Evidence for a Conscious Universe?

[artnat]

This is what's known as an ad hominem.

 

In the first place my description of "fan-based scientism community that surrounds Tegmark's world view, much like that which is derived from the work of Richard Dawkins on evolution - 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." did not refer to Tegmark or his work but to his fan community. Secondly, fans in any community based on admiration for the ideas of some individual who they raise to the status of an icon are predisposed to assume a bias that supports their icon in virtually all respects- regardless. To describe those fans as embracing a "quasi-religious dogmatic defense" is a thoroughly justified ad hominem circumstantial comment that involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he/she is disposed to take a particular position.

 

Whine all you want about Tegmark; it doesn't invalidate his paper.

 

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.

 

Again, another hypothesis lacking any sort of experimental evidence.

 

In the Hameroff, et al rebuttel 2000 paper- the authors contend that they examine the decoherence mechanisms likely to dominate in a biological setting and find that Tegmark’s commentary is misapplied in eight major parameters of the existing literature. These considerations bring microtubule decoherence into a regime in which quantum gravity could interact with neurophysiology.

 

There is no science-based justification for your dismissing all the work I cited (you did not even acknowledge the Gao Shan papers) solely on the arbitrary basis that none are supported by experiment. Since some cite experiment-based research it shows on its face your dismissal is unfounded. That's why there is a distinct discipline called theoretical physics. I assume we can acknowledge that when Einstein proposed his theory of relativity or in the current theoretical state of string theory and loop quantum gravity- that these are deemed scientific concepts without any experimental evidence whatsoever. So papers published by scientists on consciousness and quantum effects should not be rejected out-of-hand because their theory isn't supported by experiment. Also- regarding previous complaints- physics may benefit from mathematics but not all science does, so it is particularly weird in a pseudo-science thread about consciousness to insist that here we must embrace the physicalist's motto to- "Shut up and calculate!"

 

A philosopher would call decoherence an enigma and a real physicist like Maximilian Schlosshauer keeps an open mind in his Decoherence, the Measurement Problem, and Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics saying: "Decoherence remains an ongoing field of intense research, in both the theoretical and experimental domain, and we can expect further implications for the foundations of quantum mechanics from such studies in the near future." Spoken like a true scientist who leaves the door open for every tenant to evolve or perish.

 

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.

 

1. I easily can ENTERTAIN any and all rational-based explanations of how consciousness MAY arise including that it may be exclusively from classical physical process.

2. I take issue only with any science, metaphysics, philosophy or religion that insists on their proprietary approach or final truth about how something as enigmatic as consciousness arises.

 

I've no training in physics so I depend on Google to find authority online like Schlosshauer's opinion (above) as to how quantum mechanics is likely to reveal greater truths about the consciousness enigma. Also I'm philosophically drawn to quantum mechanical models of consciousness such as the

Penrose/Hameroff "Orch OR" Model. I find an intuitive synchronity with my direct experience with the notion that the observer in The Copenhagen Interpretation is a subjective human observer that is necessary for the state vector collapse rather than environmental noise being the cause and that the decoherence issue raised by Tegmark has been addressed in scientific papers with experimental support that finds coherence MAY occur at temperatures in biological structures such as cytoskeletal microtubules and other structures within each of the brain's neurons. Finally, I find a strictly classical mechanical approach has less potential to account for the future knowledge of consciousness as a NON epiphenomena than does a quantum mechanical - or at least a hybrid classical/quantum approach does. Furthermore the limitations of thinking in terms of classical measurements of a quantum system have already become particularly acute in the field of quantum cosmology, where the quantum system is the universe (that may yet turn out to be my favorite paradigm- a conscious cosmic matrix.) See Quantum Theory - from Copenhagen to the present day

Edited October 9, 2009 by artnat
correct url code and spelling

[bascule]

[continuing ad hominems against Tegmark]

 

Yeah, let's just move on...

 

In the Hameroff, et al rebuttel 2000 paper- the authors contend that they examine the decoherence mechanisms likely to dominate in a biological setting

 

They hypothesize potential mechanisms that would shield biological structures from decoherence. They provide no evidence of such mechanisms.

 

There is no science-based justification for your dismissing all the work I cited (you did not even acknowledge the Gao Shan papers) solely on the arbitrary basis that none are supported by experiment.

 

This thread is called "Evidence of a Conscious Universe", but so far all you have is a tower of assumptions piled upon assumptions:

 

1. Neurons exhibit distinctly quantum mechanical behavior that cannot explained by classical mechanics

2. This behavior is significant to cognition

3. This behavior has transcomputational (i.e. oracle-like) properties which cannot be duplicated on a Turing-machine style computer

4. The above set of assumptions, if they hold, could provide evidence that consciousness is an intrinsic part of the universe (i.e. quantum dualism is valid)

 

There is no evidence that any of these are true.

 

In short, there is nothing close to evidence of quantum mind ideas. These people can't even provide evidence that neurons exhibit distinctly quantum mechanical behavior, much less that consciousness is somehow tied to quantum mechanics.

 

Quantum mind ideas are no more valid than a "quantum waterfall" hypothesis which states that quantum mechanics are essential to understanding the behavior of waterfalls and that quantum decoherence is what gives waterfalls their "waterfallness". If you were to try to build a model of a waterfall inside a computer, it might appear to be superficially similar to a waterfall but would lack "waterfallness".

 

Such ideas are unsubstantiated nonsense.

 

I easily can ENTERTAIN any and all rational-based explanations of how consciousness MAY arise including that it may be exclusively from classical physical process.

