Quantum consciousness
Discussion
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?
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?
Dr Jekyll said:
It isn't a theory, just a speculation, and a pretty vague one at that.
Consciousness isn't defined by current understanding and mchanics so any hypothesis would be a theory only,The quantum bit comes in as unexplanble actions in the universe usually relate to those at a quantum level? Why is it vague?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg
2.18 start, explains better than i can.
Sir Roger Penrose — The quantum nature of consciousness
2.18 start, explains better than i can.
Sir Roger Penrose — The quantum nature of consciousness
Esceptico said:
If you focus the definition of consciousness as being able to spout pseudo scientific
What specifically is this?The reason is as I've posted, Quantum consciousness is a theory of Sir Penrose. I had actually thought about it before finding out he had thought of it as well.(I am no way at his level just a thinker)
Anyway another article.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830500-30...
''Is quantum physics behind your brain's ability to think?
From consciousness to long-term memories, the human brain has some peculiar computing abilities – and they could be explained by quantum fuzziness''
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
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.''
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,''
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.
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...
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..
Also see the link on Penrose. I've already posted a test that could be applied, as of yet it hasn't.
quantum entanglement and superposition for example.
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_mindIt sounds like a vague hypothesis, one that needs some work to become coherent.
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
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.
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 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.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?
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
i don't have to prove anything. If people want to post and dicuss that is the point of a forum. The problem on here people think it is about winning an argument. There is no win it is an open debate question that clearly hasn't been validated. I pointed to articles as it was getting tedious.
As i pointed out many times, dark energy is believed by the best scientists in the world, yet doesn't exist, wasn't found in a recent experiment that was supposed to find it, yet people still believe it.
As i pointed out many times, dark energy is believed by the best scientists in the world, yet doesn't exist, wasn't found in a recent experiment that was supposed to find it, yet people still believe it.
Gandahar said:
Personally I think your argument was ill conceived and poorly thought out. Since then you have side tracked and gone onto not relevant topics like dark energy and monkey experiments whilst disparaging other peoples points.
Not scientfic at all.
You still haven't linked to a scientific paper in these pages that actually refers to some quantum consciousness results in humans.
If you had started off the thread on a philosophical bent rather than a claimed scientific one then that would have been better in hindsight.
i think the problem on a forum it attracts people who want to validate their self-worth by proving others wrong. You are implying by proxy that notable scientists such as Penrose are wrong as well, and yourself and other commentators attack my argument, which may be weak, I never implied it wasn’t fuzzy. when the similar statement has been made by much greater minds than what frequent PH.Not scientfic at all.
You still haven't linked to a scientific paper in these pages that actually refers to some quantum consciousness results in humans.
If you had started off the thread on a philosophical bent rather than a claimed scientific one then that would have been better in hindsight.
Again it was an open discussion, people can choose to participate and there has been some good discussions,unfortunately not by yourself though..
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff