Quantum Physics and Consciousness

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

a reply to: FyreByrd

Carl Jung talks about 'collective consciousness' in his book. Some of the things in his book seemed kind of far fetched when I read about them many decades ago, but as time went on it really opened my eyes to angles and possibilities not main stream.

I believe we will begin to unlock and tap in to the secrets and hidden powers within the human brain, but it's going to be a few more decades before most of it will be accepted.

a reply to: davido

Perhaps there is no "...inside looking out or the outside looking in?".
But merely looking ?

It is fine that you can sense that there may be dogma, in both science and religion.
Please be aware, that tugging at those strings, may eventually unravel larger fabrics.
You know: small bites, baby-steps, and all that jazz.

Science can be a wonderful and helpful tool, as long as we steer clear from any kind of dogma, and beliefs.

There are scientists investigating Metaphysics, and scientists investigating Quantum Physics, and scientists investigating consciousness, but Quantum Metaphysics ?
Am not sure.

originally posted by: Gnarley
Works for me, explains coincidence..

Of course. "Coincidence" also doesn't exist without an observer.

originally posted by: nugget1
I believe we will begin to unlock and tap in to the secrets and hidden powers within the human brain, but it's going to be a few more decades before most of it will be accepted.

I think this is a definite possibility once certain mind-altering substances become more legal and actual research can be done on them. There is already some preliminary research being done on substances and strains which suggest there are certain chemical combinations that trigger specific brain responses. I can imagine them being fine-tuned and combined to combat all kinds of disorders such as autism or depression or Alzheimer's, but also enhancing things that are ordinary but very weak processes but not "disorders," such as pattern recognition (which would naturally boost telepathy and limited clairvoyance).

But that's probably a decade or two down the line, as you say. Still a stigma. Still only quasi-legal. Don't do drugs, kids.

originally posted by: davido
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

If you are working on any tech related to consciousness then you should think very carefully about what doors you want to open. It would be quite ironic to be lectured by scientists on the morality of technology based in metaphysics.

I think one of the odder things to have arisen over the past few years in the theoretical physics world is the inclusion of something called "information." Stephen Hawking was a big proponent of using this term.

But the thing is, information is a social construct that has nothing to do with little bits of energy bouncing against each other. It has to do with a transfer of ideas between two people. Ideas, concepts, definitions, etc. In order for there to be information, you need somebody to define it, somebody to communicate it, and somebody else to receive it. It just doesn't exist by itself. There is no "information particle" out there.

So we're already starting to figure out ways to incorporate consciousness into the equations. It's still pretty messy, though. And it may take a couple of generations of people who are used to the idea to generate anything useful from it.

a reply to: nugget1

If you are interested in PSI research I would recommend Dean Radin.

For instance in this video they talk about some people that because of their DNA have different functioning caudate that is seen by MRI. 31 min in.

a reply to: Blue Shift

In the future we will probably use sound manipulation (ultrasound) instead to remove cancer, break up Alzheimer's plack so that the microtubules can form synapses again since it will be a more pinpoint technology with less side effects than chemical medicine.

There will be awareness classifications where people will prove what they are. One will probably be what chemicals the Amygdala give out. Like Mensa for people with high IQ today.

a reply to: davido

I just watched the vid on the
Simulation Hypothesis. While compelling,
I’m not sure if I buy it. The film speculated
that it’s an age old controversy between Plato
and Democritus, or idealism vs materialism.
This answers a lot of questions I had and maybe
not a good fit for everyone, depending on
thier personal situation, but I tend to like it.

A cynic is a disappointed idealist
- George Carlin

I only ask; what would be the point of a sterile universe?

a reply to: davido
It has taken a long time to trap us in the box, the last thing they want is for us to think that there is an outside to it. Bloodlines are special because knowledge is power, knowledge shared is power lost. Hence the trade in knowledge by the select few.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
At the end of the day, people will speculate about consciousness. People will agree, or disagree with theories regarding consciousness.
...

The mind has been described as “the elusive entity where intelligence, decision making, perception, awareness and sense of self reside.” As creeks, streams, and rivers feed into a sea, so memories, thoughts, images, sounds, and feelings flow constantly into or through our mind. Consciousness, says one definition, is “the perception of what passes in a man’s own mind.”

