Consciousness - on the edge of quantum and classic world ?

[slimmouse]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Are life and consciousness connected to the funda-mental level of reality?<br> <br>         <br><br>Consciousness defines our existence and reality, but the mechanism by which the brain generates thoughts and feelings remains unknown.<br><br>Most explanations portray the brain as a computer, with nerve cells ("neurons"<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START ;) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> and their synaptic connections acting as simple switches. However computation alone cannot explain why we have feelings and awareness, an "inner life."<br><br>We also don't know if our conscious perceptions accurately portray the external world. At its base, the universe follows the seemingly bizarre and paradoxical laws of quantum mechanics, with particles being in multiple places simultaneously, connected over distance, and with time not existing. But the “classical” world we perceive is definite, with a flow of time. The boundary or edge (quantum state reduction, or ‘collapse of the wave function”) between the quantum and classical worlds somehow involves consciousness.<br><br>I spent twenty years studying how computer-like structures called microtubules inside neurons and other cells could process information related to consciousness. But when I read The emperor’s new mind by Sir Roger Penrose in 1991 I realized that consciousness may be a specific process on the edge between the quantum and classical worlds. Roger and I teamed up to develop a theory of consciousness based on quantum computation in microtubules within neurons. Roger’s mechanism for an objective threshold for quantum state reduction connects us to the most basic, “funda-mental” level of the universe at the Planck scale, and is called objective reduction (OR). Our suggestion for biological feedback to microtubule quantum states is orchestration (Orch), hence our model is called orchestrated objective reduction, Orch OR.<br><br> <br>"Mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of the universe" - Freeman Dyson<br><br>In recent years I have concluded that such a connection to the basic proto-conscious level of reality where Platonic values are embedded is strikingly similar to Buddhist concepts, and may account for spirituality.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br> Link ;<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/">www.quantumconsciousness.org/</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[*]

<br><br> <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em> "So we don't know how the brain produces consciousness."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br><br> So he already assumes consciousness is produced in the brain -- he just doesn't know <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>how</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->.<br><br> This is science?<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[slimmouse]

<br><br> It could be me, 1 tal, but I got the impression that this guy was suggesting that hes not sure if the brain does indeed generate consciousness.<br><br> Perhaps he should have said; so we dont know how, or even if, the brain produces consciousness.<br><br> Or perhaps how the brain processes consciousness<br><br> <br><br> I could of course be wrong. <p></p><i></i>

[*]

<br> gleaned from his very own <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/overview.html">overview page</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> it seems pretty definitive to me....<br><br><br> <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"Consciousness defines our existence and reality. But how does the brain generate thoughts and feelings? Most explanations portray the brain as a computer, with nerve cells ("neurons") and their synaptic connections acting as simple switches, or "bits" which interact in complex ways. In this view consciousness is said to "emerge" as a novel property of complex interactions among neurons, as hurricanes and candle flames emerge from complex interactions among gas and dust molecules. However this approach fails to explain why we have feelings and awareness, an "inner life". <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>So we don't know how the brain produces consciousness</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[monster]

Did you read the whole thing? I wish all scientists were as open-minded as this guy. <br><br>I've been thinking about this ever since I read the comments on Jeff's last post; Over 90% of the universe is "Dark matter" and "Dark energy", and our DNA is 90% "non-coding" DNA. There sure is a lot of invisible stuff out there (and in here). <br><br>If spirit (or mind, subtle body, astral, aetheric, whatever) and matter interact, there has to be an interface, it has to occur <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>somehow</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->. I don't believe in magic. There must be a mechanism. The quantum level of physical reality seems to be a good candidate for such interaxns, IMO. <p></p><i></i>

