Evidence for a Conscious Universe?

[insane_alien]

empirical evidence of our own conciousness:

 

ourselves.

 

heck, the whole concept of conciousness is based on us so its pretty much by definition.

[artnat]

What is "scientism?"

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Ascientism&btnG=Search

 

 

What is "apperceive?"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3Aapperception&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

[mooeypoo]

Also, I'm not the one that has the burden of proof, you are, artnat.

 

You're making the claim, you're in need of providing evidence.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Ascientism&btnG=Search

Scientism

or the "Church of Science" is a

fictional

religion

from

Isaac Asimov

's

Foundation Series

. It is first mentioned in Part III of

Foundation

, "The Mayors", and makes its last appearance in Part V, "The Merchant Princes".

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism_%28Foundation%29

 

 

Can we be serious now? Please? Good.

 

Don't forget, artnat, that you came to us, not the other way around. You are the one who is making a claim, and you came to us to convince us your claim is reasonable.

 

You're the one who should supply the evidence, not the other way around.

 

Also, coming to a science forum and disrespecting the members there is not a very smart way of starting a conversation. Try again, hm?

 

~moo

[artnat]

Can we be serious now? Please? Good.

 

Figured one would assume it was any of the other 7 of the 8 definitions that provided the context in which I used the term scientism and not the specific one of Isaac Asimov's fictional religion.

 

Don't forget, artnat, that you came to us, not the other way around. You are the one who is making a claim, and you came to us to convince us your claim is reasonable.

You're the one who should supply the evidence, not the other way around.

 

Actually I started this thread with the title: Evidence for a Conscious Universe?

and ended my first post saying: "I realize the challenge in developing a coherent hypothsis out of such ephemeral evidence but hoped the forum might generate more scientifically sophisticated insights than my uneducated efforts."

 

Obviously the hope was for a dialog rather than a battle but I realize that when the sides become identified as metaphysical versus physicalism passions can rise to the intensity of religious debate.

 

Also, coming to a science forum and disrespecting the members there is not a very smart way of starting a conversation. Try again, hm?

 

I'm almost at a loss to know where I disrespected any member unless it possibly could be where I used the term "committed skeptic". But I couldn't imagine that anyone who is an integral part of the skeptical community would take this as anything but a compliment.

 

Could you clarify what your charge of my disrespecting members referred to?

[artnat]

artnat, how about some actual science here? Like math, or evidence, or peer reviewed articles? something?

 

Here's a mix of resources relating to the interface of physics and consciousness- some of which derive from bona fide scientists who publish peer reviewed articles...

http://maya-gaia.angelfire.com/meta_new_physics.html ...enjoy.

[mooeypoo]

There's no math in there, there are no experimentational data or evidence and none of the links are peer reviewed articles.

 

I can google "Bigfoot" and find better evidence than you're providing.

 

~moo

[Syntho-sis]

Some years ago I experienced what can fairly be described as a classical transcendent episode (spontaneously triggered by an ecstatic sexual orgasm). Features included a transport in a plasma-like stream of energy- a confrontation with an omnipotent consciousness to choose between returning or accepting death and continuing- annihilation of my corporal and ego selfness- union with a cosmic consciousness of light, bliss and love- and finally returning through a filimentous cord winding down to where it was attached to the top of the head of my "sleeping" body. At the time I was agnostic and totally naive about metaphysical or paranormal events but in an attempt to integrate the experience, researched those subjects plus concepts in Vedantic mysticism. I discovered enough corallary in these various sources to confirm that I had experienced an archetypal mystical event uncontaminated by any of the infinite variety of religious metaphores or occult artifacts that often arise in accounts of this nature.

 

What kindav boogley bolical crap is this?

 

Are you sure you weren't high?

[artnat]

There's no math in there, there are no experimentational data or evidence and none of the links are peer reviewed articles. I can google "Bigfoot" and find better evidence than you're providing.

~moo

You asked for "something" about actual science.

 

I referred you to a list of links to resources relating to the interface of science and consciousness (the topic of this discussion) some of which derive from bona fide scientists who publish peer reviewed articles.

