Quantum consciousness
Discussion
andy_s said:
Dr said:
Newtonian mechanics mean that the current position and velocity of every particle dictates what will happen in the future, so if you had that information for everything the future would be 100% predictable, This makes free will difficult to explain if not downright impossible.
The other way to look at it is to say there isn’t free will... 
Couple of points; Newtonian and Quantum mechanics are both deterministic, neither lead to predictable outcomes (in Newtonian mechanics consider 3 body problem and chaotic dynamics).
But irrespective of your system of mechanics, how could any of them allow free will unless you're just saying "cause and effect applies to one class of things, but this other class of things (those things that have free will) can have effects (a decision) without a cause."
A cause-and-effecty system by itself is not going to allow free will.
ATG said:
(My vote is for no free will.)
Couple of points; Newtonian and Quantum mechanics are both deterministic, neither lead to predictable outcomes (in Newtonian mechanics consider 3 body problem and chaotic dynamics).
But irrespective of your system of mechanics, how could any of them allow free will unless you're just saying "cause and effect applies to one class of things, but this other class of things (those things that have free will) can have effects (a decision) without a cause."
A cause-and-effecty system by itself is not going to allow free will.
Couple of points; Newtonian and Quantum mechanics are both deterministic, neither lead to predictable outcomes (in Newtonian mechanics consider 3 body problem and chaotic dynamics).
But irrespective of your system of mechanics, how could any of them allow free will unless you're just saying "cause and effect applies to one class of things, but this other class of things (those things that have free will) can have effects (a decision) without a cause."
A cause-and-effecty system by itself is not going to allow free will.
There is an argument that if the early state (the cause) is impossible to define accurately, then the effect is unknown. You might indeed appear to have free will because the alternative choice put an alternative you in a different universe
ATG said:
(My vote is for no free will.)
Couple of points; Newtonian and Quantum mechanics are both deterministic, neither lead to predictable outcomes (in Newtonian mechanics consider 3 body problem and chaotic dynamics).
But irrespective of your system of mechanics, how could any of them allow free will unless you're just saying "cause and effect applies to one class of things, but this other class of things (those things that have free will) can have effects (a decision) without a cause."
A cause-and-effecty system by itself is not going to allow free will.
Couple of points; Newtonian and Quantum mechanics are both deterministic, neither lead to predictable outcomes (in Newtonian mechanics consider 3 body problem and chaotic dynamics).
But irrespective of your system of mechanics, how could any of them allow free will unless you're just saying "cause and effect applies to one class of things, but this other class of things (those things that have free will) can have effects (a decision) without a cause."
A cause-and-effecty system by itself is not going to allow free will.
There is an argument that if the early state (the cause) is impossible to define accurately, then the effect is unknown. You might indeed appear to have free will because the alternative choice put an alternative you in a different universe
ATG said:
andy_s said:
Dr said:
Newtonian mechanics mean that the current position and velocity of every particle dictates what will happen in the future, so if you had that information for everything the future would be 100% predictable, This makes free will difficult to explain if not downright impossible.
The other way to look at it is to say there isn’t free will... Couple of points; Newtonian and Quantum mechanics are both deterministic, neither lead to predictable outcomes (in Newtonian mechanics consider 3 body problem and chaotic dynamics).
But irrespective of your system of mechanics, how could any of them allow free will unless you're just saying "cause and effect applies to one class of things, but this other class of things (those things that have free will) can have effects (a decision) without a cause."
A cause-and-effecty system by itself is not going to allow free will.
Thesprucegoose said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg
2.18 start, explains better than i can.
Sir Roger Penrose — The quantum nature of consciousness
Also “The Emporer’s New Mind”, also by Penrose, addresses this subject in some detail. An excellent book.2.18 start, explains better than i can.
Sir Roger Penrose — The quantum nature of consciousness
Thesprucegoose said:
The brain we have is similar to other animals, yet the defining characteristics of consciousness cannot be fully understood. The theory is that the interaction in the mind taps into the quantum realm, and we have broken the natural system and now think at a level never found before in nature.
We then move onto what we observe in the quantum world, and find an observation we have on experiments, can be changed by what we see and what we expect to see, so even before making a decision.
Is it possible that the consciousness we have is the first step to becoming part of the universe as a whole, the ablity to take into quantum commuincation at an atomic level, we just don't know how to tap into it, but can see the effect in certain experiments?
Maybe we are the key to understanding the whole universe, not a computer?
Can I just stop you there atWe then move onto what we observe in the quantum world, and find an observation we have on experiments, can be changed by what we see and what we expect to see, so even before making a decision.
Is it possible that the consciousness we have is the first step to becoming part of the universe as a whole, the ablity to take into quantum commuincation at an atomic level, we just don't know how to tap into it, but can see the effect in certain experiments?
Maybe we are the key to understanding the whole universe, not a computer?
" The theory is that the interaction in the mind taps into the quantum realm"
Can you send me a link to a scientific paper?
You sound like somebody trying to con my out of a £5 note in a tent at a circus / carnival currently....
quantum realm = entanglement in one case i was talking about.
