New Study Favors Quantum Mind

a reply to: Korg Trinity

What irrefutable facts are you talking about? Here's your post.

You appear to be having an issue with listening and comprehension. Not just on this thread, but on a number of threads you appear to be stating that your opinion is fact.

you also appear to be ignoring the clear evidence that is presented by other members if it is in contravention of your opinion and just state "WRONG".

I find this especially odd given that some of the people responding to you are both highly experienced and educated, working in the various fields you are discussing.

Perhaps if you opened your mind a little and looked at a subject from all sides not just your perception, you would gain more knowledge.

Peace,

Korg.

It's full of opinion and meaningless dribble.

If you would have came on here actually debating the issue instead of commenting on my listening and comprehension, you would have gotten a different response.

You said nothing in your post pertaining to the debate or science.

If you want to try again I'm listening but you will not because the debate from materialist is these things are woo or pseudoscience because they don't fit your materialist paradigm.

These aren't irrefutable facts. It's just belief.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: tetra50


Good points and thanks for the links. This is a field that's growing and as we find more quantum effects in nature, a Quantum Mind will gain even more traction because there's nothing prohibiting evolution from selecting these features to give our species an advantage.

Yup, sure will.

Many people will jump up and down and yell no because a quantum mind easily explains why we see so much evidence in things like Psi.

i will yell no, because quantum mechanics of atoms doesn't explain one bit "Psi", unless you're talking about the schroedinger wave function.

You're the one making the completely unsupported leap from:

a) hey quantum mechanics is true and has influences on chemical reactions and electronic properties in atoms (of course)

to

wooo) our mind is a giant quantum computer and so there's spooooooky thought transfer at a distance thanks to quantum mechanics across kilometers between 10^24 atoms in a brain

A single electron's motion is so small and noisy---can we really use it to do something so important to think? How many charges are in motion during the firing of one neuron? (many many many many many).

Why are practical quantum computing experiments done close to absolute zero?

That photosynthetic complexes (one molecule) use quantum mechanical scattering & the like for energetics means almost nothing when it comes to thinking. After all, a solar panel relies on quantum mechanics of semiconductors too.

Sure, some biology could exploit quantum mechanics, just like in photosynthesis, to improve efficiency of a synapse or some other biological function and yet that has no bearing on the computational model, any more than the solar panel is going to be the next Aristotle learning from ESP.

duplicate, delete

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Korg Trinity
the debate from materialist is these things are woo or pseudoscience because they don't fit your materialist paradigm.

If 'need actual experimental evidence and a plausible mechanistic theory' is 'materialist paradigm', then I am an out and proud card-carrying materialist paradigmer.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: mbkennel

This makes no sense in light of current scientific understanding. I was waiting for someone to break out the quantum woo line. It usually rears it's head when people can't debate these things.

quantum woo = massive unsupported towers of assumption and speculation based on extrapolations from vague notions of quantum mechanics, minus experimental evidence, minus actual quantitative understanding of quantum mechanics and in particular the empirical robustness of decoherence and the empirical fragility of the reverse in multi-particle systems.

a reply to: mbkennel


You said:

A single electron's motion is so small and noisy---can we really use it to do something so important to think? How many charges are in motion during the firing of one neuron? (many many many many many).

This is what should be called quantum woo.

You said a single electron's is small and noisy---can we really use it to do something like think? You never answered the question and the answer is yes.

You then talked about charges in motion during the firing of a neuron. Again, pure obfuscation and bloviating. You never said why nature couldn't accomplish these things, you posed the key question and then you just rambled on and said nothing as it pertains to your question. Seth Lloyd recently answered this question.

Again, it's funny how at first Natural Selection is almighty and now it couldn't do something like this. He said:

How could tiny bacteria be performing the kind of sophisticated quantum manipulations that it takes human beings a room full of equipment to perform? Natural selection is a powerful force.

Here it is, a tiny bacteria doing what it takes a room full of equipment to carry out. It just shows the nature is more efficient and can do things that takes a room full of equipment for us to do.

So everything you said is basically gobbledy gook and you recognized this. You basically asked the right question but you had no answer so you spent the rest of the time running from the question.

Like I said, there's growing evidence in the emerging field of Quantum Biology and research into the Quantum Mind that say yes. Natural Selection can adapt quantum effects that could be selected by a species like ours to give us an advantage.

You had Diederik Aerts in 2011 show us, Why we think like Quarks.

You had another experiment recently that talked about Quantum Vibrations in microtubules. A prediction made by Penrose and Hameroff.