 

I assume you overlooked that I said "SOME" of the resources listed "DERIVE" from scientists who publish peer reviewed articles.

 

One resource listed is a compendium of published works by scientist Henry Stapp at http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html

 

Another resource listed is http://www.kjf.ca/104-update26Jan2008.pdf PROTO-EXPERIENCES AND SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCES: INTEGRATION OF CLASSICAL, QUANTUM, AND SUBQUANTUM CONCEPTS by RAM LAKHAN PANDEY VIMAL who has other peer reviewed papers published in JIN at http://www.worldscinet.com/jin/07/0701/S0219635208001733.html

 

For me to try to comply with your request for mathematical evidence- could you provide a sample of what math about consciousness might look like?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

What kindav boogley bolical crap is this?

Are you sure you weren't high?

 

Now you know why they put the "theo" in entheogens. Theology can blow your mind or the other way around!

Edited September 28, 2009 by artnat
Consecutive posts merged.

[mooeypoo]

You asked for "something" about actual science.

 

The 'something' and the 'actual science' were part of a single sentence, meaning that you need to supply something that is scientifically valid.

 

Something that has no value is meaningless, don't you agree? And yet, that's what you supply.

 

I referred you to a list of links to resources relating to the interface of science and consciousness (the topic of this discussion) some of which derive from bona fide scientists who publish peer reviewed articles.

 

I assume you overlooked that I said "SOME" of the resources listed "DERIVE" from scientists who publish peer reviewed articles.

I didn't ignore it, I grouped it along with the "nothing contains actually valid data" bit.

 

I can also take a valid peer review paper and derive an invalid argument from it. The argument will remain invalid until I validate it, no matter how valid the peer-reviewed article I based my NEW argument was.

 

We're not judging people, we're judging claims. Your claims have no merit and you seem to have no scientifically valid data, either. If you do, please share them. If you think I missed them, then please point them out directly for us.

 

One resource listed is a compendium of published works by scientist Henry Stapp at http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html

 

Another resource listed is http://www.kjf.ca/104-update26Jan2008.pdf PROTO-EXPERIENCES AND SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCES: INTEGRATION OF CLASSICAL, QUANTUM, AND SUBQUANTUM CONCEPTS by RAM LAKHAN PANDEY VIMAL who has other peer reviewed papers published in JIN at http://www.worldscinet.com/jin/07/0701/S0219635208001733.html

 

For me to try to comply with your request for mathematical evidence- could you provide a sample of what math about consciousness might look like?

I gave math as one of the requirements; if you supply other scientifically valid evidence for your hypothesis, math isn't encessarily needed, though at some point you might need it to provide some source of prediction.

 

Since you're trying to make consciousness (an 'unphysical' term) into a phenomena (physical term) then it will, at some point, be needed to describe it physically, and math should have a place in that description.

 

I can't give you an example because that doesn't exist. Since you're the one with the hypothesis, you should have a general idea of how to go about obtaining such mathematical modeling, but that can still wait until the hypothesis has a bit more scientific "meat" to it.

 

Also, take into account that a scientific paper is judged by its contents, not by theperson writing it. For that matter, no matter how many scientifically reviewed a writer has, if the SPECIFIC paper we're talking about did not pass the review, it's not quite good enough as evidence by itself. If you have any other evidence you want to share -- like, for instance, what mechanism you would have to analyze and detect such phenomenon -- then please share them with us.

 

 

Now you know why they put the "theo" in entheogens. Theology can blow your mind or the other way around!

You should take a look at this post (and the whole thread, while you're at it) for some actual scientific experiments done that explain why "theology" is such a prevailing phenomena in our world.

 

Science *can* explain some things, yaknow...

 

 

~moo

[artnat]

Something that has no value is meaningless, don't you agree? And yet, that's what you supply.

 

Falsifiabilty does not say that things that are not falsifiable have no value. It simply asserts they are not scientific.

 

Since you're trying to make consciousness (an 'unphysical' term) into a phenomena (physical term) then it will, at some point, be needed to describe it physically, and math should have a place in that description.

 

I didn't ignore it, I grouped it along with the "nothing contains actually valid data" bit.

