition of the universe or its meaning. This is the mystery of life and consciousness itself. While certain patterns are predictable and there there probability can be quantified by science. Science cannot be used to explain or refute that which cannot be measured, consciousness.

Magic is the ability to induce desired emotional responses in others through art. With the skilful manipulation of the five senses and the combination of ritual the results are more profound and compelling. Science is the set of tools we have devised to try and define that which is common about these experiences, art is the creative means by which we convey meaning to the our experiences by evoking shared emotions in others by manipulating their five senses.

[Vod]

Everything just is.  Labels do not change that truth that it just is.

Imagine if our forefathers had thought like this.  We'd still be in the stone age.

[bl4kjaguar]

"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.

These are not speculations, they actually comprise the best theory of consciousness available in science today.

Yes, you have to do a lot of reading; no surprise there:


http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

Deepak Chopra is mentioned...

[bl4kjaguar]

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

The recent discovery of quantum vibrations in "microtubules" inside brain neurons corroborates the Orch OR theory.

Reply to Criticism of the 'Orch OR qubit' - Orchestrated objective reduction is scientifically jusfiied.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

[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. 

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.

[dank]

Everything just is.  Labels do not change that truth that it just is.

Imagine if our forefathers had thought like this.  We'd still be in the stone age.

We would be in heaven.  When you see the fullness of the present, you gain control over manifesting your reality.

[blablahblah]

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

I hope to read through it a bit later.
In the mean time, I've got a couple of light-weight thoughts on the subject...

It's easy for people who are just starting out on this topic to put their faith in science. Unless they ultimately re-do the experiments and interpret it for themselves then they're simply putting someone else's lessons on a pedestal. I'm not saying ignore everything you read, just be aware how pervasive the act of believing is. Beliefs crop up everywhere.

I've participated in a couple of discussions here regarding the role of science in studying consciousness. IIRC, I figured that there's something called a Demarcation Problem in this area, because although consciousness is a very interesting "something" that we might like to study, empirical science seems ill-equipped because it has the wrong category of tools to do it. In plain English, consciousness is a very personal, experiential, phenomenal "something", that I experience, manipulate, create, do, and make choices with. I also assume that other people have a conceptually similar consciousness of their own, even though its qualities might be entirely different and unimaginable to me.

When we focus on our a priori, 1st-person knowledge of consciousness, we can gain plenty of insights:
-we already know what our own sense of consciousness is like. We don't need other scientists to write their interpretations. In this case we are the scientist.
-we can sense a vast gap between cook-book methodology where we study behaviour, never really knowing if it's some philosophical zombie operating mechanically, versus the metaphysical idea of a telepathic connection between minds.


I've been curious about the idea of Leibniz's Monads lately. Antiquated idea, for sure, but to me it seems it was needlessly abandoned in that dark 19th-20th century era of Materialism and Positivism, and substance prohibition. AFAICT the idea of living atoms was never debunked. Instead, it seems science didn't find it very useful to incorporate metaphysical ideas into newer models. Now it seems we've come full circle: with quantum behaviour being so strange, it could be worth revisiting the idea that 'elements' also have elements of consciousness.

[Spendulus]

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.

In my view, the essential question is whether the Universe as we understand it is "consciousness rich" or "consciousness poor".  In the one case, there would be a rich and diverse group of sentience, in the other it would be rare and possibly unique.

The far extension of the latter is that only humans are sentient, and life (and thus sentient life) is only C-N-O-H based.  I can think of no hypothesis that was testable which would prove that consciousness could only be CNOH based and many reasons why that could not be so.

[bl4kjaguar]

The second layer of Penrose/Hammeroff's Orch OR theory, should you choose to understand it, is presented in these links:

Hameroff and Penrose are saying that in order to avoid "seeing" multiple universes at the same time, the quantum coherence created in microtubules by some material (we think the m-state materials) must collapse. What if the quantum coherence did not collapse and we became aware of multiple universes?

http://tesla3.com/free_websites/ormus_science.html

Anyway, for the scientists, it is THE PROOF THAT THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE SEA SALT, and that when immersed in oil, it migrates to the oil ! And it has an immediate (after 2-3 minutes) effect on our human body after ingestion. You can even just put the oil on your skin and the ORMEs will make there way to your blood and you will also feel them very strongly after a short while.
That's amazing no ? This ORMES/ORMUS are for real, and just next and whitin us.

http://tesla3.com/free_websites/ormus_mdg.html

See also here:
http://www.atmanprinciple.com/the-science-of-m-state-elements/

[ObscureBean]

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

Unlikely such proof will ever exist.
You would need to have a complete understanding of the 'quantum' phenomenon. However, no theory can be complete and exist in and of itself without fitting perfectly into the bigger theory that explains everything.
The quest for the theory of everything, the holy grail of knowledge, is one that is bound to fail every time. The reason is simple, the observer/theorist can never incorporate himself/herself into the theory which means the theory can never be truly complete. This quest, while glorious, is akin to dangling a carrot ahead of a donkey to keep it moving forward.

Having said that the proof you seek could still exist sometime in the future, even without 'knowledge of everything'. The world humans have built clearly shows that it is possible to thrive on incomplete theories    

[Tusk]

All 'quantum weirdness' may be caused by interacting parallel worlds, physicist theorizes



A Texas Tech University chemical physicist has developed a new theory of quantum mechanics that presumes not only that parallel worlds exist, but also that their mutual interaction is what gives rise to all quantum effects observed in nature.

The theory, first published by Professor Bill Poirier four years ago, has recently attracted attention from the foundational physics community, leading to an invited Commentary in the physics journal, Physical Review X.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141112131927.htm

[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? 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.

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.

[Tusk]

IMO when their is no hard evidence either way its important to keep an open mind, without falling prey to religious dogma.

Not so much a scientific perspective but more a philosophical and historical liturgy on the subject that is refreshing and thought provoking.

Graham Hancock, Exploring Consciousness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7PUssV9oNo
  

[BitMos]

Consciousness is the best tool to apprehend reality.

[blablahblah]

“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.

I think you'll find more answers if you look at what some philosophers had to say about "the world". At least this approach seems helpful on my own journey. Some suggestions for research:

"5 minute hypothesis"
ask yourself:
What could the implications be for experiments that rely on collecting sequences of data and analysing them?
The world seems consistent and causal, but why should it be that way?
Could our actions in the present somehow seamlessly alter our memory of "the past" so that it fits our expectations?


The unresolved tension between causality and free will.
How can they co-exist? Surely, that would be a paradox?
Which one is the illusion:
-that life has some ability to interfere with the universe by exerting its will on it?
-the appearance that everything is locked to some causal cog?
Or maybe that's a false dichotomy, and there could be a bit of both?

[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. 

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]