My take on why indeed the study of consciousness may not be as simple

[Ron_Tomkins]

I've been investigating Roger Penrose and I found out that he wrote a book about consciousness entitled "The Emperor's New Mind". In it, he argues that classical mechanics are insufficient to study and understand the process of human consciousness, and that quantum mechanics is closer to becoming a tool to understanding it.

Since the issue of Artificial Intelligence has been argued here before, and dualists have argued that you can't explain the "magical" process of consciousness through science and math; it occurs to me that maybe we haven't been fair to the process and appeared too simplistic with our explanations, and we have not fully reviewed in what way is it that consciousness can be approached (And the way Penrose suggest is Quantum Mechanics).

(And considering that things behave very different at the Quantum Level, it looks like this could be a clue to the apparent "mystery" to the behavior and nature of consciousness)

This is why I invite anyone who can contribute their thoughts and knowledge about how consciousness can better be understood from the Quantum Mechanics point of view.

And that includes people who have read Penrose's book and can give their layman version of what's more or less addressed in such book (Trying not to spoil us the surprises too much )

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not sure how Quantum Mechanics would help with the study of consciousness.

The best research is in the field of neuroscience. We really do have measures that correlate very reliably with self-reports of consciousness. (And dualists have nothing to support the idea that consciousness can exist without a normally functioning human mind or vice versa--that is there's zero evidence of P-zombies and disembodied consciousness.)

I mentioned a pretty cool experiment done at the California Neuroscience Institute that I saw described on PBS' Science Frontiers with Alan Alda. The subject is put in a chair such that his entire visual field is a monitor. The monitor displays an alternating pattern of two images: horizontal red stripes and vertical blue stripes. In normal vision, the subjective experience is a sort of purple plaid pattern (that is you see them both at the same time). If you put filters that make the red only visible to one visual field and blue only visible to the other, the subjective experience is that you only see one or the other at a time, and they switch every once in a while.
(Nothing in the objective world is changing, just the subjective experience, much like optical illusions where there is an ambiguity--you only see the silhouette spinning clockwise or counterclockwise, but not both at the same time.) Meanwhile, the subject is attach to a sophisticated sort of EEG. The EEG is attached to a computer program that can be taught to recognize the brain scans that match the experience of seeing one or the other of the two patterns. That is, before long the computer can tell by the brains can what the subject is experiencing.

I think we will continue to learn which structures and functions in the brain are "the seats of consciousness". I don't understand how quantum mechanics will have anything to do with this.

 

[Hux]

I tried to read Penrose' book years ago. Not a frikkin' clue. Totally baffled. So I put it to one side.

You might get somewhere by reading some books by Stephen Pinker and Daniel Dennett. They are more approachable and do not suggest unsupported processes. I wonder how we could ever get to the bottom of consciousness by utilising a process we understand so poorly? Consciousness is not unusual. Our level of consciousness is. Its still however a natural biological process and I'm sure will be explained from that standpoint.

 

[Maia]

I don't know, but it always seems to me that some other variety of argument is always lurking behind the scenes when these kinds of concepts are brought out. All right, so if quantum mechanics actually provided a model for the process of consciousness somehow in some way not yet fully understood, then I guess... it would. What's really the point here?

And considering that things behave very different at the Quantum Level, it looks like this could be a clue to the apparent "mystery" to the behavior and nature of consciousness)

But what exactly is being referred to by the usage of the phrase "apparent mystery"? If this "mystery" was resolved, what would that mean? If it wasn't resolved, what would that mean? Again, what exactly is the point?

 

[drkitten]

I've been investigating Roger Penrose and I found out that he wrote a book about consciousness entitled "The Emperor's New Mind". In it, he argues that classical mechanics are insufficient to study and understand the process of human consciousness, and that quantum mechanics is closer to becoming a tool to understanding it.

Don't bother "investigating" Penrose. It's wrong, his theories are drivel, and the popularity of The Emperor's New Mind has arguably set cognitive science back by five years.

Basically, his entire argument can be summed up as follows:

1) I am a brilliant mathematician.
2) I don't understand consciousness at all.
3) I don't understand quantum mechanics at all
4) Therefore, quantum mechanics must explain consciousness.

This is why I invite anyone who can contribute their thoughts and knowledge about how consciousness can better be understood from the Quantum Mechanics point of view.

It can't. Ask any practicing physicist whether or not Penrose actually gets the physics correct. You will almost certainly learn that, no, he doesn't.

Similarly, any cognitive scientist will tell you that he gets the fundamentals of cognitive science completely wrong. Indeed, any neurologist will tell you that he can't get neuroanatomy correct.

It's one huge tower of ignorance. A very well-written tower, but fundamentally wrong.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't know, but it always seems to me that some other variety of argument is always lurking behind the scenes when these kinds of concepts are brought out. All right, so if quantum mechanics actually provided a model for the process of consciousness somehow in some way not yet fully understood, then I guess... it would. What's really the point here?