 

In our direct exchange, it's obvious you have assumed the role of Scientisms' Rottweiler and are convinced that consciousness is merely a term for that enigma which the matter of our brain creates. Any argument to advance the discourse will cause you to simply move your goal post for contrary evidence further out- ad infinitum. Makes me wonder if you could provide an example of a mathematical description for physical brain function. If this fails, then you'd have to deny even that phenomenality.

 

I won't try to match the tone of hubris, condescension and disparaging remarks you've already brought to our exchange- but wonder why you bring your doggedness about demands for scientific evidence to this "pseudo science and speculation" thread in the first place? Could it be you've jumped the fence from ScienceForums' "science" category to prey on percepts less likely to defend against your math attack? At the risk of mixing metaphors, some might imply the "Big Fish in a small pond syndrome" may be at play here...hm?

[mooeypoo]

Falsifiabilty does not say that things that are not falsifiable have no value. It simply asserts they are not scientific.

Fair enough.

 

This is a science forum, though, not a philosophy forum. For the purpose of this forum, unfalsifiable claims have no value.

 

In our direct exchange, it's obvious you have assumed the role of Scientisms' Rottweiler and are convinced that consciousness is merely a term for that enigma which the matter of our brain creates. Any argument to advance the discourse will cause you to simply move your goal post for contrary evidence further out- ad infinitum. Makes me wonder if you could provide an example of a mathematical description for physical brain function. If this fails, then you'd have to deny even that phenomenality.

artnat,this is a scientific forum, not a philosophical sound stage. You came to us, and now you're surprised we're scientific "rottweilers"? If being a science rottweiler means I demand scientific evidence for a scientific subject, then I admit being one. I'm supposed to be one, because this is a science forum.

 

I didn't move any goal posts; you just seem to forget where you are. You might do well going over our rules and the speculation policies. We're not here to debate unsubstantiated philosophical circular logic, we're here to discuss science. In that particular framework, you are the one moving the goal post.

 

 

I won't try to match the tone of hubris, condescension and disparaging remarks you've already brought to our exchange- but wonder why you bring your doggedness about demands for scientific evidence to this "pseudo science and speculation" thread in the first place? Could it be you've jumped the fence from ScienceForums' "science" category to prey on percepts less likely to defend against your math attack? At the risk of mixing metaphors, some might imply the "Big Fish in a small pond syndrome" may be at play here...hm?

It's not about condecendence, it's about trying to get you to cooperate on a scientific matter. If you don't intend on doing it, you might aswell go to another forum. Perhaps a philosophy one, where people will be more cooperative with unfalsifiables and cricular logic and claims without evidence.

 

This isn't your blog and it's not your livingroom. We're not here to bow down to every word you utter; we're here to discuss science and dissect claims, because that's how science operates. We're here to criticize claims and see if they hold the test of (at least a 'mini) peer review.

 

You are not cooperating in any of this, which is not only unfair to the members that debate the thread, it's also against forum policy.

 

I suggest you look at the rules of conduct, at our policy, missions statement and "speculation rules of engagement" and see if you might want to switch tactics, or perhaps switch a forum.

 

Finally, here's a general rule: Before you decide to lecture an official forum moderator about the forum's purpose and "hubris", I would recommend you actually verify you know what the forum is about and what the rules say.

It's just a thought.

 

 

 

~moo

[swansont]

I won't try to match the tone of hubris, condescension and disparaging remarks you've already brought to our exchange- but wonder why you bring your doggedness about demands for scientific evidence to this "pseudo science and speculation" thread in the first place? Could it be you've jumped the fence from ScienceForums' "science" category to prey on percepts less likely to defend against your math attack? At the risk of mixing metaphors, some might imply the "Big Fish in a small pond syndrome" may be at play here...hm?

 

Being in the Speculations forum does not mean scientific rigor is going to be ignored. Evidence may be lacking in some instances, but if it is presented, it needs to be scientifically valid evidence. If you can't or won't provide such evidence then there is no point in continuing the discussion.