A very important part of why Quantum Biology shows a strong link to the way humans think is this:

Together with Alan Aspuru-Guzik and Patrick Rebentrost at Harvard, my MIT colleague Masoud Mohseni and I constructed a general theory of how quantum walks in photosynthesis can use the wavelike nature of quantum mechanics to attain maximum efficiency. It turns out that wavelike transport is not always the best strategy. To understand why, suppose that the lilypond is full of rocks sticking up out of the water. As the wave moves through the pond, it scatters off the rocks. As a result, the wave never reaches the middle of the pond, which remains calm and protected. This is a phenomenon called destructive interference. Although the wave can propagate a short distance, eventually the random waves scattered off the rocks interfere with the overall wave’s propagation, effectively stopping it in its tracks. The quantum frog becomes completely stuck: A classical hopping strategy would have been more efficient. In the antenna photocomplex, the “rocks” are microscopic irregularities and molecular disorder that scatter the quantum wave as it tries to pass through.

By constructing detailed quantum mechanical models, my collaborators and I were able to identify the optimal strategy for the interplay between wavelike propagation and classical hopping in photosynthesis. Over short distances, the wavelike propagation is more effective than random hopping. The exciton travels like a wave right up to the distance at which destructive interference causes it to get stuck. At this point, the fact that living systems are hot, wet environments comes into play: The environment effectively gives the exciton a whack that gets it unstuck and makes it perform a classical hop, which frees up the exciton to propagate again. (The technical term for this whack is “decoherence.”) Then the process repeats. The wave propagates until it gets stuck; the environment gives it a whack; the exciton hops. Eventually, the exciton reaches the reaction center in the minimum possible time. Expressed in terms of our quantum frog, the rule is simple: Wave until you get stuck, then hop.

Very important because the same point was made by Diederik Aerts in 2011. The brain seems to follow the mathematics of quantum theory when making decisions. So just like we see with photosynthesis, the brain makes decisions using QM and then it behaves classical when a decision is made. I have been pointing this out for years.

So quantum woo can be defined this way.

When a person asks the right question but they can't answer the question so they bloviate and obfuscate with gobbledy gook that has nothing to do with the key question they asked

Again, you didn't answer your own question because you can't.

a reply to: neoholographic

I read that, and that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

How big is the photosynthetic complex over which that quantum mechanics works? Atoms in size.

How big is an neuron? Far more than trillions of atoms in size.

And this is my whole point: yes quantum mechanics is important for chemical & electronic interactions in atoms! And without strong experimental evidence you CANNOT go from coherent quantum mechanics of a couple of electrons to something as large as a neuron, much less a brain. I'm not disputing quantum mechanics in photosynthesis, I'm disputing large scale quantum coherence in cognitive properties of brains at scale without convincing experimental evidence and theoretical reasoning. Pointing out quantum mechanics in atomic physics, over and over again, is NOT this evidence!

That's the whole point of all the inorganic, solid state, engineered quantum computers at extremely cold temperatures---to get macroscopic quantum coherence you need very specialized situations like superconductivity.

a reply to: mbkennel

Wrong yet again and of course you avoided your initial question because you can't answer it. So, we get more obfuscation and bloviating. You said:

A single electron's motion is so small and noisy---can we really use it to do something so important to think? How many charges are in motion during the firing of one neuron? (many many many many many).

The answer is yes and the problem lies in your lack of understanding. You said:

And this is my whole point: yes quantum mechanics is important for chemical & electronic interactions in atoms! And without strong experimental evidence you CANNOT go from coherent quantum mechanics of a couple of electrons to something as large as a neuron, much less a brain.

Your whole point is nonsense because it has nothing to do with Quantum Biology or theories of the Quantum Mind.

Why would there need to be coherent quantum mechanics with something as large as a neuron? The coherence occurs within proteins of microtubules not neurons. So, what you're saying doesn't make any sense because it has nothing to do with recent theories and discoveries.

What's very interesting here is that microtubules are found in the brain as well as in plant cells. So, it's easy to see how these features would have been selected to give our species a huge advantage.

This could also be why we see things that we usually associate with consciousness and intelligence exhibited in plants on a more rudimentary level. This could be because they have the mechanics for coherence but they don't have the complex brain in order to have self conscious experiences. Here's a video of some recent discoveries.



So there's no need for large scale quantum coherence and there never has been. You would know this if you would research these things.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Korg Trinity

What irrefutable facts are you talking about? Here's your post.

You appear to be having an issue with listening and comprehension. Not just on this thread, but on a number of threads you appear to be stating that your opinion is fact.

you also appear to be ignoring the clear evidence that is presented by other members if it is in contravention of your opinion and just state "WRONG".

I find this especially odd given that some of the people responding to you are both highly experienced and educated, working in the various fields you are discussing.

