Quantum Physics and Consciousness

Quantum Metaphysics

According to this article, scientists are ridiculed and censored
for mentioning metaphysics these days.

There is a mutually reinforcing dynamic between the corporate physicists’ personal psychological ego issues regarding confronting within themselves the liberating effects of the newly emerging quantum gnosis and the corporate power structure that they are a part of. These two factors─the internal unconscious dynamics operating within the psyche of physicists and the corporate power structure operating in the outside world─collude with and feed into and off of each other in ways both covert and insidious. There is an unconscious incentive-driven blindness intrinsic to being part of the global, corporate institutional power structure. This is to say that individual scientists who are embedded in and part of this structure─be it in corporations or academia─have been unconsciously trained, conditioned and programmed to avoid inquiring in directions that could threaten the power structure they depend upon for their salaries, reputations and funding for their research. This is a universal phenomenon at work within the human psyche through which power and control are exercised, reinforced and maintained at the expense of truth, operating across many different domains throughout the world.

-from article

Real conspiracy. There is still a huge gap in theoretical physics, when evidence suggest that thoughts affect matter. It's basicly Einstein vs the Copenhagen crowd. Bohr, Heidenburg , max born(Olivia Newton John's grandfather) and Schrödinger. Industry, organized religion,government,academia all have an interest in keeping people dumbed down to their real potential. It's better to conform than be authentic. Anyone outside of that line is censored, labled, criticized, etc. No one explains how quantum mechanics work, only that it is a tool to predict things, which Einstein objected to. Science refuses to give peer review to anything that contradicts Darwin or supposes intelligent design. We are not allowed to validate PMA or think outside the box. Maybe why there is a 1%. It's not magic, just trade secrets.

probability waves
Until sampled/observed
sums existence up!

a reply to: davido


Interesting - I just started a book on that very subject by Dean Radin called "Real Magic...".

www.deanradin.org...

Funny how ideas seem to pop up at the same time all over the world. Hmmmm.

a reply to: davido
Your post is confusing. The source says quantum metaphysics, but your thread subject says quantum physics.

They are not the same thing, in fact there's a separate forum on ATS for metaphysics:

Philosophy and Metaphysics

The subject in that link doesn't fit in the science forum at all, but it fits fine in the metaphysics forum.

If you want to look at the scientific view, this is a good article:

Quantum Mechanics, Nothing to do with Consciousness

Epistemic status: A quick rejection of the quantum consciousness woo. If you have already read the sequences, there's nothing new in here. If your new to the site, or need a single page to point people to, here it is.


Real Quantum mechanics looks like pages of abstract maths, after which you have deduced the results of a physics experiment. Given how hard the maths is, most of the systems that we use quantum mechanics to predict are quite simple. One common experiment is to take a glass tube full of a particular element and run lots of electricity through it. The element will produce coloured light, like sodium producing orange, or neon producing red. So take a prism and split that light to see what colours are being produced. Quantum physisists will do lots of tricky maths about how the electrons move between energy levels to work out what colour different elements will produce.

There have been no quantum mechanics experiments that show consciousness to have any relevance to particle physics. The laws of physics do not say what is or is not conscious, in much the same way that they don't say what is or is not a work of art. Of course, consciousness is a property of human brains, and human brains, like everything else in the universe, are made of electrons and quarks playing by quantum laws. The point is that human brains are not singled out for special treatment, they get the same rules as everything else.

For the writers among you, think of a word processor feature that takes some text, and turns it into ALL CAPS. You can put a great novel into this feature if you want. The point is that the rule its self acts the same way whether or not it's given great literature. You can't use the rule to tell what is great literature, you have to read it and decide yourself. Consciousness, like literature, is a high level view that's hard to pin down precisely, and is largely a matter of how we choose to define it. Quantum mechanics is a simple, mechanistic rule.

Yes I know that some of you are thinking of the double slit experiment. You make a screen with two slits, shine light through and get an interference pattern. Put a detector at one slit, attach a dial to the detector, and have a scientist watching the dial so they can see which slit the photon went through, and the interference pattern disappears. Perhaps, thought some of the early scientists, consciousness causes the quantum wave function to collapse, the universe doesn't like us knowing which slit the photon goes through.

However, lets do a few more experiments. Repeat the previous one, except that the scientist is sleeping in front of the dial. No interference pattern. Turn the dial to face the wall, remove the scientist entirely. Still no interference pattern. Unplug the dial from the detector, so electrical impulses run up the wire and then can't go anywhere. Again, no interference. Whatever is stopping interference patterns, it looks like detectors, not consciousness.

a reply to: davido

Hi Davido.
Nice turn at the end of the OP there.
Questioning Big-Science, and Scientism: will draw some ire for sure.

Wait for the usual cast of defenders-of-the-faith, in: 3 - 2 - 1 ...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: davido
Your post is confusing. The source says quantum metaphysics, but your thread subject says quantum physics.
They are not the same thing, in fact there's a separate forum on ATS for metaphysics:
Philosophy and Metaphysics
The subject in that link doesn't fit in the science forum at all, but it fits fine in the metaphysics forum.