 

As to the personal remarks: knock it off. Criticisms of the subject matter are fair game, criticism of individuals are not, i.e. attack the message, not the messenger. This applies to everyone (Remarks such as "are you high" are included in this)

[bascule]

In our direct exchange, it's obvious you have assumed the role of Scientisms' Rottweiler and are convinced that consciousness is merely a term for that enigma which the matter of our brain creates.

 

I used to think "consciousness" had a meaningful definition, perhaps one that could be explained by concepts like neutral monism. Espousing a empiricst view, I sought to reason about consciousness as something which cannot be eliminated from the method by which we understand anything, because consciousness is the basis of our understanding.

 

But, screw it. I have finally be convinced that the idea consciousness holds some special place in the universe, even if only a metaphysical one is not useful, and finally espoused eliminative materialism. If we hope to understand consciousness, it will only come as understanding firmly rooted in other sciences.

 

Any argument to advance the discourse

 

I would argue that the advancement in the discourse has continually been away from Cartesian dualism, which was effectively the de facto position, towards functionalism/materialism.

 

...will cause you to simply move your goal post for contrary evidence further out- ad infinitum.

 

Pretty much. The only position I see remotely defensible at this point is Cartesian dualism, and that's certainly not a scientifically defensible position. Roger Penrose has tried, and failed, to find a quantum bridge between the physical world and the Mystical Magical Land of Consciousness. No one else is even bothering to put up an effort, besides Searle, who can only throw out strawmen in attepts at a reductio ad absurdum.

 

Makes me wonder if you could provide an example of a mathematical description for physical brain function.

 

That's precisely what projects like BlueBrain and NuPIC are trying to do.

[artnat]

That's precisely what projects like BlueBrain and NuPIC are trying to do.

 

Thanks for the links. Appears BlueBrain is more on target than NuPIC but in an analogy: the computing effort to map the human genome resulted in a physical thing that only began the real challenge to understand it.

 

Contrary to the idea that the effort to bridge the mind/consciousness divide is essentially dead...here are a couple of conferences forthcoming:

Science and Nonduality Oct 21, 2009

 

Consciousness Arizona April 13, 2010

[bascule]

Thanks for the links. Appears BlueBrain is more on target than NuPIC

 

Depends what you're after. For biologists/neurologists, something like BlueBrain is incredibly useful. However, for those trying to recreate consciousness in software, something like NuPIC is absolutely essential: we need to abstract away the underlying biological implementation of consciousness and figure out what functions particular brain structures are actually performing.

 

Both BlueBrain and NuPIC are effectively doing the same thing: recreating neocortical columns in software. The difference is that NuPIC has no use to biologists, but runs fast enough to be used for useful software applications such as a configurable video recognition system.

 

Contrary to the idea that the effort to bridge the mind/consciousness divide is essentially dead...here are a couple of conferences forthcoming:

Science and Nonduality Oct 21, 2009

 

Oi....

 

Wisdom gained through meditation, yoga and mystical experiences suggest these dichotomies are illusory. Eastern mystics know a single underlying reality called advaita, Brahman, the Tao, or Nirvana, from which all existence arises through consciousness. Nonduality is the philosophical and spiritual understanding that dualisms obscure a deeper reality of non-separation and fundamental oneness.

 

Reading that within the frame of my newfound eliminative materialism, that makes my head reel. Consciousness is the result of physical systems, not the cause.

 

On the other hand, science depends on empirical data leading to reductionism, materialism and apparent dichotomies.

 

In a true reductionist / eliminative materialist conception of consciousness, there is no dichotomy. Physical systems are the only reality. Consciousness is, as Hofstadter puts it, a "hallucination hallucinated by a hallucination".

 

But discoveries in quantum physics, brain sciences, consciousness studies, biology, cosmology, psychology and other fields have revealed nonduality in science as well, suggesting mysticism and science share a common source

 

Aieeeeeeeee! Kill it with fire!

 

Consciousness Arizona April 13, 2010

 

This site is a bit more down to earth (one would hope for a bit more objective approach from an accredited university's consciousness studies program).

 

Lots of quantum mind mumbo jumbo. It's not bad from a purely hypothetical perspective, but that's all it is, a purely hypothetical perspective.