Perhaps if you opened your mind a little and looked at a subject from all sides not just your perception, you would gain more knowledge.

Peace,

Korg.

It's full of opinion and meaningless dribble.

If you would have came on here actually debating the issue instead of commenting on my listening and comprehension, you would have gotten a different response.

You said nothing in your post pertaining to the debate or science.

If you want to try again I'm listening but you will not because the debate from materialist is these things are woo or pseudoscience because they don't fit your materialist paradigm.

These aren't irrefutable facts. It's just belief.

I think we should set up a shrine to the god neoholographic.. after all he knows everything and everything everybody knows to be true even in the face of empirical evidence is wrong.

Oh Hail God neoholographic oh tell me how the universe is really like and I shall rip up my phd on your alter!



Korg.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Korg Trinity

What irrefutable facts are you talking about? Here's your post.

You appear to be having an issue with listening and comprehension. Not just on this thread, but on a number of threads you appear to be stating that your opinion is fact.

you also appear to be ignoring the clear evidence that is presented by other members if it is in contravention of your opinion and just state "WRONG".

I find this especially odd given that some of the people responding to you are both highly experienced and educated, working in the various fields you are discussing.

Perhaps if you opened your mind a little and looked at a subject from all sides not just your perception, you would gain more knowledge.

Peace,

Korg.

It's full of opinion and meaningless dribble.

If you would have came on here actually debating the issue instead of commenting on my listening and comprehension, you would have gotten a different response.

You said nothing in your post pertaining to the debate or science.

If you want to try again I'm listening but you will not because the debate from materialist is these things are woo or pseudoscience because they don't fit your materialist paradigm.

These aren't irrefutable facts. It's just belief.

I think we should set up a shrine to the god neoholographic.. after all he knows everything and everything everybody knows to be true even in the face of empirical evidence is wrong.

Oh Hail God neoholographic oh tell me how the universe is really like and I shall rip up my phd on your alter!

Korg.

In other words, I can't refute what you're saying so I will mention PhD and hopefully people are gullible enough to mistake my opinion for actual evidence.

You know you have crashed and burned when you have to resort to look, I have a PhD so please listen to me.

I never mention my Degrees in a debate because if I can't make the argument based on actual evidence it's just a last gasp of desperation to say, listen to me because I have a PhD.

Who knows if you have any Degrees on a message board? Anyone can proclaim to be something that they're not. You could be a part time Shoe Salesman for all I know.

At the end of the day, evidence is growing in these areas and it's not enough to stick your head in the sand and act like there's NO EVIDENCE.

This is just shameful to me. You could at least say there's evidence but the evidence isn't strong enough for me to accept the underlying hypothesis. Instead we hear things like woo, pseudoscience, there's no evidence and more. This is just dishonest.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Korg Trinity

What irrefutable facts are you talking about? Here's your post.

You appear to be having an issue with listening and comprehension. Not just on this thread, but on a number of threads you appear to be stating that your opinion is fact.

you also appear to be ignoring the clear evidence that is presented by other members if it is in contravention of your opinion and just state "WRONG".

I find this especially odd given that some of the people responding to you are both highly experienced and educated, working in the various fields you are discussing.

Perhaps if you opened your mind a little and looked at a subject from all sides not just your perception, you would gain more knowledge.

Peace,

Korg.

It's full of opinion and meaningless dribble.

If you would have came on here actually debating the issue instead of commenting on my listening and comprehension, you would have gotten a different response.

You said nothing in your post pertaining to the debate or science.

If you want to try again I'm listening but you will not because the debate from materialist is these things are woo or pseudoscience because they don't fit your materialist paradigm.

These aren't irrefutable facts. It's just belief.

I think we should set up a shrine to the god neoholographic.. after all he knows everything and everything everybody knows to be true even in the face of empirical evidence is wrong.

Oh Hail God neoholographic oh tell me how the universe is really like and I shall rip up my phd on your alter!

Korg.

In other words, I can't refute what you're saying so I will mention PhD and hopefully people are gullible enough to mistake my opinion for actual evidence.

You know you have crashed and burned when you have to resort to look, I have a PhD so please listen to me.

I never mention my Degrees in a debate because if I can't make the argument based on actual evidence it's just a last gasp of desperation to say, listen to me because I have a PhD.

Who knows if you have any Degrees on a message board? Anyone can proclaim to be something that they're not. You could be a part time Shoe Salesman for all I know.

At the end of the day, evidence is growing in these areas and it's not enough to stick your head in the sand and act like there's NO EVIDENCE.