This is an article from 2010.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18371-brain...
Brain 'entanglement' could explain memories
This example is phase locking.
But the point i was getting at with this thread, is the fact there are things going on in our brain, that seem to directly relate to the interactions that take place in the universe.
Hell, a neuron and connections in the brain, looks the same as supercomputer simulations, of the large-scale structure of the Universe.'
I actually believe the universe itself is fully connected at all points, maybe part of a greater being, alive per se. All underwritten by quantum laws we are only just understanding. Consciousness taps into this link, but we are at the very early stages.
This is an article from 2010.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18371-brain...
Brain 'entanglement' could explain memories
This example is phase locking.
But the point i was getting at with this thread, is the fact there are things going on in our brain, that seem to directly relate to the interactions that take place in the universe.
Hell, a neuron and connections in the brain, looks the same as supercomputer simulations, of the large-scale structure of the Universe.'
I actually believe the universe itself is fully connected at all points, maybe part of a greater being, alive per se. All underwritten by quantum laws we are only just understanding. Consciousness taps into this link, but we are at the very early stages.
Edited by Thesprucegoose on Saturday 23 November 00:42
Thesprucegoose said:
quantum realm = entanglement in one case i was talking about.
This is an article from 2010.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18371-brain...
Brain 'entanglement' could explain memories
This example is phase locking.
But the point i was getting at with this thread, is the fact there are things going on in our brain, that seem to directly relate to the interactions that take place in the universe.
Hell, a neuron and connections in the brain, looks the same as supercomputer simulations, of the large-scale structure of the Universe.'
I actually believe the universe itself is fully connected at all points, maybe part of a greater being, alive per se. All underwritten by quantum laws we are only just understanding. Consciousness taps into this link, but we are at the very early stages.
I'll repeat myself, This is an article from 2010.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18371-brain...
Brain 'entanglement' could explain memories
This example is phase locking.
But the point i was getting at with this thread, is the fact there are things going on in our brain, that seem to directly relate to the interactions that take place in the universe.
Hell, a neuron and connections in the brain, looks the same as supercomputer simulations, of the large-scale structure of the Universe.'
I actually believe the universe itself is fully connected at all points, maybe part of a greater being, alive per se. All underwritten by quantum laws we are only just understanding. Consciousness taps into this link, but we are at the very early stages.
Edited by Thesprucegoose on Saturday 23 November 00:42
Can you send me a link to a scientific paper on this?
Gandahar said:
I'll repeat myself,
Can you send me a link to a scientific paper on this?
it was in the article but i guess you couldnt be arsed to use your eyes to look so here it is.Can you send me a link to a scientific paper on this?
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=1...
''These findings argue strongly in support of a most unexpected conclusion, that when the activity of many neurons in a local field are sufficiently synchronized, the aggregate activity of these neurons is able to propagate to distant sites without distortion of the overall temporal pattern or substantial change in the number of participating neurons.''
And as you seem overally angry by this, here in layman terms.
''In both cases, the researchers noticed that the voltage of the electrical signal in groups of neurons separated by up to 10 millimetres sometimes rose and fell with exactly the same rhythm. These patterns of activity, dubbed “coherence potentials”, often started in one set of neurons, only to be mimicked or “cloned” by others milliseconds later.''
Thesprucegoose said:
Gandahar said:
I'll repeat myself,
Can you send me a link to a scientific paper on this?
it was in the article but i guess you couldnt be arsed to use your eyes to look so here it is.Can you send me a link to a scientific paper on this?
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=1...
''These findings argue strongly in support of a most unexpected conclusion, that when the activity of many neurons in a local field are sufficiently synchronized, the aggregate activity of these neurons is able to propagate to distant sites without distortion of the overall temporal pattern or substantial change in the number of participating neurons.''
And as you seem overally angry by this, here in layman terms.
''In both cases, the researchers noticed that the voltage of the electrical signal in groups of neurons separated by up to 10 millimetres sometimes rose and fell with exactly the same rhythm. These patterns of activity, dubbed “coherence potentials”, often started in one set of neurons, only to be mimicked or “cloned” by others milliseconds later.''
I'll give it a read and will reply shortly, looks like I will need a large cup of coffee !
Heres an article about the universe and consciousness. This is probably closer to what i think.
https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-universe-may...
''In quantum mechanics, particles don't have a definite shape or specific location, until they are observed or measured.....
One must come to the realization that everything we experience is filtered through and interpreted by our mind. Without it, the universe doesn't exist at all or at least, not without some sort of consciousness observing it,''
https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-universe-may...
''In quantum mechanics, particles don't have a definite shape or specific location, until they are observed or measured.....
One must come to the realization that everything we experience is filtered through and interpreted by our mind. Without it, the universe doesn't exist at all or at least, not without some sort of consciousness observing it,''
Thesprucegoose said:
Heres an article about the universe and consciousness. This is probably closer to what i think.
https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-universe-may...
''In quantum mechanics, particles don't have a definite shape or specific location, until they are observed or measured.....