 

For what it's worth, the only attempts I have seen to advance a specific hypothesis about how quantum mind would work, proposing an actual mechanism, has been torn apart in peer review. That hypothesis is the so called Orch-OR hypothesis put together by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff.

 

Penrose is a respected scientist but has not made much headway advancing this proposal in the fields of physics, biology, and neurology. Specifically Max Tegmark's calculations show it to be untenable in his paper The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes:

 

Based on a calculation of neural decoherence rates, we argue that that the degrees of freedom of the human brain that relate to cognitive processes should be thought of as a classical rather than quantum system, i.e., that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the current classical approach to neural network simulations. We find that the decoherence timescales ~10^{-13}-10^{-20} seconds are typically much shorter than the relevant dynamical timescales (~0.001-0.1 seconds), both for regular neuron firing and for kink-like polarization excitations in microtubules. This conclusion disagrees with suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way.

[artnat]

Penrose is a respected scientist but has not made much headway advancing this proposal in the fields of physics, biology, and neurology. Specifically Max Tegmark's calculations show it to be untenable in his paper The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes:

 

Thanks for the Max Tegmark link. Have included in my Meta New Physics references to pro and con arguments about bridging the consciousness/physics divide.

 

But not surprisingly, new evidence has evoloved the debate since that 1999 paper. See Quantum coherence and entanglement in living matter 2009. References recent scientific papers from consciousness studies concerned with quantum features in proteins involved in photosynthesis that look to sound the death knell for the recent orthodoxy that quantum features could not persist in biological tissues, thus leaving the road open for the possibility of quantum coherence and entanglement in the brain.

 

Of course "death knells" and "open roads" reminds one of the challenge for keeping our skepticism in balance with an open mind when reaching for any final conclusions about reality.

[bascule]

But not surprisingly, new evidence has evoloved the debate since that 1999 paper. See Quantum coherence and entanglement in living matter 2009. References recent scientific papers from consciousness studies

 

None of these papers are from consciousness studies whatsoever. They are from biologists researching photosynthesis. The first paper is about photosynthesis in bacteria.

 

concerned with quantum features in proteins involved in photosynthesis that look to sound the death knell for the recent orthodoxy that quantum features could not persist in biological tissues

 

Tegmark's paper is specifically about the brain, not "biological tissues" in general.

 

We find that the decoherence timescales [math]~10^{-13}-10^{-20}[/math'] seconds are typically much shorter than the relevant dynamical timescales (~0.001-0.1 seconds), both for regular neuron firing and for kink-like polarization excitations in microtubules.

[artnat]

None of these papers are from consciousness studies whatsoever. They are from biologists researching photosynthesis. The first paper is about photosynthesis in bacteria.

 

Tegmark's paper is specifically about the brain, not "biological tissues" in general.

 

I don't see how your reasoning follows from the explicit use of the terms (in bold) in this quote from the Scimednet article?

 

"From the point of view of consciousness studies, this and other papers concerned with quantum features in proteins involved in photosynthesis look to sound the death knell for the recent orthodoxy that quantum features could not persist in biological tissues, thus leaving the road open for the possibility of quantum coherence and entanglement in the brain."

[bascule]

I don't see how your reasoning follows from the explicit use of the terms (in bold) in this quote from the Scimednet article?

 

Article? That's a blog.

 

That blog is claiming that research into photosynthesis in bacteria is applicable to neurons in animals. That's the first problem. The research they are citing is not applicable to neurons in the slightest.

 

Tegmark's paper is explicitly about neurons, and its conclusion is that neurons do not exhibit quantum mechanical behavior.

[artnat]

I'd like to point out that you entered this discussion with the following comment:

 

But, screw it. I have finally be convinced that the idea consciousness holds some special place in the universe, even if only a metaphysical one is not useful, and finally espoused eliminative materialism. If we hope to understand consciousness, it will only come as understanding firmly rooted in other sciences.

 

I would argue that the advancement in the discourse has continually been away from Cartesian dualism, which was effectively the de facto position, towards functionalism/materialism.

 

You later cited Tegmark's 1999 paper explicity about neurons not exhibiting quantum mechanical behavior in support of your general position.