[slimmouse]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If spirit (or mind, subtle body, astral, aetheric, whatever) and matter interact, there has to be an interface, it has to occur somehow. I don't believe in magic. There must be a mechanism. The quantum level of physical reality seems to be a good candidate for such interaxns, IMO.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br> Agreed with one exception. <br><br> This is magic of some form.<br><br><br> That was the point I was hoping to make to 1 Tal. This to my mind is exactly what this guy is saying.<br><br> The brain has little or Zero to do with consciousness, except perhaps in the processing of consciousness, although "Science" cant even figure out how that works yet.<br><br> THE infinite consciousness to my mind is what God really is. And the beauty of the system, is that we retain our own individual choices vis a vi how it works.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[isachar]

fyi:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.whatthebleep.com/whatthebleep/">www.whatthebleep.com/whatthebleep/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Just ordered it myself. Have had a number of different people highly recommend this to me in the last two weeks. <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>However this approach fails to explain why we have feelings and awareness, an "inner life".<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Consciousness and "spirituality" is a biological phenomenon related to evolution's mandate to survive or perish. Emotions are a filter for sensory input to determine what's important to animal survival.<br><br>The more sensory information is able to be perceived the more a mechanism for sorting it out is needed or else survival is threatened, not enabled. Memory is the accumulation of sensory input prioritized for survival, like most evolutionary processes.<br><br>Losing the note telling you which snake is poisonous on a cluttered brain desk means you might as well not even have the info if you can't access it when needed.<br><br>So emotions determine whether information is useful or not and if so, whether it is good or bad, pleasure or pain, avoid or attract.<br><br>Emotions create releases of endorphins and other chemicals that reinforce the biological imprinting of this information to improve the ability to survive. <br><br>And there's the result, consciousness, an ebb and tide of chemicals interacting with sensory input and memory of old sensory input already processed and stored.<br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 10/4/06 1:35 am<br></i>

[slimmouse]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Consciousness and "spirituality" is a biological phenomenon related to evolution's mandate to survive or perish. Emotions are a filter for sensory input to determine what's important to animal survival.<br></em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br> So, let me see here,<br><br> Well, how about A woman or Man who gets dumped, and loses all his Joie de vivre, refusing to go out and make new friends, or just "get over it" by going and propagating the survival of the species, prefferring instead to blow his/her own brains out, or simply pass away broken hearted ? <br><br> Is that some kind of Biological "programme failure" ?<br><br> I could, given time , post another dozen such examples of the shallow fallacy of such Biological phenomenon related to evolutions mandate to survive or perish.<br><br> Each to their own of course, but I cant help feeling theirs more to this than the robotic "clean" hardnosed science or its proponents will ever have the decency to admit to. <p></p><i></i>

[monster]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Consciousness and "spirituality" is a biological phenomenon related to evolution's mandate to survive or perish. Emotions are a filter for sensory input to determine what's important to animal survival.<br><br>The more sensory information is able to be perceived the more a mechanism for sorting it out is needed or else survival is threatened, not enabled. Memory is the accumulation of sensory input prioritized for survival, like most evolutionary processes.<br><br>Losing the note telling you which snake is poisonous on a cluttered brain desk means you might as well not even have the info if you can't access it when needed.<br><br>So emotions determine whether information is useful or not and if so, whether it is good or bad, pleasure or pain, avoid or attract.<br><br>Emotions create releases of endorphins and other chemicals that reinforce the biological imprinting of this information to improve the ability to survive.<br><br>And there's the result, consciousness, an ebb and tide of chemicals interacting with sensory input and memory of old sensory input already processed and stored.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Your argument explains nothing, and is as speculative as my thoughts about a spirit/body interface. <br><br>You say that consciousness/emotions are beneficial for survival, and useful in evolutionary terms; however you offer no explanation as to the mechanism of consciousness. You're not alone in that respect, that's what we're talking about here, actually. But you skipped over that part and just threw out a conclusion. <br><br>You're not even true to your own theory, when you say:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Emotions create releases of endorphins and other chemicals that reinforce the biological imprinting of this information to improve the ability to survive.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>You're acknowledging the existence of emotions as separate from biochemistry, which is contrary to your argument; to be consistent, you should have written it the other way around: <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Releases of endorphins and other chemicals create emotions that reinforce the biological imprinting of this information to improve the ability to survive.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=monster@rigorousintuition>monster</A> at: 10/4/06 9:25 am<br></i>

[DireStrike]