This is just shameful to me. You could at least say there's evidence but the evidence isn't strong enough for me to accept the underlying hypothesis. Instead we hear things like woo, pseudoscience, there's no evidence and more. This is just dishonest.

Actually I refute everything you say and so does the entire scientific establishment!

I have just about had enough of the psuedo scientific fools who think they can say some scientific sounding terminology and hey presto they can simply wipe off the map what is known to be true.

Then there are the special kind of fools that state that even though I have worked my bloody nuts off on real ground breaking research that I know nothing at all and they know everything!

I've completely and utterly had enough of it!

If you want to submit a paper then I'd review it with an open mind... but if I read total claptrap I will bloody well say so!

Korg.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Korg Trinity

What irrefutable facts are you talking about? Here's your post.

You appear to be having an issue with listening and comprehension. Not just on this thread, but on a number of threads you appear to be stating that your opinion is fact.

you also appear to be ignoring the clear evidence that is presented by other members if it is in contravention of your opinion and just state "WRONG".

I find this especially odd given that some of the people responding to you are both highly experienced and educated, working in the various fields you are discussing.

Perhaps if you opened your mind a little and looked at a subject from all sides not just your perception, you would gain more knowledge.

Peace,

Korg.

It's full of opinion and meaningless dribble.

If you would have came on here actually debating the issue instead of commenting on my listening and comprehension, you would have gotten a different response.

You said nothing in your post pertaining to the debate or science.

If you want to try again I'm listening but you will not because the debate from materialist is these things are woo or pseudoscience because they don't fit your materialist paradigm.

These aren't irrefutable facts. It's just belief.

I think we should set up a shrine to the god neoholographic.. after all he knows everything and everything everybody knows to be true even in the face of empirical evidence is wrong.

Oh Hail God neoholographic oh tell me how the universe is really like and I shall rip up my phd on your alter!

Korg.

In other words, I can't refute what you're saying so I will mention PhD and hopefully people are gullible enough to mistake my opinion for actual evidence.

You know you have crashed and burned when you have to resort to look, I have a PhD so please listen to me.

I never mention my Degrees in a debate because if I can't make the argument based on actual evidence it's just a last gasp of desperation to say, listen to me because I have a PhD.

Who knows if you have any Degrees on a message board? Anyone can proclaim to be something that they're not. You could be a part time Shoe Salesman for all I know.

At the end of the day, evidence is growing in these areas and it's not enough to stick your head in the sand and act like there's NO EVIDENCE.

This is just shameful to me. You could at least say there's evidence but the evidence isn't strong enough for me to accept the underlying hypothesis. Instead we hear things like woo, pseudoscience, there's no evidence and more. This is just dishonest.

Actually I refute everything you say and so does the entire scientific establishment!

I have just about had enough of the psuedo scientific fools who think they can say some scientific sounding terminology and hey presto they can simply wipe off the map what is known to be true.

Then there are the special kind of fools that state that even though I have worked my bloody nuts off on real ground breaking research that I know nothing at all and they know everything!

I've completely and utterly had enough of it!

If you want to submit a paper then I'd review it with an open mind... but if I read total claptrap I will bloody well say so!

Korg.

This is the sound you hear when someone crashes and burns in a debate LOL. They sometimes become unhinged and everyone who dares to think differently than they do is pseudoscientific fools.

This is a materialist losing a debate badly because they can't accept that others look at the evidence and reach a different conclusion. This isn't science, it's blind faith in materialism and an extreme indifference to anyone who dares to think differently.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Korg Trinity

What irrefutable facts are you talking about? Here's your post.

You appear to be having an issue with listening and comprehension. Not just on this thread, but on a number of threads you appear to be stating that your opinion is fact.

you also appear to be ignoring the clear evidence that is presented by other members if it is in contravention of your opinion and just state "WRONG".

I find this especially odd given that some of the people responding to you are both highly experienced and educated, working in the various fields you are discussing.

Perhaps if you opened your mind a little and looked at a subject from all sides not just your perception, you would gain more knowledge.

Peace,

Korg.

It's full of opinion and meaningless dribble.

If you would have came on here actually debating the issue instead of commenting on my listening and comprehension, you would have gotten a different response.

You said nothing in your post pertaining to the debate or science.

If you want to try again I'm listening but you will not because the debate from materialist is these things are woo or pseudoscience because they don't fit your materialist paradigm.

These aren't irrefutable facts. It's just belief.

I think we should set up a shrine to the god neoholographic.. after all he knows everything and everything everybody knows to be true even in the face of empirical evidence is wrong.

Oh Hail God neoholographic oh tell me how the universe is really like and I shall rip up my phd on your alter!

Korg.

In other words, I can't refute what you're saying so I will mention PhD and hopefully people are gullible enough to mistake my opinion for actual evidence.

You know you have crashed and burned when you have to resort to look, I have a PhD so please listen to me.

I never mention my Degrees in a debate because if I can't make the argument based on actual evidence it's just a last gasp of desperation to say, listen to me because I have a PhD.

Who knows if you have any Degrees on a message board? Anyone can proclaim to be something that they're not. You could be a part time Shoe Salesman for all I know.

At the end of the day, evidence is growing in these areas and it's not enough to stick your head in the sand and act like there's NO EVIDENCE.

This is just shameful to me. You could at least say there's evidence but the evidence isn't strong enough for me to accept the underlying hypothesis. Instead we hear things like woo, pseudoscience, there's no evidence and more. This is just dishonest.

Actually I refute everything you say and so does the entire scientific establishment!

I have just about had enough of the psuedo scientific fools who think they can say some scientific sounding terminology and hey presto they can simply wipe off the map what is known to be true.

Then there are the special kind of fools that state that even though I have worked my bloody nuts off on real ground breaking research that I know nothing at all and they know everything!

I've completely and utterly had enough of it!

If you want to submit a paper then I'd review it with an open mind... but if I read total claptrap I will bloody well say so!

Korg.

This is the sound you hear when someone crashes and burns in a debate LOL. They sometimes become unhinged and everyone who dares to think differently than they do is pseudoscientific fools.

This is a materialist losing a debate badly because they can't accept that others look at the evidence and reach a different conclusion. This isn't science, it's blind faith in materialism and an extreme indifference to anyone who dares to think differently.

Self Censored!

originally posted by: neoholographic
At the end of the day, evidence is growing in these areas and it's not enough to stick your head in the sand and act like there's NO EVIDENCE.

This is just shameful to me. You could at least say there's evidence but the evidence isn't strong enough for me to accept the underlying hypothesis. Instead we hear things like woo, pseudoscience, there's no evidence and more. This is just dishonest.

Where is the "EVIDENCE" that cognition in biological brains uses deep quantum mechanical properties not explainable by classical physics?

This isn't photosynthesis, or microtubules.

I'm willing to accept the hypothesis, but there is also the very very strong physical observations of how fast decoherence and the classical limit emerges from large scale collection of particles, like the atoms in brains and that has to be explained around as well.

It isn't just that there is no evidence, but strong physical reasons why these QM properties do not persist in the physical scales of biological systems which do information processing.

No biological creature known has evolved to biologically use superconductivity or a laser, after all---large scale but non-computing behaviors from quantum mechanics. (Other than humans who use their brains and tools to create them out of non-biological materials).

originally posted by: neoholographic
Why would there need to be coherent quantum mechanics with something as large as a neuron?

Because the topic in question is "Quantum Mind" and not "Quantum Molecule"

The coherence occurs within proteins of microtubules not neurons. So, what you're saying doesn't make any sense because it has nothing to do with recent theories and discoveries.

It has everything to do with it.

So there's no need for large scale quantum coherence and there never has been. You would know this if you would research these things.

If there isn't, then there's no quantum mind in the interesting sense, which means using a computational model deeply more powerful than that permitted by computers on classical physics. That's what the field of quantum computing is trying to do.

If you're trying to argue that biochemistry sometimes needs quantum mechanics, then I won't dispute that. And that has nothing to do with "Quantum MIND".

(And quantum computing is a 100% materialist endeavor of science, like all physics.)

a reply to: mbkennel

You're post fails on several levels. First, you still haven't answered your initial question because you can't. You said:

A single electron's motion is so small and noisy---can we really use it to do something so important to think? How many charges are in motion during the firing of one neuron? (many many many many many).

I have pointed this out in several replies and you run away from it like it's the plague. Like I said, you asked the right question but you couldn't answer and you have been bloviating and obfuscating ever since. The most we get from these posts is this:

It has everything to do with it.

This response shows how little you know about the research and current scientific understanding concerning these issues.

You never explain how anything that you're saying to current research and recent discoveries. So it's like I'm debating Apples and you keep talking about Oranges. Maybe if you took the time to actually read up on these things instead of blindly responding, you could provide a more focused answer to your initial question.

I asked the question:

Why would there need to be coherent quantum mechanics with something as large as a neuron?

You said:

Because the topic in question is "Quantum Mind" and not "Quantum Molecule"

Again, this makes zero sense. What does this have to do with the current theory or any current research? Where does it say that the Quantum Mind equates to quantum behavior in neurons? You're debating against nonsense that you're just making up.

Nobody said a Quantum Mind replaces the material brain. You're the one trying to define it this way because you can't debate what's actually being said.

Where is the "EVIDENCE" that cognition in biological brains uses deep quantum mechanical properties not explainable by classical physics?

This is just a backwards question and it shows why materialism should be labeled the old religion. First, there's plenty of evidence and I've listed it on this post. Here's some of the research.

www.quantumconsciousness.org...

This is just some of the research being done in addition to research that's being done in these areas.

Here's more from a paper called:

A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness

Science thrives when there is an open, informed discussion of all evidence, and recognition that scientific knowledge is provisional and subject to revision. This attitude is in stark contrast with reaching conclusions based solely on a previous set of beliefs or on the assertions of authority figures. Indeed, the search for knowledge wherever it may lead inspired a group of notable scientists and philosophers to found in 1882 the Society for Psychical Research in London. Its purpose was “to investigate that large body of debatable phenomena… without prejudice or prepossession of any kind, and in the same spirit of exact and unimpassioned inquiry which has enabled Science to solve so many problems.” Some of the areas in consciousness they investigated such as psychological dissociation, hypnosis, and preconscious cognition are now well integrated into mainstream science. That has not been the case with research on phenomena such as purported telepathy or precognition, which some scientists (a clear minority according to the surveys conducted en.wikademia.org...) dis-miss a priori as pseudoscience or illegitimate. Contrary to the negative impression given by some critics, we would like to stress the following:

Here's just some of the 100 Scientist that signed onto this.

Daryl Bem, Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Cornell University, USA

Etzel Cardeña, Thorsen Professor of Psychology, Lund University, Sweden

Bernard Carr, Professor in Mathematics and Astronomy, University of London, UK

C. Robert Cloninger, Renard Professor of Psychiatry, Genetics, and Psychology, Washington University in St. Louis, USA

Robert G. Jahn, Past Dean of Engineering, Princeton University, USA

Brian Josephson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge, UK (Nobel prizewinner in physics, 1973)

Menas C. Kafatos, Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor of Computational Physics, Chapman University, USA

Irving Kirsch, Professor of Psychology, University of Plymouth, Lecturer in Medicine, Harvard Medical School, USA, UK

Mark Leary, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, USA

Dean Radin, Chief Scientist, Institute of Noetic Sciences, Adjunct Faculty in Psychology, Sonoma State University, USA

Robert Rosenthal, Distinguished Professor, University of California, Riverside, Edgar Pierce Professor Emeritus, Harvard University, USA

Lothar Schäfer, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Physical Chemistry, University of Arkansas, USA

Raymond Tallis, Emeritus Professor of Geriatric Medicine, University of Manchester, UK

Charles T. Tart, Professor in Psychology Emeritus, University of California, Davis, USA

Simon Thorpe, Director of Research CNRS (Brain and Cognition), University of Toulouse, France

Patrizio Tressoldi, Researcher in Psychology, Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy

Jessica Utts, Professor and Chair of Statistics, University of California, Irvine, USA

Max Velmans, Professor Emeritus in Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, UK

Caroline Watt, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Edinburgh University, UK

Phil Zimbardo, Professor in Psychology Emeritus, Stanford University, USA

And…

P. Baseilhac, Researcher in Theoretical Physics, University of Tours, France

Eberhard Bauer, Dept. Head, Institute of Border Areas of Psychology and Mental Hygiene, Freiburg,

Of course, all of these people must be practitioners of woo and pseudoscience because they have the audacity to think outside of a materialist paradigm.

Your question highlights this blind faith.

Where is the evidence that the biological brain explains everything from consciousness to qualia? A blind materialist wants to act like there are no questions and materialism answers everything. That's just a flat out lie and it's because materialism can't explain these things, these scientist are asking questions, doing research and building theories.

How does the material brain initiate the recall of specific memories?

How does the material brain tell the material brain which memory it wishes for the material brain to recall?

How does the material brain know the difference between these memories?

How does the material brain know which neurons to activate that's associated with a specific memory?

Walk me through each step and show me how the material brain does this. The fact is, materialist who see materialism as a religion are under the delusional that materialism answers every question. The fact that it can't is why more and more scientist are looking for different answers.

a reply to: neoholographic

This is very fascinating, I will have to look into this more. I had not come across this information about the 'quantum mind' until stumbling across this recent article: Birds and humans have similar brain wiring that was posted here to ATS. It reminded me of a discussion Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake and Ralph Abraham had about the conundrum of 'homing pigeons'. Apparently many people have tried to scientifically discover how it is done. Morphic fields etc. This information about "microtubules" related to trytophan and apparently similar to photosynthesis could help explain. What does it have to do with the recent discovery about bird brains?:

Birds have been shown in previous studies to possess a range of skills such as a capacity for complex social reasoning, an ability to problem solve and some have even demonstrated the capability to craft and use tools.

