quantum consciousness idea

[1123581321]

Hi,

 

Was wondering if, through the ideas of quantum consciousness in terms of the way in which we are capable of having experience through the pre-conscious to conscious processing of values of qualia etc embedded at the planck scale.

 

Would that mean it would be impossible for us to have, as sentient beings (here and now), spiritual experience etc or anything beyond our ordinary realm of experience - not excluding spiritual experience as normal experience though - if, as a thought experience, we found ourselves enclosed within a void of nothingness. As in a space where there is absolutely nothing else but us - not worrying about air or anything. Since, the information required for qualia etc would not be there...?

 

Or, would we be just cognitive drones with no feelings etc if other atomic and molecular elements existed but without the planck scale information ?.

 

by the way, this planck scale information is what roger penrose has predicted to exist within information at the planck scale, which is present when you get down to 10^-33 cm smaller than that within the atom itself. If your not aware. Thought to be the smallest scale possible in the universe.

 

This thought experiment is based around the hard problem.

[immortal]

This thought experiment is based around the hard problem.

 

It doesn't solve the hard problem. Roger Penrose takes a top bottom approach for the origin of the universe and deals with quantum gravity, he thinks that we have to model consciousness if we want to have a unified theory of everything.

 

I only appreciate his mathematical side of the argument for consciousness which he thinks that human thought processes are non-computable and his idea of platonic values embedded at planck scale would make most of his theory unfalsifiable right now with no technology to test his idea.

 

His idea only indicates that there is some new physics which we yet have to discover but that doesn't mean consciousness is in any way connected to quantum gravity or microtubules which would make most of his theory rubbish.

 

I don't know why someone with a caliber of Roger Penrose ever had to come up with such a mumbo-jumbo idea, I would have had more respect for him if he had only argued for non-computability of consciousness processing from the mathematical side of things.

[PeterJ]

Here we go again. Now Roger Penrose is an idiot.

 

I think I see what the question is getting at. If you take away all qualia, is there anything left over?

 

I would say yes, immortal would say no, and I would expect Penrose to agree with immortal.

 

I would add more but don't want to start an argument.

[immortal]

Here we go again. Now Roger Penrose is an idiot.

 

 

Criticizing one's idea or a view doesn't mean that one is calling the person an idiot. Roger Penrose is someone who has all the potential to be the next Einstein, he is a true inspiration and I admire him. He says QM is incomplete and also says that there is nothing in the physics we know of where there is a non-computable process or non-computable physics and yet he tries to reduce consciousness to space-time quantum gravity and objective reduction.

 

This reminds me of what Erwin Schroedinger said "Consciousness cannot be found in the world picture because it itself is the world picture".

 

I think I see what the question is getting at. If you take away all qualia, is there anything left over?

 

I would say yes, immortal would say no, and I would expect Penrose to agree with immortal.

 

I don't know why you always wonder what's on others mind and start assuming things yourself. Yes to me only qualia are real, even mind itself is a qualia, everything is a qualia. Penrose seems to be a reductionist he doesn't have to necessarily agree with me.

 

I would add more but don't want to start an argument.

 

Feel free to express your views.

Edited March 2, 2012 by immortal

[owl]

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem.

 

This subject in particular and this thread in general belongs in the Philosophy section, as does mine on "Consciousness,..." which is a legitimate field of scientific study, not pseudo-science as the prevailing physics bias here among moderators would have it.

 

Btw, The main argument against Penrose' quantum model of brain/consciousness function was based on the (maybe?) outdated assumption that a very cold environment is required for such quantum effects as Penrose advocates. Now 'they say' that such are observed in a "wet, warm" environment, like the brain. (See my similar thread for ref. and links.)

[ydoaPs]

Here we go again. Now Roger Penrose is an idiot.

 

He's not an idiot; he just deliberately misrepresents physics and biology.

[owl]

He's not an idiot; he just deliberately misrepresents physics and biology.

 

How do you know that he is "deliberately misrepresenting," and to what do you attribute his motives for such intentional distortion of your assumed established truth of physics and biology?

[ydoaPs]

How do you know that he is "deliberately misrepresenting,"

 

You're right; he might just be incompetent.

[immortal]

His strength lies when he is a mathematical physicist arguing from the mathematical side of things and not when he is a philosopher or a bio-physicist denying evolution by natural selection.

[owl]

His strength lies when he is a mathematical physicist arguing from the mathematical side of things and not when he is a philosopher or a bio-physicist denying evolution by natural selection.

How does a quantum theory of brain/consciousness function deny evolution by natural selection?

And what of the criticism against him that the quantum effect requires a very cold environment? I dunno, but now it looks like that requirement is not true, i.e., that it could happen in a "wet, warm" brain.

[immortal]

How does a quantum theory of brain/consciousness function deny evolution by natural selection?

 

Roger Penrose takes a top down approach for the origin of the universe, he is the only physicist who strongly believes in the hidden variable theories and he thinks that quantum physics is incomplete and according to him all the information for the origin of the universe, including qualia is embedded in the planck scale and he calls them as platonic values. So according to him the future is fixed and deterministic but it is non-computable, the quantum jump is non-computable, so he argues in favor of the fine tuning problem as though it was planned that life was going to originate on earth and if this is true this would make the force of natural selection a very feeble force and irrelevant for the origin of novel design solutions which implies that it just acts as an outside force and not a force as modern biology intends to give importance to it.

 

And what of the criticism against him that the quantum effect requires a very cold environment? I dunno, but now it looks like that requirement is not true, i.e., that it could happen in a "wet, warm" brain.

 

Irrespective of whether brain supports the necessary environment for quantum phenomena first we need to test his theory of quantum gravity and his interpretation of quantum mechanics which he calls as the Objective reduction.

 

The problem with non-computability is that there is no place in the physics that we know of where we can see atleast a hint of non-computable processes or non-computable physics. Quantum physics is highly deterministic, I mean the wave function evolves in a deterministic and in a computable way, the problem actually arises when one makes a measurement and we all know classical physics is highly deterministic and computable too and therefore he thinks the only place where non-computability might find a place is during the measurement process.

 

If you are going to argue for quantum consciousness you need to come up with an objective account of quantum reality and positivism of science clearly says that such thinking is purely metaphysical and one shouldn't give any reality to the physical nature of the quantum system itself.

 

So your argument that quantum entanglement and quantum tunelling phenomena have some connection to brain and consciousness is at best pseudoscience. Therefore I only stick with his mathematical argument that human conscious thought as an element of non-computability and its implications on nature and how it implements such a thing is highly speculative and metaphysical.