Quantum consciousness

[FredClogs]

There's quite a few animals which display "theory of mind"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind_in_...

[Gandahar]

Dr Jekyll said:

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.

.

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.

What's mystical about it? It's an observation to be crunched upon.

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.

That's my whole point, after all these posts you still blithely write :-


"If you conclude that the act of looking is affecting the particle"

YOU CAN'T AND CANNOT.

we still don't have any scientific paper to back it up this mystical claim. Do I need to write it again?


The human brain never effected any quantum experiment and if you think otherwise put up a scientific paper that shows otherwise.

With your link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect%27s_experimen...

It does not need a human, it is a measurement, a detection.

The issue here is that when someone writes about is and say the human based "observation" it leads to thinking that it needs two human eyes to effect the experiment. It doesn't. It just needs a dumb measuring device.

Quantum mechanics is not dependent on the human brain.

[Gandahar]

Thesprucegoose said:

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...

From the web article

"To test this idea, Hardy proposed an experiment in which A and B are set 100 kilometres apart. At each end, about 100 humans are hooked up to EEG headsets that can read their brain activity. These signals are then used to switch the settings on the measuring device at each location.

The idea is to perform an extremely large number of measurements at A and B and extract the small fraction in which the EEG signals caused changes to the settings at A and B after the particles departed their original position but before they arrived and were measured..

If the amount of correlation between these measurements doesn’t tally with previous Bell tests, it implies a violation of quantum theory, hinting that the measurements at A and B are being controlled by processes outside the purview of standard physics.

“[If] you only saw a violation of quantum theory when you had systems that might be regarded as conscious, humans or other animals, that would certainly be exciting. I can’t imagine a more striking experimental result in physics than that,” Hardy says. “We’d want to debate as to what that meant.”

Such a finding would stir up debate about the existence of free will. It could be that even if physics dictated the material world, the human mind not being made of that same matter would mean that we could overcome physics with free will. “It wouldn’t settle the question, but it would certainly have a strong bearing on the issue of free will,” says Hardy.

Nicolas Gisin at the University of Geneva in Switzerland thinks Hardy’s proposal makes “plenty of sense”, but he’s sceptical of using unstructured EEG signals to switch settings on devices. That’s akin to using the brain as a random number generator, says Gisin. He would rather see an experiment where the conscious intent of humans is used to perform the switching – but that would be experimentally more challenging.

Either way, he wants to see the experiment done. “There is an enormous probability that nothing special will happen, and that quantum physics will not change,” says Gisin. “But if someone does the experiment and gets a surprising result, the reward is enormous. It would be the first time we as scientists can put our hands on this mind-body or problem of consciousness.”"


And so, what are the results rather than pontificating ?

Did the mind effect quantum mechanics and entanglement?

Yes or no?

[anonymous-user]

Like you say, people don't understand this and thefore I imagine raising the funds to do such an experiment is like running up Everest in the nude, near enough impossible.

But think of the ramifications of if this experiment worked...

[Dr Jekyll]

Gandahar said:

Dr Jekyll said:

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.

.

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.

What's mystical about it? It's an observation to be crunched upon.

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.

That's my whole point, after all these posts you still blithely write :-


"If you conclude that the act of looking is affecting the particle"

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF

Gandahar said:

YOU CAN'T AND CANNOT.

OF COURSE NOT WHICH IS WHY I DONT
OTHER INTERPRETATIONS ARE AVAILABLE

Gandahar said:

we still don't have any scientific paper to back it up this mystical claim. Do I need to write it again?

I MADE NO MYSTICAL CLAIM I SAID SPECIFICALLY THERE IS NOTHING MYSTICAL

Gandahar said:

The human brain never effected any quantum experiment and if you think otherwise put up a scientific paper that shows otherwise.

I NEVER SAID IT DID

Gandahar said:

With your link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect%27s_experimen...

It does not need a human, it is a measurement, a detection.

The issue here is that when someone writes about is and say the human based "observation" it leads to thinking that it needs two human eyes to effect the experiment. It doesn't. It just needs a dumb measuring device.

Quantum mechanics is not dependent on the human brain.

ITS AN OBSERVATION THAT [B]APPEARS[/B} TO AFFECT THE RESULT I SAID NOTHING ABOUT HUMAN EYES OR HUMAN BRAIN

[Gandahar]

Dr Jekyll said:

Gandahar said:

Dr Jekyll said:

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.

.

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.

What's mystical about it? It's an observation to be crunched upon.

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.

That's my whole point, after all these posts you still blithely write :-


"If you conclude that the act of looking is affecting the particle"

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF

Gandahar said:

YOU CAN'T AND CANNOT.