..

The team developed their map by analysing 34 studies of the anatomy of the pigeon brain, which is typical for a bird. They focussed on areas called ‘hub nodes’, which are regions of the brain that are major centres for processing information and are important for high level cognition.

In particular, they looked at the hippocampus, which is important for navigation and long-term memory in both birds and mammals. They found that these hub nodes had very dense connections to other parts of the brain in both kinds of animal, suggesting they function in a similar way.

They also compared the prefrontal cortex in mammals, which is important for complex thought such as decision making, with the nidopallium caudolaterale, which has a similar role in birds. They discovered that despite both hub nodes having evolved differently, the way they are wired up within the brain looks similar.

Chaos mathematician Ralph Abraham came the closest in his musings on the subject of homing pigeons which was published in 'The Evolutionary Mind':

Ralph: Now that I'm getting the elastic band theory down I'm ready to risk speculating on the question. This is my fantasy.

First of all, accepting the premise that ordinary fields won't do as an explanation, let's assume it's a kind of ESP. I'm thinki ng of bats, which have been studied in a room just like this one, with wires strung through it. In the daytime the bat will fly around missing the wires and avoiding the wall, using vision primarily, we suppose. At night they do the same thing without vision, using sonar. Suppose, bas ed on bats, that the brain and the mind are able to image the results of sonar experiments, in the same kind of image that the eyes form. In other words, instead of only hearing the sound and trying to compute where the echo's coming from, the bat actually sees the room with its ea rs, in the same kind of representation as the visual. Then if somebody suddenly turns the lights on, the bat wouldn't hesitate and fall to the ground because it has to switch from system A to system B. The visual representation of the room would exactly overlay the sonar image. Similarly, dolphins have this huge melon-shaped sensory organ that receives sonar waves. Both in the case of bats and dolphins, the visual/ sonar representation is more three-dimensional than ours. This would give them, in a way, a kind of a higher IQ. Dolphins and whales, who also use sonar, may sense almost the entire planet as a three-dimensional object, with its curvature and so on.

If there were a sixth sense that homing pigeons and monarch butterflies have, and maybe us to a degree, then I'd suppose it woul d work like that. Going back to our pigeons, after they're rotated, doped, transported 500 miles and released, with this sixth sense it woul d consult a very detailed three-dimensional road map of the entire planet, orienting the holographic three-dimensional image with the visual worl d, rotating things around to get them aligned, and then flying in the map. Things like smells, the sun, the magnetic field, are factors, and they'll act as a kind of label on the map.

Funny thing is, or perhaps, more succinct, is that there is no consciousness at the quantum level. Consciousness, specifically human consciousness, is many magnitudes removed from the quantum level. Even our only sensing mechanism that involves the absorption of quanta (that of sight), does not in itself produce the conscious experience of sight. All that light quanta can produce is a 'kick' to fire electro-chemical signals towards the brain.

Consciousness is not simply a state arising in and of the brain, it is a whole body phenomenon, the medium of the brain is just where the condition of being conscious is made into a 'whole' experience. The level at which consciousness arises is at the biological level not at the quantum level, and it is this fact that negates such a thing as a quantum mind.

The vibrations of microtubles is to my thinking simply another form of Brownian motion. Molecule transport in the microtubles is what is causing them to vibrate. Even if they were vibrating in some form of morse code, there is no telegraph line mechanism by which their signals can be carried to the processing modules of the brain. Personally, and currently, I think Hameroff is wrong, but Penrose offers pretty much an obvious conclusion that consciousness is orchestrated...how else could we have an ordered conscious experience without it being so?

originally posted by: corsair00
a reply to: neoholographic

This is very fascinating, I will have to look into this more. I had not come across this information about the 'quantum mind' until stumbling across this recent article: Birds and humans have similar brain wiring that was posted here to ATS. It reminded me of a discussion Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake and Ralph Abraham had about the conundrum of 'homing pigeons'. Apparently many people have tried to scientifically discover how it is done. Morphic fields etc. This information about "microtubules" related to trytophan and apparently similar to photosynthesis could help explain. What does it have to do with the recent discovery about bird brains?:

Birds have been shown in previous studies to possess a range of skills such as a capacity for complex social reasoning, an ability to problem solve and some have even demonstrated the capability to craft and use tools.

..

The team developed their map by analysing 34 studies of the anatomy of the pigeon brain, which is typical for a bird. They focussed on areas called ‘hub nodes’, which are regions of the brain that are major centres for processing information and are important for high level cognition.