One must come to the realization that everything we experience is filtered through and interpreted by our mind. Without it, the universe doesn't exist at all or at least, not without some sort of consciousness observing it,''
The scientific paper will be fine thank you. I have yet to read it fully but the fact it mentions monkeys and also does not mention quantum at all in the entire paper is not a good sign so far that it backs up your claim for quantum consciousness in humans.https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-universe-may...
''In quantum mechanics, particles don't have a definite shape or specific location, until they are observed or measured.....
One must come to the realization that everything we experience is filtered through and interpreted by our mind. Without it, the universe doesn't exist at all or at least, not without some sort of consciousness observing it,''
I never set out to prove something that is most likely unprovable, it is a thought debate, with a smattering of articles to think about, which i found interesting, there is nothing to prove against me.
It is in the science forum, but if you think it should be moved to the lounge then ask a mod.
It is in the science forum, but if you think it should be moved to the lounge then ask a mod.
Thesprucegoose said:
I never set out to prove something that is most likely unprovable, it is a thought debate, with a smattering of articles to think about, which i found interesting, there is nothing to prove against me.
It is in the science forum, but if you think it should be moved to the lounge then ask a mod.
Fair point ! I was trying to get more beef on the bone science wise as I didn't understand the science behind it.It is in the science forum, but if you think it should be moved to the lounge then ask a mod.
Having read the scientific article you linked https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=1... I have to confess after reading it that it was so high end in a particular field I did not understand it enough to be able to determine what it was saying.
That tells you more about me than them I guess
The one takeaway I had was I don't think monkeys need electrodes implanted in brains to give somebody a wage to produce this sort of paper. They even liken it to social media.... hmmm. Getting back to the original points raised my once concern is your statement in the original post that caught my eye was
"We then move onto what we observe in the quantum world, and find an observation we have on experiments, can be changed by what we see and what we expect to see, so even before making a decision."
This implies that the human brain has an influence on quantum mechanics, that observation and thought effects the results of experiments in the quantum world. As far as I am aware though human observation/thought has never effected a quantum experiment?
I could be wrong though.
Gandahar said:
This implies that the human brain has an influence on quantum mechanics, that observation and thought effects the results of experiments in the quantum world. As far as I am aware though human observation/thought has never effected a quantum experiment?
I could be wrong though.
It's a matter of interpretation. There are indications that if you look for the quantum particle equivalent of heads up rather than tails you find it, and the other end of the experiment will turn out to be tails, and vice versa.I could be wrong though.
So you could interpret this as consciousness forcing the quantum coin to be one way up rather than another. Or you could look at it as consciousness deciding to be in the heads universe rather than the tails universe, instead of being in both at the same time.
Dr Jekyll said:
Gandahar said:
This implies that the human brain has an influence on quantum mechanics, that observation and thought effects the results of experiments in the quantum world. As far as I am aware though human observation/thought has never effected a quantum experiment?
I could be wrong though.
It's a matter of interpretation. There are indications that if you look for the quantum particle equivalent of heads up rather than tails you find it, and the other end of the experiment will turn out to be tails, and vice versa.I could be wrong though.
.
Thesprucegoose said:
Gandahar said:
As far as I am aware though human observation/thought has never effected a quantum experiment?
I could be wrong though.
The closest thing I know of is the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment.I could be wrong though.
Using the Youngs slit as an example it can be shown that due to quantum mechanics when you measure the path of particles going through 2 slits using a detector they lose any quantum wave probabilities to show a wave like form giving an interference pattern. If you don't measure them they don't.
Note this is pure detecting the particle, no human has to be present. For instance you had a sealed room and the apparatus set up and also put a polaroid camera in there to take a snap shot at the end of the experiment. If you had the detector running/not running, you would have caught on polaroid two things. Interference or non interference depending. The human and the brain could have looked at the polaroid photo 6 months later and seen it so letting Schrodingers cat out of the bag as far as the person was concerned, but that would not have altered what was the image on that photo....
Detectors is the point, not humans observing.
This eraser experiment falls under the same bracket.
Gandahar said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Gandahar said:
This implies that the human brain has an influence on quantum mechanics, that observation and thought effects the results of experiments in the quantum world. As far as I am aware though human observation/thought has never effected a quantum experiment?
I could be wrong though.
It's a matter of interpretation. There are indications that if you look for the quantum particle equivalent of heads up rather than tails you find it, and the other end of the experiment will turn out to be tails, and vice versa.I could be wrong though.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect%27s_experimen...
If you conclude that the act of looking is affecting the particle rather than the observer that might sound mystical but other interpretations are available.
Gandahar said:
Indications that if you look? This is my beef about this whole thread. It's mysticism rather than scientific facts you can crunch on and digest or throw up.
there are not scientific facts for everything, as everyhing has not been fully tested. The thread isn't about facts, as there are little, but you think of ideas that can then be tested. String theory is looking for dark energy, and hasn't found it, yet the consensus is it exists. There are no facts for its existence but people believe it exists.Anyway this is the closest experiemt that has not yet taken place.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2131874-a-cla...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff