Quanta and Consciousness

[Pratt]

Is consciousness of our mind a result of wave funtion collapse,due to minute spacetime curvature caused by the sub-atomic particles or its embedded in the photon itself??Plz share some ideas about this topic.

[ydoaPs]

The relevant brain structures are classical objects, not quantum.

[lemur]

The relevant brain structures are classical objects, not quantum.

How can you assume this without knowing what actually constitutes consciousness? Maybe consciousness is a result of patterns of electrical waves through the nerves and has nothing to do with the brain structures other than the fact that each structure allows the signals to process in a certain way. Who's to say that totally disembodied consciousness isn't possible and doesn't happen without knowing how it DOES happen in conscious bodies?

[1123581321]

Actually quantum properties may well hold the answer to consciousness, as is explained by Stuart Hameroff.

[imatfaal]

Penrose wrote a book on these lines as well

[Edtharan]

No one is going to be able to point to a blob of cells and state: "This is what conciousness is".

 

Conciousness is the one of the results of what our brain does. But what is this specific "thing" that is does that is conciousness?

 

Well, before we can answer that, we need to know what conciousness is. however, it is so illdefined and everyone has their own definition, that until we sort that mess out we can't really proceed with actually looking for the process of conciousness in our brains.

 

The reason this is a problem is that one group of people will come up with a definition of conciousness and then might find it, but then another group will have a different definition, and then when they see the explaination the first group has, they will reject it because it doesn't fit their definition.

 

About the closest I have come to a consensus of conciousness is, is: It is the awareness of being self aware.

 

But as you can see, that is a pretty poor definition and so nonspecific that it is almost meaningless. And, that is the reason it is the closest to getting a consensus, it is so vague that it fits almost any definition of conciousness (but I am predictig that there will be a few on here that will have a different oppinion of conciousness and will reject it not for being vague, but because it doesn't fit their definition).

 

So, the main problem with cosiousness is not that we can't find it, but that we can't define it. Once we can define it, we will be abel to actually look for it.

[1123581321]

One model of consciousness which may be of interest is the 'Hameroff-Penrose Orch OR model' - for 'Orchestrated Objective-reduction', put together by Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose.

[lemur]

Let's face it, it is psychologically impossible to erase the dream of explaining the atom and consciousness in the same brush stroke, despite the radical clove between the two in terms of substance. This is just will-to-power expressing itself in the convergence of human interests. Add the cosmology of the big bang to the duo and you get the ultimate ego-fantasy: i.e. the genius who merges the smallest possible frame with the biggest possible frame with the ability to be conscious. Ego = Mind X Consiousness^2: how's that?

Edited January 17, 2011 by lemur

[truedeity]

What Hameroff is suggesting is that the dendrites within microtubules can be in a superposition. So consciousness could in-fact have a one to one relationship with the wave-function collapse which is very intriguing