Spoil sport; you ruined everything!

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: davido


Interesting - I just started a book on that very subject by Dean Radin called "Real Magic...".

www.deanradin.org...

Funny how ideas seem to pop up at the same time all over the world. Hmmmm.

Works for me, explains coincidence..

a reply to: Arbitrageur

There was the majority who said entanglement and quantum leap did only happen close to absolute zero and not in organic materials. Sir Roger Penrose was right when he said the majority was wrong.

From my point of view the majority of quantum physics cannot handle the observation they find and become like Einstein grasping at excuses to look away (left glove/right glove). That make them totally unfit to go further down the rabbit whole.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

I agree... the painting on that which we consider our reality to be, has far more complexity in the canvas that it rests upon, than the tiny visible or knowable image we perceive..

Just as we will never know the furthest reaches of space itself, we will never know the intricate workings of the microcosm.. all we will ever do is speculate about it, and come to conclusions which over time will be changed, become outdated, or held onto by those who refuse to open their minds to different speculation.

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: Arbitrageur

There was the majority who said entanglement and quantum leap did only happen close to absolute zero and not in organic materials. Sir Roger Penrose was right when he said the majority was wrong.

That is a misrepresentation. They didn't say it couldn't happen, they said that decoherence happened on such rapid time scales in warm-blooded humans so as to make it not relevant for biological processes. There are still some debates about that, but even if some people think they can stretch out the decoherence times in warm-blooded creatures, the bigger issue with the argument of Penrose is that it has too much in common with the "god of the gaps" arguments of the past, and he even refers specifically to gaps in our knowledge in that video. That's not a sound argument.

When we didn't understand something in the past, it was often something only a higher power could explain. The problem of course was as our knowledge grew, these gaps in our understanding kept disappearing and the role of God kept getting smaller and smaller.

But Penrose is still applying the same flawed logic in his argument in that video, that there's a gap, but instead of saying "it's explained by God" he just substitutes his pet unproven idea for God, but that's no more proof for his idea than the gaps in our models of the past were actually proof for God (which gaps often turned out to have scientific explanations).

God of the gaps

God of the gaps (or a divine fallacy) is a logical fallacy that occurs when believers invoke Goddidit (or a variant) in order to account for some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument) explain. This concept resembles what systems theorists[1] refer to as an "explanatory principle".[2] "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the remaining gaps for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know yet" as an alternative that works better in practice

That's from rational wiki, which also has an article on quantum consciousness, that identifies this "god of the gaps" type of logical flaw is present in numerous presentations on the topic:

Quantum consciousness

Quantum consciousness (sometimes called quantum mind) is the idea that consciousness requires quantum processes, as opposed the view of mainstream neurobiology in which the function of the brain is wholly classical, and quantum processes play no computational role.

While many attempts at a theory of quantum consciousness are pseudoscientific by naively claiming the strangeness of quantum mechanics is a parallel to the strangeness of consciousness, more sophisticated quantum consciousness theories are an attempt at a solution of the "combination problem"; the problem explaining how a system of classical neurons can combine to form a single subject of experience (also referred to as the "binding problem"). However, there is currently little experimental evidence of computationally relevant quantum processes in the human brain, in part due to the technical difficulty of probing the brain at sufficient spatial and temporal granularity.

Whether or not quantum effects influence thought is a valid topic for scientific investigation, but simply stating "quantum effects cause consciousness" explains nothing unless scientists can come up with some suggestion about how quantum effects could possibly cause consciousness. The argument goes:

I don't understand consciousness.
I don't understand quantum physics.
Therefore, consciousness must be a function of quantum physics!

It's god of the gaps with "quantum" as the all-purpose gap filler.

It's so obvious in that Penrose video since he talks so explicitly about the gaps in our knowledge, yet he has not even the smallest shred of evidence linking consciousness to quantum mechanics that I can see.

a reply to: FyreByrd
Fantastic, so far I’ve been googling the subject.
I just started reading”Quantum Revelation” by
Paul Levy, who wrote the article referenced in my post.
Since you implied synchronicity, here’s a quote
from CJ Yung,

“the result being that reality forfeits something
of its objective character and that a subjective element attaches
to the physicist’s picture of the world.”