Modern researchers have made great strides in understanding the physical makeup of the brain and some of the electrochemical processes that occur in it. They can also explain the circuitry and functioning of an advanced computer. However, there is a vast difference between brain and computer. With your brain you are conscious and are aware of your being, but a computer certainly is not. Why the difference?

Frankly, how and why consciousness arises from physical processes in our brain is a mystery. “I don’t see how any science can explain that,” one neurobiologist commented. Also, Professor James Trefil observed: “What, exactly, it means for a human being to be conscious . . . is the only major question in the sciences that we don’t even know how to ask.” One reason why is that scientists are using the brain to try to understand the brain. And just studying the physiology of the brain may not be enough. Consciousness is “one of the most profound mysteries of existence,” observed Dr. David Chalmers, “but knowledge of the brain alone may not get [scientists] to the bottom of it.”

Nonetheless, each of us experiences consciousness. For example, our vivid memories of past events are not mere stored facts, like computer bits of information. We can reflect on our experiences, draw lessons from them, and use them to shape our future. We are able to consider several future scenarios and evaluate the possible effects of each. We have the capacity to analyze, create, appreciate, and love. We can enjoy pleasant conversations about the past, present, and future. We have ethical values about behavior and can use them in making decisions that may or may not be of immediate benefit. We are attracted to beauty in art and morals. In our mind we can mold and refine our ideas and guess how other people will react if we carry these out.

Such factors produce an awareness that sets humans apart from other life-forms on earth. Dr. Richard Restak states: “The human brain, and the human brain alone, has the capacity to step back, survey its own operation, and thus achieve some degree of transcendence. Indeed, our capacity for rewriting our own script and redefining ourselves in the world is what distinguishes us from all other creatures in the world.”

Man’s consciousness baffles some. The book Life Ascending, while favoring a mere biological explanation, admits: “When we ask how a process [evolution] that resembles a game of chance, with dreadful penalties for the losers, could have generated such qualities as love of beauty and truth, compassion, freedom, and, above all, the expansiveness of the human spirit, we are perplexed. The more we ponder our spiritual resources, the more our wonder deepens.” Very true. Thus, we might round out our view of human uniqueness by considering another facet of our consciousness that illustrates why many are convinced that there must be an intelligent Designer, a Creator, who cares for us.

Another facet of human consciousness is our ability to consider the future (briefly mentioned earlier). When asked whether humans have traits that distinguish them from animals, Professor Richard Dawkins acknowledged that man has, indeed, unique qualities. After mentioning “the ability to plan ahead using conscious, imagined foresight,” Dawkins added: “Short-term benefit has always been the only thing that counts in evolution; long-term benefit has never counted. It has never been possible for something to evolve in spite of being bad for the immediate short-term good of the individual. For the first time ever, it’s possible for at least some people to say, ‘Forget about the fact that you can make a short-term profit by chopping down this forest; what about the long-term benefit?’ Now I think that’s genuinely new and unique.”

Other researchers confirm that humans’ ability for conscious, long-term planning is without parallel. Neurophysiologist William H. Calvin notes: “Aside from hormonally triggered preparations for winter and mating, animals exhibit surprisingly little evidence of planning more than a few minutes ahead.” Animals may store food before a cold season, but they do not think things through and plan. By contrast, humans consider the future, even the distant future. Some scientists contemplate what may happen to the universe billions of years hence. Did you ever wonder why man—so different from animals—is able to think about the future and lay out plans?

The Bible says of humans: “Even time indefinite [the Creator] has put in their heart.” The Revised Standard Version renders it: “He has put eternity into man’s mind.” (Ecclesiastes 3:11) We use this distinctive ability daily, even in as common an act as glancing in a mirror and thinking what our appearance will be in 10 or 20 years. And we are confirming what Ecclesiastes 3:11 says when we give even passing thought to such concepts as the infinity of time and space. The mere fact that we have this ability harmonizes with the comment that a Creator has put “eternity into man’s mind.”

Sir John Eccles concluded that an evolutionary explanation of man’s existence “fails in a most important respect. It cannot account for the existence of each one of us as unique self-conscious beings.” The more we learn about the workings of our brain and mind, the easier it is to see why millions of people have concluded that man’s conscious existence is evidence of a Creator who cares about us.

“The human brain is composed almost exclusively of the [cerebral] cortex. The brain of a chimpanzee, for example, also has a cortex, but in far smaller proportions. The cortex allows us to think, to remember, to imagine. Essentially, we are human beings by virtue of our cortex.”—Edoardo Boncinelli, director of research in molecular biology, Milan, Italy.

Professor Paul Davies reflected on the ability of the brain to handle the abstract field of mathematics. “Mathematics is not something that you find lying around in your back yard. It’s produced by the human mind. Yet if we ask where mathematics works best, it is in areas like particle physics and astrophysics, areas of fundamental science that are very, very far removed from everyday affairs.” What does that imply? “It suggests to me that consciousness and our ability to do mathematics are no mere accident, no trivial detail, no insignificant by-product of evolution.”—Are We Alone?

John Polkinghorne, of the University of Cambridge, England, observed:

“Theoretical physicist Paul Dirac discovered something called quantum field theory which is fundamental to our understanding of the physical world. I can’t believe Dirac’s ability to discover that theory, or Einstein’s ability to discover the general theory of relativity, is a sort of spin-off from our ancestors having to dodge saber-toothed tigers. Something much more profound, much more mysterious, is going on.”—Commonweal.

originally posted by: ManyMasks
a reply to: davido
It has taken a long time to trap us in the box, the last thing they want is for us to think that there is an outside to it. Bloodlines are special because knowledge is power, knowledge shared is power lost. Hence the trade in knowledge by the select few.

Secret teaching revelations (occult) should be kept secret but be suspicious of Institutions that deliberately hide information from those requesting it.
Knowledge hunting is a human right; but I will not divulge hard earned 'soul progression' points to amateurs. The point is to find out life's mysteries for oneself.

Without consciousness, measurement is not possible.
On a quantum level this would imply that the wave function is not collapsed, and thus remains in a probabilistic state.
This does not necessarily mean you can control matter with your mind, or that there are not other mechanisms to collapse the wave function.
For the most part our mind produces macroscopic work. (W=F*d), which is a somewhat more sober idea, than a vision board alone.

I believe in a super consciousness that forms basis of measurement, thus creating the physical universe.
The consciousness in living things, collapse the wave function at smaller physical scale, thus providing dynamic level of detail to the construct.

a reply to: rom12345

Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness (and the other way around)

It has been suggested that consciousness plays an important role in quantum mechanics as it is necessary for the collapse of wave function during the measurement. Furthermore, this idea has spawned a symmetrical proposal: a possibility that quantum mechanics explains the emergence of consciousness in the brain. Here we formulated several predictions that follow from this hypothetical relationship and that can be empirically tested. Some of the experimental results that are already available suggest falsification of the first hypothesis. Thus, the suggested link between human consciousness and collapse of wave function does not seem viable. We discuss the constraints implied by the existing evidence on the role that the human observer may play for quantum mechanics and the role that quantum mechanics may play in the observer's consciousness.

Furthermore, the "wave function collapse" of the Copenhagen interpretation is not necessarily a description of what really happens. Other interpretations of quantum mechanics can explain observations without any collapse of the wave function. In this table of interpretations of QM, see the second column from the right: "Collapsing Wavefunctions?" Six interpretations say "yes" and seven interpretations say "no".



As Sean Carrol explains, a rock can act as an observer, and it doesn't have consciousness. He does acknowledge a radical minority who say things like "Without consciousness, measurement is not possible" but he tries to explain why he and most other physicists don't accept that claim.

Sean Carroll - What are Observers?

Dr. Carroll by the way prefers one of the interpretations that says there is no collapse, however he also says there is no more proof for that interpretation than the others, and evidence is still needed to decide which interpretation on the above chart, if any, is correct.