 

I entertain ideas that are supported by evidence. There is no more reason to suppose a quantum mechanical explanation for consciousness than there is to suppose a quantum mechanical explanation for "waterfallness".

[artnat]

This thread is called "Evidence of a Conscious Universe", but so far all you have is a tower of assumptions piled upon assumptions:

 

There is no evidence that any of these are true.

 

Such ideas are unsubstantiated nonsense.

 

I entertain ideas that are supported by evidence.

 

Actually this thread is called- "[QUESTION MARK] Evidence of a Conscious Universe?" but think some assumed it to mean- "[EXPLANATION POINT] Evidence of a Conscious Universe!" which explains the mainly defensive comments.

 

You may hold that such ideas are unsubstantiated but it is unscientific to claim peer-reviewed scientific papers are "nonsense".

 

Anyone can have a full and rewarding involvement in scientific discourse but the logical consequence of entertaining ONLY ideas that are supported by empirical evidence is that one's inventory of percepts concerning consciousness either as epiphenomenon or NON epiphenomenon must necessarily be null.

 

A criteria demanding empirical evidence means no entertaining concepts involving quantum uncertainty, entanglement or holism- string theory or loop quantum gravity, cosmological constants or pre-big bang, multiverses or superluminal signals, anthropic principles or Schrodinger's cat and a host of really fun thought experiences. Still leaves a vast archive of materialist theory to contemplate a mechanistic universe but some would suspect there's a genetic urge to entertain beyond.

 

Given the numinous qualities of all things conscious, the thread's question suggests an openness to consider EVIDENCE as falsifiable theory about a "Conscious Universe". This is "science" (not nonsense) whether supported directly by reproducible experiment or not. Since all science defining consciousness is theoretical- no particular argument is definitive so cannot cancel the possibility of another- so all survive in the body of hypothetical science.

 

For a concise introduction to some of the science that addresses the question of consciousness see- Quantum Mind

 

For a mix of scientific and philosophical theories about panpsychism and a conscious universe see Cosmic Consciousness Links

[bascule]

You may hold that such ideas are unsubstantiated but it is unscientific to claim peer-reviewed scientific papers are "nonsense".

 

Note that I never did that, it only appears I did thanks to your selective editing of my comment.

 

A criteria demanding empirical evidence means no entertaining concepts involving quantum uncertainty

 

What? Quantum mechanics, and our scientific understanding of quantum uncertainty, is very much empirical.

 

string theory or loop quantum gravity

 

At least these are extensions of empirical science and must fit the existing evidence.

 

Given the numinous qualities of all things conscious, the thread's question suggests an openness to consider EVIDENCE as falsifiable theory about a "Conscious Universe".

 

And, to reiterate, there is no such evidence.

 

This is "science" (not nonsense) whether supported directly by reproducible experiment or not.

 

It's a towering mountain of hypotheses, none of which are supported by evidence:

 

1. Neurons exhibit distinctly quantum mechanical behavior that cannot explained by classical mechanics

2. This behavior is significant to cognition

3. This behavior has transcomputational (i.e. oracle-like) properties which cannot be duplicated on a Turing-machine style computer

4. The above set of assumptions, if they hold, could provide evidence that consciousness is an intrinsic part of the universe (i.e. quantum dualism is valid)

 

Indeed it would be entirely possible for neurons to exhibit quantum mechanical behavior significant to cognition, but behavior that could be reconciled as a purely computational process, i.e. our brains act as a quantum computer, not a quantum hypercomputer.

 

In such a case, quantum mechanical behavior would not be a necessary ingredient of computation, just how our brains chose to implement it.

 

Of course, there's no evidence any of that's true, but that just goes to show that even if it were it's still not indicative that quantum mechanics has anything to do with the actual act of cognition.

 

Since all science defining consciousness is theoretical

 

Science cannot define consciousness. Consciousness is metaphysical, and science is the study of the physical world.

 

For a concise introduction to some of the science that addresses the question of consciousness see- Quantum Mind

 

For a mix of scientific and philosophical theories about panpsychism and a conscious universe see Cosmic Consciousness Links

 

I have to say I find this a bit patronizing. I've read Penrose's book Shadows of the Mind, where he takes a variety of approaches to argue for a quantum mechanical element to consciousness, including Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

 

Perhaps you might do the same and read a work from the "other side". Might I suggest one of Hofstadter's books, such as I Am A Strange Loop or Godel Escher Bach?

[radienx000]

Maybe term here is "Being High"

[artnat]

Reaction to anecdotes of transcendent episodes range from dismissive characterizations as psychotic events to conviction that they are authentic testaments to a direct experience with God- the professional skeptics which include the science orthodoxy favoring the first view with experiencers (which includes some scientists) convinced of the latter.

 

An account of my transcendent episode along with a discussion with links to mostly quantum electromagnetism theorists including Daniel R. Hankins, Gottfried Leibniz, Peter Russell, Susan Pockett, Dean Radin, Fred H. Thaheld, Richard P. Feynman, Johnjoe McFadden, Karl Simanonok and others can be found at:

 

http://maya-gaia.angelfire.com/mysticalexp.html

 

 

Noting change in the URL for my maya-gaia website.

[Athena]

I don't know if the phenomena of more boys being born when people go to war, could be considered evidence of a conscious universe, I just know this phenomena is widely recognized and the attempts to explain why this happens are not satisfying.

[Mr Skeptic]

I don't know if the phenomena of more boys being born when people go to war, could be considered evidence of a conscious universe, I just know this phenomena is widely recognized and the attempts to explain why this happens are not satisfying.

 

Or it could be evidence that people will believe myths more easily than they should:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2973/are-more-male-babies-born-after-wars