 

I then linked to the http://scimednet.blogspot.com/2009/06/quantum-coherence-and-entanglement-in.html]Quantum coherence and entanglement in living matter blog that cited the scientific papers 9 (see below). Aimed to reply to your original comment regarding consciousness and to refer to the issues of decoherence theory, not exclusively to answer the narrow Tegmark position about neurons.

 

Article? That's a blog. That blog is claiming that research into photosynthesis in bacteria is applicable to neurons in animals. That's the first problem. The research they are citing is not applicable to neurons in the slightest. Tegmark's paper is explicitly about neurons, and its conclusion is that neurons do not exhibit quantum mechanical behavior.

 

Seems you go out of your way to infer that because Scimet is a "blog" rather than what I incorrectly called an "article" it has no scientific merit whereas it is a discussion of science papers shedding light on aspects of understanding consciousness that it cites as follows:

 

1.) J. Cai et al (2008) - Dynamic entanglement in oscillating molecules - arXiv:0809.4906

 

2.) G. Engel et al (2007) - Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems - Nature, 446, 782

 

3.) H. Lee et al (2007) - Coherence dynamics in photosynthesis: protein protection of excitonic coherence - Science, 316, 1462

 

4.) E. Collini et al (2007) - Coherent intrachain energy migration in a conjugated polymer at room temperature - Science, 323, 369

 

1.) J. Cai et al (2008) - Dynamic entanglement in oscillating molecules - arXiv:0809.4906

 

2.) G. Engel et al (2007) - Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems - Nature, 446, 782

 

3.) H. Lee et al (2007) - Coherence dynamics in photosynthesis: protein protection of excitonic coherence - Science, 316, 1462

 

4.) E. Collini et al (2007) - Coherent intrachain energy migration in a conjugated polymer at room temperature - Science, 323, 369

[bascule]

You later cited Tegmark's 1999 paper explicity about neurons not exhibiting quantum mechanical behavior in support of your general position.

 

In support of my general position eh? Perhaps we need to go back and review the statement where I cited the Tegmark paper:

 

For what it's worth, the only attempts I have seen to advance a specific hypothesis about how quantum mind would work, proposing an actual mechanism, has been torn apart in peer review. That hypothesis is the so called Orch-OR hypothesis put together by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff.

 

Penrose is a respected scientist but has not made much headway advancing this proposal in the fields of physics, biology, and neurology. Specifically Max Tegmark's calculations show it to be untenable in his paper The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes

 

I was citing the Tegmark paper specifically to refute the Orch-OR hypothesis. I brought the Orch-OR hypothesis up in the first place because it is the only attempt I know of to advance a scientific hypothesis of a quantum mechanical component to cognitive function. It's not possible to scientifically argue against other ideas about quantum consciousness, because these ideas aren't scientific to begin with.

 

I later cited the Tegmark paper in response to the blog's assertion that because quantum mechanical behavior was found in photosynthetic processes in bacteria, this means we should be "open for the possibility of quantum coherence and entanglement in the brain."

 

Tegmark's paper is far more specific to the question at hand than a paper on a completely different kingdom of life. Were someone to demonstrate quantum mechanical behavior in neurons, glia, etc, then yes, I would need to revise my position. However, in this case the position I take is based on the evidence. There is no evidence of quantum mechanical processes in the brain, and we are able to model the behavior of brain tissues without the need to introduce a quantum mechanical explanation.

 

I then linked to the Quantum coherence and entanglement in living matter blog that cited the scientific papers 9 (see below). Aimed to reply to your original comment regarding consciousness and to refer to the issues of decoherence theory, not exclusively to answer the narrow Tegmark position about neurons.

 

The blog you linked makes the specific assertion that we should be "open for the possibility of quantum coherence and entanglement in the brain," citing papers that have absolutely nothing to do with brain tissues. The Tegmark paper does. The blog you linked is taking a "narrow position" about quantum mechanical behaviors in brain tissues, and it is wrong.