In particular, they looked at the hippocampus, which is important for navigation and long-term memory in both birds and mammals. They found that these hub nodes had very dense connections to other parts of the brain in both kinds of animal, suggesting they function in a similar way.

They also compared the prefrontal cortex in mammals, which is important for complex thought such as decision making, with the nidopallium caudolaterale, which has a similar role in birds. They discovered that despite both hub nodes having evolved differently, the way they are wired up within the brain looks similar.

Chaos mathematician Ralph Abraham came the closest in his musings on the subject of homing pigeons which was published in 'The Evolutionary Mind':

Ralph: Now that I'm getting the elastic band theory down I'm ready to risk speculating on the question. This is my fantasy.

First of all, accepting the premise that ordinary fields won't do as an explanation, let's assume it's a kind of ESP. I'm thinki ng of bats, which have been studied in a room just like this one, with wires strung through it. In the daytime the bat will fly around missing the wires and avoiding the wall, using vision primarily, we suppose. At night they do the same thing without vision, using sonar. Suppose, bas ed on bats, that the brain and the mind are able to image the results of sonar experiments, in the same kind of image that the eyes form. In other words, instead of only hearing the sound and trying to compute where the echo's coming from, the bat actually sees the room with its ea rs, in the same kind of representation as the visual. Then if somebody suddenly turns the lights on, the bat wouldn't hesitate and fall to the ground because it has to switch from system A to system B. The visual representation of the room would exactly overlay the sonar image. Similarly, dolphins have this huge melon-shaped sensory organ that receives sonar waves. Both in the case of bats and dolphins, the visual/ sonar representation is more three-dimensional than ours. This would give them, in a way, a kind of a higher IQ. Dolphins and whales, who also use sonar, may sense almost the entire planet as a three-dimensional object, with its curvature and so on.

If there were a sixth sense that homing pigeons and monarch butterflies have, and maybe us to a degree, then I'd suppose it woul d work like that. Going back to our pigeons, after they're rotated, doped, transported 500 miles and released, with this sixth sense it woul d consult a very detailed three-dimensional road map of the entire planet, orienting the holographic three-dimensional image with the visual worl d, rotating things around to get them aligned, and then flying in the map. Things like smells, the sun, the magnetic field, are factors, and they'll act as a kind of label on the map.

Very good points and evidence is growing in favor of a quantum nature of consciousness. Physicist Daegene Song talked about this recently with the subjective universe and showed through the math of quantum theory that the frame of reference of the observer can't be separated from the wave function and when an observer observes their own reference frame the symmetry breaks down.





So when people who say there's no consciousness on a quantum level they don't even know what consciousness is or is not. There were many people who were saying biology was too wet and warm to have anything to do with quantum mechanics. Yet, you know have an emerging field of quantum biology and all the proclamations that biology couldn't take advantage of things like superposition and other quantum effects were wrong.

So in the spring of 2007 when the New York Times reported that green sulphur-breathing bacteria were performing quantum computations during photosynthesis, my colleagues and I laughed. We thought it was the most crackpot idea we had heard in a long time. Closer examination of the paper, published in Nature, however, showed that something decidedly non-crackpot was going on.

By zapping complexes of photosynthetic molecules with lasers, the authors of the paper were able to show that the excitons use quantum mechanics to make their journey through the photocomplex more efficient. The experimental evidence was strong and compelling. The authors also speculated that the excitons were performing a particular quantum computation algorithm called a quantum search, in which the wave-like nature of propagation allows the excitons to zero in on their target. As it turns out, the excitons were performing a different kind of quantum algorithm called a quantum walk, but the “crackpot” fact remained: Quantum computation was helping the bacteria move energy from point A to point B.

How could tiny bacteria be performing the kind of sophisticated quantum manipulations that it takes human beings a room full of equipment to perform? Natural selection is a powerful force. Photosynthetic bacteria have been around for more than a billion years, and during that time, if a little quantum hanky panky allowed some bacteria to process energy and reproduce more efficiently than other bacteria, then quantum hanky panky stuck around for the next generation. Nature is also the great nanotechnologist. Living systems operate on the basis of molecular mechanisms, where atoms and energy are channeled systematically through molecular complexes within the cell. The molecules in turn are assembled using the laws of quantum mechanics—quantum weirdness is always lurking just around the chemical corner. These quantum changes can either help or hinder energy transport. Natural selection ensures that the role of quantum weirdness in cellular energy transport is a beneficial one.

I also think consciousness may be connected to the quantum walk. In a recent paper on Artificial Intelligence they talked about how you might need to add quantum circuitry in order for machines to carry out a quantum walk.