OF COURSE NOT WHICH IS WHY I DONT
OTHER INTERPRETATIONS ARE AVAILABLE

Gandahar said:

we still don't have any scientific paper to back it up this mystical claim. Do I need to write it again?

I MADE NO MYSTICAL CLAIM I SAID SPECIFICALLY THERE IS NOTHING MYSTICAL

Gandahar said:

The human brain never effected any quantum experiment and if you think otherwise put up a scientific paper that shows otherwise.

I NEVER SAID IT DID

Gandahar said:

With your link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect%27s_experimen...

It does not need a human, it is a measurement, a detection.

The issue here is that when someone writes about is and say the human based "observation" it leads to thinking that it needs two human eyes to effect the experiment. It doesn't. It just needs a dumb measuring device.

Quantum mechanics is not dependent on the human brain.

ITS AN OBSERVATION THAT [B]APPEARS[/B} TO AFFECT THE RESULT I SAID NOTHING ABOUT HUMAN EYES OR HUMAN BRAIN

"ITS AN OBSERVATION THAT [B]APPEARS[/B} TO AFFECT THE RESULT "

That's the whole point.

It doesn't.

[Halb]

Terminator X said:

As time goes by most large ish animals appear to be conscious don't they? Afaik we are only at the top of the pile because we can speak and understand each other even in complex situations vs animals who can only communicate in a very basic way.
.

It seems as we move on the awareness of just how aware other animals are grows. in the 50's they were thought of (by most humans) as just things, now with more study we see cultures in some animal worlds. We don't don't know why the winged whale sings...a prayer to the cosmos?

[andy_s]

In current thinking the existence of consciousness in animals is recognised but not in the particular way humans experience consciousness. Humans have, uniquely, ego; this is a representation of a representation of reality whose mechanism is transparent to us but whose effect is to ‘be oneself’.

[Kent Border Kenny]

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.

Which theory? That doesn’t really sound like a theory at all. What predictions does it make, how is it testable?

It sounds like a vague hypothesis, one that needs some work to become coherent.

What on earth does tapping into the quantum realm mean, for example? What is this quantum realm? You are writing as though it is some kind of other dimension. That’s like saying tapping into the fast realm. Everything is defined by quantum mechanics.

[anonymous-user]

if you read from the start ive posted answers before to the questions. Because you don't understand it doesn't make it less valid. As i stated before people believe in dark energy, yet it doesn't exist and never been proven to..

Kent Border Kenny said:

Which theory? That doesn’t really sound like a theory at all. What predictions does it make, how is it testable?

It sounds like a vague hypothesis, one that needs some work to become coherent.

''The quantum mind or quantum consciousness[1] is a group of hypotheses which proposes that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness. It posits that quantum mechanical phenomena, such as quantum entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function and could form the basis for an explanation of consciousness. '' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

Also see the link on Penrose. I've already posted a test that could be applied, as of yet it hasn't.

Kent Border Kenny said:

What on earth does tapping into the quantum realm mean, for example? What is this quantum realm?

quantum entanglement and superposition for example.

Edited by Thesprucegoose on Tuesday 3rd December 23:10

Edited by Thesprucegoose on Tuesday 3rd December 23:16

[Halb]

andy_s said:

In current thinking the existence of consciousness in animals is recognised but not in the particular way humans experience consciousness. Humans have, uniquely, ego; this is a representation of a representation of reality whose mechanism is transparent to us but whose effect is to ‘be oneself’.

that's a guess. We don't know. Other animals have memetic cultures like humans

[Chester35]

Kent Border Kenny said:

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.

Which theory? That doesn’t really sound like a theory at all. What predictions does it make, how is it testable?

It sounds like a vague hypothesis, one that needs some work to become coherent.

What on earth does tapping into the quantum realm mean, for example? What is this quantum realm? You are writing as though it is some kind of other dimension. That’s like saying tapping into the fast realm. Everything is defined by quantum mechanics.

This is why scientists prefer mathematics as a description rather than language, especially if the language is written for the layman as per here. This is how misinterpretations happen, for instance in this case the word observation perhaps being mistaken for meaning someone looked at a quantum effect and thus caused a change and taken to extreme a philosophical discussion on the human mind?

[Chester35]

Thesprucegoose said:

if you read from the start ive posted answers before to the questions. Because you don't understand it doesn't make it less valid. As i stated before people believe in dark energy, yet it doesn't exist and never been proven to..

That's not your original argument though, which was the human mind could effect quantum experiments. That's a step up from whether just believing in something or not.

It seems philosophical rather than scientific though from the evidence provided on this thread. Quite interesting though.