 

Seems you go out of your way to infer that because Scimet is a "blog" rather than what I incorrectly called an "article" it has no scientific merit whereas it is a discussion of science papers shedding light on aspects of understanding consciousness that it cites as follows:

 

 

The position advocated by the blog is not supported by the papers its citing. In that regard it does not have scientific merit. For starters, perhaps this blog could cite studies on mammals. The papers are irrelevant to the question at hand.

 

I would ask you to step back, look at your own beliefs on quantum consciousness, and ask yourself what additional explanatory power is offered by quantum mechanics in understanding the operation of consciousness that is not provided by classical mechanics.

 

My guess is you're trying to make a "god in the gaps" (or in this case, "consciousness in the gaps") argument because you cannot entertain the notion that consciousness may arise from classical physical processes.

Edited October 3, 2009 by bascule

[Mr Skeptic]

For the definition of consciousness, may I suggest the following: feedback loops. I'm fairly certain that feedback loops are a prerequisite for a consciousness (though not the other way around). Then, a more clear question is, are there feedback loops in the universe?

[bascule]

For the definition of consciousness, may I suggest the following: feedback loops.

 

I think a better definition is the rather complex idea of strange loops, a concept defined by Hofstadter which are a form of self-referential feedback loops.

[artnat]

I was citing the Tegmark paper specifically to refute the Orch-OR hypothesis. I brought the Orch-OR hypothesis up in the first place because it is the only attempt I know of to advance a scientific hypothesis of a quantum mechanical component to cognitive function. It's not possible to scientifically argue against other ideas about quantum consciousness, because these ideas aren't scientific to begin with.

 

I would ask you to step back, look at your own beliefs on quantum consciousness, and ask yourself what additional explanatory power is offered by quantum mechanics in understanding the operation of consciousness that is not provided by classical mechanics.

 

My guess is you're trying to make a "god in the gaps" (or in this case, "consciousness in the gaps") argument because you cannot entertain the notion that consciousness may arise from classical physical processes.

 

Tegmark has been a strong critic of those who would infer a theory of consciousness from quantum effects, such as Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff.

 

There is a fan-based scientism community that surrounds Tegmark's world view, much like that which is derived from the work of Richard Dawkins on evolution and religion- that unabashedly warrants his scientific theory as final truth and embraces a quasi-religious dogmatic defense against any and all evidence that might refute his assumptions.

 

Here is a paper by Hameroff, et al 2002 that directly argues against Tegmark's brain temperature position

 

Then there are the papers of Henry Stapp relating consciousness to quantum effects. and his other papers which are unaffected by the Tegmark percepts.

 

See also Relations between Quantum Theory and new ideas on consciousness and reality that (near the bottom) presents online bibliographic reference from Gao Shan's "Quantum Collapse, Consciousness and Superluminal Communication"

[bascule]

Tegmark has been a strong critic of those who would infer a theory of consciousness from quantum effects, such as Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff.

 

There is a fan-based scientism community that surrounds Tegmark's world view, much like that which is derived from the work of Richard Dawkins on evolution and religion- that unabashedly warrants his scientific theory as final truth and embraces a quasi-religious dogmatic defense against any and all evidence that might refute his assumptions.

 

This is what's known as an ad hominem. Whine all you want about Tegmark; it doesn't invalidate his paper.

 

Here is a paper by Hameroff, et al 2002 that directly argues against Tegmark's brain temperature position

 

In this paper they pose a hypothesis for how microtubules could be shielded from decoherence, but that's all it is, a hypothesis. They have never done the necessary experiments to show this view is anything close to reality, just that it cannot be immediately rejected as wrong as Tegmark was attempting to demonstrate in his paper.

 

Then there are the papers of Henry Stapp relating consciousness to quantum effects. and his other papers which are unaffected by the Tegmark percepts.

 

Again, another hypothesis lacking any sort of experimental evidence.

 

You skipped over this in my previous post so I'll pose it to you again:

 

I would ask you to step back, look at your own beliefs on quantum consciousness, and ask yourself what additional explanatory power is offered by quantum mechanics in understanding the operation of consciousness that is not provided by classical mechanics.

 

My guess is you're trying to make a "god in the gaps" (or in this case, "consciousness in the gaps") argument because you cannot entertain the notion that consciousness may arise from classical physical processes.