Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness (split)

(1/8) > >>

rwenzori (July 12, 2009, 15:06:54 PM):

Quantum physics and Consciousness. Are they connected? The microtubule connection.

Research into the brain-body-mind problem is ongoing and one way of attempting to understand it is to ...


Looks like the same post at:

https://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=60172&start=50&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p1430772
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2144690&postcount=14
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=127350&mode=linearplus
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=1782572&postcount=1
Teleological (July 13, 2009, 09:05:52 AM):
Even if so, these arguments pose no fatal problem for the model…
It seems you don’t understand the severity of the objections.

Perhaps not? But to assert they ARE in fact fatal problems would be... premature. They might be, they might not be.
Yes, each one on its own very much could be fatal. Have you any idea how many papers in number theory begin with the phrase, “Assuming the Riemann Hypothesis to be true, …” or some variant thereof? If tomorrow someone finds just one counterexample to the Riemann Hypothesis, most of these papers will become instantly pretty much worthless, and the possibility of a counterexample cannot be ruled out. Many of those papers are deeply intriguing – but no less speculative for it.
Well, the Riemann hypothesis does seem to hold up so far not?

… and at present are nothing more than arguments from ignorance.
The whole quantum-consciousness model is one big argument from ignorance! That’s the point. It cannot even be called an “hypothesis” yet because it lacks any rigorous formulation. We don’t have a quantum gravity model, let alone any coherent account of consciousness, and therefore we can’t even begin to speak of testable consequences. At present, it is no more than an interesting bauble, and to base any kind of scientific explanation on it is severely to overstep what the scientific method permits.

'Luthon64

One big argument from ignorance? Well, at least it is testable.
Penrose and co. proposed a few tests.
Towards Quantum Superpositions of a Mirror
Another article you might find interesting
Comments on Proposed Gravitational Modifications of Schr¨odinger Dynamics and their Experimental Implications

And string theory? Well, don't throuh it out yet ;).
Physical reality of string theory demonstrated

So here are a few points that make the quantum physics, microtubules and consciousness connection at least plausible.
1) Microtubules are integral parts of the nervous system.
2) Quantum states are not too sensitive at rambient room temperature and quantum information processing at room temperature is plausible (see above).
3) Objective reduction is testable (see above).

Argument from ignorance you might argue? Well, at least it is testable.

Mefiante (July 13, 2009, 13:09:03 PM):
Are you being serious!? Having read those linked-to papers (and not just their abstracts, either), it’s clear that none of them actually establishes anything vaguely near what you are claiming. In fact, one is a non-trivial critique of an earlier one. They have no direct relevance to any QM model of consciousness – at very best, merely a peripheral one. Where is this “QM model of consciousness” (my emphasis), please? For that matter, where is any model of consciousness? Because so far, all we’ve been provided with is lots of loose conjecture and irrelevant obfuscation.

Assuming that you are not in fact trying to pull a fast one, it is then obvious that:—you haven’t understood a word of what I wrote (or perhaps you simply chose to ignore it);you are remarkably innocent on how science proceeds, andyou know very little of any substance about QM.
You’ll have to do quite a lot better than that. Or are you trying to provide some kind of obscure amusement with these impostures?

'Luthon64
Teleological (July 13, 2009, 18:14:03 PM):
Are you being serious!? Having read those linked-to papers (and not just their abstracts, either), it’s clear that none of them actually establishes anything vaguely near what you are claiming. In fact, one is a non-trivial critique of an earlier one. They have no direct relevance to any QM model of consciousness – at very best, merely a peripheral one. Where is this “QM model of consciousness” (my emphasis), please? For that matter, where is any model of consciousness? Because so far, all we’ve been provided with is lots of loose conjecture and irrelevant obfuscation.

Assuming that you are not in fact trying to pull a fast one, it is then obvious that:—you haven’t understood a word of what I wrote (or perhaps you simply chose to ignore it);you are remarkably innocent on how science proceeds, andyou know very little of any substance about QM.
You’ll have to do quite a lot better than that. Or are you trying to provide some kind of obscure amusement with these impostures?

'Luthon64

"loose conjecture" and "irrelevant obfuscation"?
You want a model? You serious? Only recently has it been discovered that quantum states and quantum information processing are possible at room temperature. Now you want a model? Not to sound rude here, but are you aware of the computational load needed to do even a 1 second model accurately of a simple protein, without even taking into account the quantum effects.
Are you aware that microtubules are multi-subunit protein complexes stretching through-out the intracellular environment of a single cell, never mind whole cellular networks?
I would like you to venture a guess IF such a MODEL is feasible in the future if the mathematics and physics can be accurately modelled (in silico or otherwise). I would like to think it is at least plausible. Surely you are not going to argue...ooh look... too complicated to model... you lose. Those type of arguments do not impress many. Or are you miffed by the use of "The Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective reduction (orch. OR) model provides a basis to connect consciousness with quantum mechanics." in the OP? Well you might argue it is a bit misleading in the stricktest sense of the term MODEL. I'll grant you that. So perhaps the Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective reduction (orch. OR) hypothesis. It is testable afterall.

You moan the articles above are not directly related? Uhm, I did not imply they were DIRECTLY related, you are right though that they are a step in the right direction in testing objective reduction... which the ORCH-OR relies on.
Mefiante (July 13, 2009, 22:18:33 PM):
But you are the one putting these speculations forward as if they are above reproach, a done deal – just read what you keep posting. Sorry, but your reasoning is wholly inadequate. It is not enough to say “plausible,” especially when there are huge and critical chunks simply left unaccounted for. By that criterion, we shouldn’t reject astrology, cold fusion, chiromancy and any number of other titillating “models.” Because, after all, with the right assumptions, they do work on paper.

Oh, and I’d appreciate it if you refrained from attempting to put words in my mouth.

Thanks.

'Luthon64

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page