Sir Roger Penrose, has an interesting view on this.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: rom12345
...
Dr. Carroll by the way prefers one of the interpretations that says there is no collapse, however he also says there is no more proof for that interpretation than the others, and evidence is still needed to decide which interpretation on the above chart, if any, is correct.

Some things I'm wondering about:

Do any of these interpretations lend themselves to deductions that can be experimentally tested? If so, why have many of them been around for decades even though they conflict with one another?

Can one make a career out of speculating about quantum mechanics without ever making a single factual discovery in the sciences akin to the discovery of the fact that E=MC^2 or the facts described in the law of gravity?

I'm going to have to agree with Freeman Dyson on this one (concerning the role of the observer in QM):

1. "statements about the past cannot in general be made in quantum mechanical language...as a general rule, knowledge about the past can only be expressed in classical terms". Lawrence Bragg, joint winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1915, mentioned: "everything in the future is a wave, everything in the past is a particle".

2. "the role of the observer in QM is not to cause an abrupt reduction of the wave packet with the state of the system jumping discontinuously at the instant when it's observed. The picture of the observer interrupting the course of natural events is unnecessary and misleading. What really happens is that the quantum description of an event ceases to be meaningful as the observer changes the point of reference from before the event to after it. We don't need a human observer to make QM work, all we need is a point of reference, to seperate the past from the future, to seperate what has happened from what may happen, to seperate facts from probabilities."

For details and the justifications for the conclusions above, see the video below. Also note the point made at 22:02: "therefore no such wave function can exist" (in relation to what he's talking about there). 21:23 - 23:56, keypoints at 22:05, 22:45 and 23:06 (the introduction may also be of interest especially starting at 0:30 with the keypoints at 2:03 - 3:34 and 5:35 - 6:03):

Just to put some things into perspective:

According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must

1. Be observable

2. Be reproducible by controlled experiments

3. Make accurate predictions

The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.”

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

It is generally believed that light consists of energy particles that have wave properties. To this day, however, man still cannot give a complete answer to the question propounded over three millenniums ago by the Creator of light: “Where, now, is the way by which the light distributes itself?”​—Job 38:24.

originally posted by: rom12345
Sir Roger Penrose, has an interesting view on this.

Already posted on page 1, and I already responded to it there as well.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Do any of these interpretations lend themselves to deductions that can be experimentally tested? If so, why have many of them been around for decades even though they conflict with one another?

Quantum mechanics is a mathematical model, and the model has been thoroughly tested experimentally.

The interpretations vary. A few of the interpretations are disfavored since some physicists seem to already think there is ample evidence to rule them out, for example the "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation is claimed to already be ruled out by experiment by the paper I cited.

But for some of the leading alternative explanations, so far nobody has been able to devise an experiment to distinguish between them, such as Copenhagen, DeBroglie-Bohm, and the Everett interpretation. So all three of those interpretations can be tested versus experiment, and all three conform to experimental results. So is there a wave-function collapse when an observation is made or not? We can't really say since the experiments support models which do and other models which do not include that. So far, nobody has been clever enough to designan experiment to distinguish betweenthe interpretations, but people are trying. I see claims that some experimental results might favor one interpretation over another, but none are proven yet.

Sean Carroll explains more here:

Quantum Mechanics (an embarrassment) - Sixty Symbols

As he says not every physicist would agree on his favored interpretation, but almost all would agree that we haven't found a conclusive experiment to decide which is right.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Was that a "no" presented as a "yes" (as well)?

If they don't lend themselves to deductions that can be experimentally tested "to decide which one is right" (as you put it at the end), then that looks like a "no" to me.

a reply to: whereislogic
The models are tested and supported by observation.
Observations and experiments haven't been able to distinguish between different interpretations of the models.

In the words of Hugh Everett:

"Every theory can be divided into two separate parts, the formal part, and the interpretive part. The formal part consists of a purely logico-mathematical structure, i.e., a collection of symbols together with rules for their manipulation, while the interpretive part consists of a set of “associations,” which are rules which put some of the elements of the formal part into correspondence with the perceived world."

So in his language, the "formal part" is a good theory.
The interpretive part is not, and consists of various hypotheses which are consistent with the formal part, but undifferentiated by experiment.
It is important to recognize the difference.