Will definitely add Dean Radin to my reading list.
Thank You.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I thought that a link to an outside source had
to be the title of the source. The post is
Centered around that article.
Perhaps it’s a jump to compare Quantum Physics
with Metaphysics, but this is what the author did
and I repeated. I’ll gel on your referenced article.
Thanks friend.

a reply to: Nothin

Thanks, we learn by churning thing a bit.
I don’t really know and likely no one does until
we have better tools. It’s interesting to me though,
that science can be just as dogmatic as a religion.
Seems to me that we become complacent and
lose creativity when it’s all answered for us.
The concept of an objective view of the universe vs subjective view
of consciousness, begs the question,how can we leave consciousness
Out, when consciousness is linked with observation?
Are we on the inside looking out or the outside looking in?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Concerning the consciousness response on rational
Wiki; The author admits that the technology to
find out is not yet suitable due to granularity.
Ewww. I read it in rational wiki is just as dogmatic
as quoting Genesis. The guy assumed he is correct
and proves nothing. Comical, the hubris he displays
attributing the logic of those in favor of the concept,
“I don’t know....” “I don’t know....” therefore, is comical
in itself.
There is also the definition of quantum consciousness, which
can be vague. Wiki describes as:

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. Assertions that consciousness is somehow quantum-mechanical can overlap with quantum mysticism, a pseudoscientific movement that involves assigning supernatural characteristics to various quantum phenomena such as nonlocality and the observer effect.[2]

So, generalized arguments are not conclusive as there are different aspects of the term,
even though it’s all generally linked to quantum mysticism.

a reply to: FyreByrd

“Science is tightly focused on the objective, measurable, physical world.
That focus excludes the one and only thing you can ever know for sure—
your consciousness, that inner spark of sentience that you call “me.”


Dean Radin, PhD

He said it better than I could and is really
the focus and intent of the thread.

At the end of the day, people will speculate about consciousness. People will agree, or disagree with theories regarding consciousness.

Truth is, no one know for sure, and that's a fact. Hence the reason why people debate it to this say. Can consciousness just be a product of the brain? Of course it could. Could it be something else, generated somewhere else? Of course it may be.

No one knows

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Some people are vague in their concept like Deepak Chopra and should not be used as a person that can bring logic and creative side to create theories that can be tested if a person want to test them.

Double slit experiment proves reality bends to manipulation/observation.

Many people daily life depend of getting paid (wages) to not go to deep down the rabbit hole. Human society is filled with Science Dogma that is brainwashed out to the public. In today's society I do not think the connection between cancer and Tobacco would have been allowed to surface. The "scientist" would have called people who claimed a connection pseudoscience. "Causality is not correlation" while never making real studies to test what is the cause.

It is a mad mad world.

For those who want to read up on one theory. Orch OR-Quantum goto:
www.quantumconsciousness.org...

a reply to: davido

It's basicly Einstein vs the Copenhagen crowd.

Because there are actual problems with the copenhagen interpretation.

There is no uniquely definitive statement of the Copenhagen interpretation. It consists of the views developed by a number of scientists and philosophers during the second quarter of the 20th century. Bohr and Heisenberg never totally agreed on how to understand the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. Bohr once distanced himself from what he considered to be Heisenberg's more subjective interpretation.

The Copenhagen interpretation denies that the wave function provides a directly apprehensible image of an ordinary material body or a discernible component of some such, or anything more than a theoretical concept.

The ensemble interpretation is similar; it offers an interpretation of the wave function, but not for single particles. The consistent histories interpretation advertises itself as "Copenhagen done right". Although the Copenhagen interpretation is often confused with the idea that consciousness causes collapse, it defines an "observer" merely as that which collapses the wave function. Quantum information theories are more recent, and have attracted growing support.

Science refuses to give peer review to anything that contradicts Darwin or supposes intelligent design.

sup·pose
/səˈpōz/
Learn to pronounce
verb
1.
assume that something is the case on the basis of evidence or probability but without proof or certain knowledge.

There is an ulterior motive in play here, but that is clearly for the public to decide in the end.

On the basis of the above definition, science "supposes" that God does not exist. It's a presupposition that it has to make in order to distinguish itself from religion - or so its practitioners think. The problem is: what if God really does exist? Then science is perpetually going to come up with false (or at least incomplete) answers to deep questions because it will censor or suppress all research that ostensibly provides irrefutible, empirical evidence or even mathematical proof of God's existence. Science achieves this by denying peer review to any research that undermines its most sacred dogma. It is not merely that anything that "supposes" God or intelligent design is denied peer review; anything that claims to prove either one or both of these hypotheses is also denied publication because it has already judged this to be impossible because - well, God and divine design do not exist, do they?.....

Science is not some liberal endeavour that allows all possible questions to be asked in open forums - even its dogmas, as though they are never too sacred to be challenged! It was never that, although many naive scientists like to believe that it is. Instead, science has always been a kind of undemocratic gentleman's club that will kick you out in every sense possible as soon as you break its rules of membership. Gentlemen (and, of course, ladies) are allowed to believe in God on Sunday if they wish, but they must never mention the dreaded word in their published work. That's because scientists regard themselves as practising the highest form of truth-seeking. They vehemently deny the possibility that a form of knowledge higher than scientific knowledge might exist - one that no longer needs to assume that God exists because His existence has been proven in an objective way to those few fortunate and clever enough to discover this proof and further this knowledge....

a reply to: davido
Appreciate all the thoughtful replies. I gained some good insight
and walking away with more than I arrived here with.
I’ll be digesting all of this and get back at a later time.
I am only an undergrad in electrical enigineering; but I am involved
in a partnership under an NDA, which is getting out there.
I’ll check back later down the road if something makes better
sense after reflections.
Peace