[anonymous-user]

Yes but the principle is the fact the observation was created by humans, this doesn't happen in nature, whether the person or machine is monitoring it is pretty much the same result.
Mathematics doesn't have answers for everything as there are loads of things that cannot be easily defined.

The problem is the question crosses the line between scientific and philosophy and caused a lot of friction.

[Chester35]

Thesprucegoose said:

Yes but the principle is the fact the observation was created by humans, this doesn't happen in nature, whether the person or machine is monitoring it is pretty much the same result.
Mathematics doesn't have answers for everything as there are loads of things that cannot be easily defined.

The problem is the question crosses the line between scientific and philosophy and caused a lot of friction.

"Yes but the principle is the fact the observation was created by humans, this doesn't happen in nature, whether the person or machine is monitoring it is pretty much the same result."

Your initial premise was that the human mind could effect quantum mechanics and now you are saying actually you get the same results if you use a machine instead. Isn't this contradicting your initial statement though?

Creation of an experiment doesn't mean there is a connection between the mind and the results of an experiment.

[RobM77]

PMacanGTS said:

Simpo Two said:

PMacanGTS said:

There are just a handful of species who are self aware

How do you know?

According to the scientists, I believe the mirror test is the usual way of establishing if an animal is self aware. So, if we are to go by that, then we know that very few species are.

I've never really understood the mirror test. The theory goes that babies don't know it's them in the mirror, so if you secretly put a dot on their forehead, only once they're a certain age will they remove the dot. The thing is, if the baby can see another baby in the mirror, why don't they react as if it's another baby? Could it not be that at that certain age they just start caring about the dot? My son's 14 months old, so he's younger than this 'awareness' age, but he clearly knows it's him in mirrors and not another baby. Similarly for our cats - they go mad at the sight of another cat and start hissing and yowling, but if they see themselves in a mirror then they're fine with it. They spend much of their evenings staring out of the window looking for other cats, and of course after dark that window contains a reflection of themselves, which they discount in their search; surely because they know it's them?

[Dr Jekyll]

RobM77 said:

I've never really understood the mirror test. The theory goes that babies don't know it's them in the mirror, so if you secretly put a dot on their forehead, only once they're a certain age will they remove the dot. The thing is, if the baby can see another baby in the mirror, why don't they react as if it's another baby? Could it not be that at that certain age they just start caring about the dot? My son's 14 months old, so he's younger than this 'awareness' age, but he clearly knows it's him in mirrors and not another baby. Similarly for our cats - they go mad at the sight of another cat and start hissing and yowling, but if they see themselves in a mirror then they're fine with it. They spend much of their evenings staring out of the window looking for other cats, and of course after dark that window contains a reflection of themselves, which they discount in their search; surely because they know it's them?

+1

Apparently pigs fail the mirror test if there is a dot on their heads, but if the mirror shows food behind them or otherwise only visible in the mirror they go straight to the food.

[Halb]

THe mirror test isn't good in my opinion, it assumes that eyes are the primary sense used, they are for humans, for for a lot of other creatures they're used in conjunction with other senses, smell being as important or more important for a lot of creatures. Sound too, for some.

[anonymous-user]

Chester35 said:

"Yes but the principle is the fact the observation was created by humans, this doesn't happen in nature, whether the person or machine is monitoring it is pretty much the same result."

Your initial premise was that the human mind could effect quantum mechanics and now you are saying actually you get the same results if you use a machine instead. Isn't this contradicting your initial statement though?

I think you misread what i have written, my opening statement clearly has two seperate points that you seemed to have missed.

if you read the thread, it i've given examples of experiments that clearly use tools to measure the effects. I then later mentioned an experiment to then link the actual human impact of the experiments, which has not been done yet. This is a problem on here in general people don't read the whole thread.

Chester35 said:

Creation of an experiment doesn't mean there is a connection between the mind and the results of an experiment.

Again i've posted this information before from bbc article, but here it is again and relevant text.

The physicist Pascual Jordan, who worked with quantum guru Niels Bohr in Copenhagen in the 1920s, put it like this: "observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it… We compel [a quantum particle] to assume a definite position." In other words, Jordan said, "we ourselves produce the results of measurements."

Edited by Thesprucegoose on Thursday 5th December 00:07

[Gandahar]

You still haven't produced a valid scientific argument showing quantum consciousness. Your first post 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"

And then when asked to prove this you linked to an article that was an experiment on monkeys.

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=1...

"Here we recorded ongoing local field potential (LFP) activity at multiple sites within the cortex of awake monkeys and organotypic cultures of cortex"

So they do find what you are saying in nature !

I'm not sure what the quantum mechanical version of pissing in the wind is, but lets hope you don't have two slits to piss through

You are flogging a dead Heisenbergs cat rather than donkey....