Yeah, sorry Hugh. Philosophers have been trying to crack that nut for a long time, and I don't know that you've gotten any closer.<br><br>It sounds nice and solid, but it totally fails to address the point - what am "I" doing here? What is this "me"? Why does there have to be anything, and how come it's me instead of something else?<br><br>Man, even phrasing the question is tough. =/ <p></p><i></i>

[Attack Ships on Fire]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>And there's the result, consciousness, an ebb and tide of chemicals interacting with sensory input and memory of old sensory input already processed and stored.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>But to date consciousness cannot be explained away that easily; if it were as simple as chemical and eletrical interactions in the brain, I think we would be closer to understanding how consciousness happens in humans through medical research. Consciousness seems to also have a impact upon matter such as in the case of the observer effect, and experiments with people that have damaged or missing parts of their brain have also indicated that the way that consciousness and memory works isn't as easy to fathom as first believed.<br><br>Consciousness may be connected to a higher realm that classical obervsation cannot detect, just as how neutrinos are virtually impossible to detect in physics experiments. The sum of all the physical parts - chemicals, electricity, tissue, genetic software - may produce something that is greater than all of the individual parts collected together.<br><br>I know it may sound like I am trying to use a supernatural force as an answer to how consciousness exists, but really what I am trying to say is that there may be parts of the human body that science hasn't discovered yet. The Van Allen radiation belts surrounding the Earth can't be detected by your eyes, but that doesn't mean that they're not there.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> what I am trying to say is that there may be parts of the human body that science hasn't discovered yet<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Oh, I agree. We are barely beginning to understand the parts of the universe that IS within our perception's bandwith.<br><br>But all of the 'most important'* human behavior and perception is explained, I think, by the emotions-as-survival-prioritization model.<br><br>And that's really enough for me. After all, that's what is driving the biggest problems we have today- *war, torture, eugenics, poisoning, looting, ecodestruction, etc.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>These are very simple physical animal problems</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> and take up all my prioritization templates of consciousness.<br><br>So I admit that is enough for me if not a 'total' explanation. <p></p><i></i>

[Joe Hillshoist]

This guy, <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/staff/academic/mhadley/" target="top">Mark J Hadley</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->, reckons there is no difference between quantuum physics and classical relativity and got a phd from the math he reckons proves it.<br><br>He thinks all sub atomic particles have a fundamental structural quirk. They are effectively regions of spacetime so warped that they fold over on themselves creating a knot, containing a "loop in time". <p></p><i></i>

[DBtv]

At the risk of inspiring another round of reactionary condemnation of the Dalai Lama as a tool of the CIA, I offer up this article from B. Alan Wallace, the president of the Santa Barbara Institute for Consciousness Studies, rebutting the dismissive New York Times review of the Dalai Lama's brilliant book "The Universe in a Single Atom". In reading the book I didn't get the idea that Dalai Lama was opposing a physical explaination, but opposing a LIMITED physical explaination that assumes only three dimensional forces phsically exist.<br><br>"IN HIS RECENT REVIEW of the Dalai Lama’s book, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality, George Johnson criticizes the Dalai Lama for opposing “physical explanations for consciousness, invoking instead the existence of some kind of irreducible mind stuff, an idea rejected long ago by mainstream science.” [1] While it is certainly true that mainstream science insists that there must be a physical explanation for consciousness, the empirical evidence supporting this view is tenuous. Since scientists have devised objective means of measuring all kinds of physical phenomena, it is remarkable that no scientific instruments can detect whether or not consciousness is present in inorganic matter (e.g., computers or robots), in plants (e.g., insect-eating plants), or in animals (e.g., single cells, insects, human fetuses, or normal human adults). Given that consciousness is invisible to all known means of scientific measurement-–unlike all other kinds of physical phenomena-–the burden of proof for the physical status of consciousness should be on those who make this assertion, not on those who question it."<br><br>More here: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.tricycle.com/issues/web_exclusive/978-1.html">www.tricycle.com/issues/w...978-1.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>The most exciting initiative the Dalai Lama is pursuing currently is the scientific study of the physics of consciousness through the Mind & Life Instituute: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.mindandlife.org/">www.mindandlife.org/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <br><br> <p></p><i></i>