But what exactly is being referred to by the usage of the phrase "apparent mystery"? If this "mystery" was resolved, what would that mean? If it wasn't resolved, what would that mean? Again, what exactly is the point?

I guess I have no problem with the overall point (understanding consciousness is fascinating).

I just don't understand how QM could possibly prove a model for consciousness.
And consciousness emerges at the level brain structure (if not the entire organ). It certainly isn't a property of tissue, cell, molecule or atom, much less anything that QM tells us about.

I would say the interesting stuff starts at the level of cell function. QM really doesn't have anything to say even about regular chemistry.

Given the responses of those familiar with Penrose (I'm not), it sounds like it's just a typical invocation of "quantum" to explain some New Age idea (like The Secret or What the Bleep or The Tao of Physics or some such). "Aha! QM tells us that observation has an effect on the thing being measured, so that must tell us something about consciousness!" As drkitten says, it's more a lack of understanding of the physics than it is anything actually about consciousness.

I also think it's like using terms that have real meaning (energy, vibration, resonance, etc.) to refer to fuzzy, possibly supernatural ideas.

What bugs me most is that there are pretty exciting advances in neuroscience, and invoking QM seems to say that physics (or a misunderstanding of physics) will tell us more about consciousness than the science that actually has told us a great deal about it.

 

[rocketdodger]

Don't bother "investigating" Penrose. It's wrong, his theories are drivel, and the popularity of The Emperor's New Mind has arguably set cognitive science back by five years.

Basically, his entire argument can be summed up as follows:

1) I am a brilliant mathematician.
2) I don't understand consciousness at all.
3) I don't understand quantum mechanics at all
4) Therefore, quantum mechanics must explain consciousness.



It can't. Ask any practicing physicist whether or not Penrose actually gets the physics correct. You will almost certainly learn that, no, he doesn't.

Similarly, any cognitive scientist will tell you that he gets the fundamentals of cognitive science completely wrong. Indeed, any neurologist will tell you that he can't get neuroanatomy correct.

It's one huge tower of ignorance. A very well-written tower, but fundamentally wrong.

And if you want more information about why it is fundamentally wrong, go ahead and google "lucas penrose argument".

Note that the vast majority of hits have to do with explaining why it is invalid. That is why it is also known as the lucas penrose fallacy.

 

[Maia]

I guess I have no problem with the overall point (understanding consciousness is fascinating).

I just don't understand how QM could possibly prove a model for consciousness.
And consciousness emerges at the level brain structure (if not the entire organ). It certainly isn't a property of tissue, cell, molecule or atom, much less anything that QM tells us about.

I would say the interesting stuff starts at the level of cell function. QM really doesn't have anything to say even about regular chemistry.

I have no idea how QM could really do that either, but I do have to say that I'd love to read Gustav Bernroider. (I haven't yet. Has anybody else?) The reason is that his theories are based on what happens in the ion channels of neurons; now, that I do know a bit about because of the relationship to the actions of psychopharmacological drugs. Most of the newer classes of anticonvulsants work on the ionic channels in some way, and he specifically studied the potassium (K+) ion channel. (Retigabine is one that modulates activity there.)

It might be worth reading what other scientists have done who aren't primarily mathematicians-- Bernroider definitely does not seem to have any New-Agey ax to grind. But...

The Secret or What the Bleep or The Tao of Physics or some such).

No! NO! Horrible memories of being trapped at friends' houses and forced to watch unspeakably bad movies while served tofu...

 

[qwert]

3) I don't understand quantum mechanics at all

So you're saying the guy who has won the Wolfe prize for mathematical physics and the Dirac prize for theoretical physics doesn't understand quantum mechanics at all?

Any evidence for this remarkable remark?

I can't find any references / quotes from physicists who disparage his opinions on quantum mechanics.

That being said, I will agree that is cognitive science arguments are very weak in Emperor's New Mind. I have no idea if any of his subsequent works did any better...

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I believe that Penrose and Hameroff proposed 20 experiments to test Orch-OR, their "theory" behind their QM proposals. If you can find a single paper about any of these experiments, please let me know.

Also, try searching on <Orch-OR> at Pubmed. You'll get about seven hits, four of which are irrelevant, two by Penrose and Hameroff, and one titled "Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not biologically feasible."

~~ Paul

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have no idea how QM could really do that either, but I do have to say that I'd love to read Gustav Bernroider. (I haven't yet. Has anybody else?) The reason is that his theories are based on what happens in the ion channels of neurons; now, that I do know a bit about because of the relationship to the actions of psychopharmacological drugs. Most of the newer classes of anticonvulsants work on the ionic channels in some way, and he specifically studied the potassium (K+) ion channel. (Retigabine is one that modulates activity there.)

Yup. As I said, the interesting stuff starts at the level of cell functions. Ion channels, synapses, neurotransmitters, etc. That's pretty much the lowest level of organization that has to do with consciousness.

No! NO! Horrible memories of being trapped at friends' houses and forced to watch unspeakably bad movies while served tofu...

Hey, now! There's nothing wrong with tofu!

 

[blobru]

... I mentioned a pretty cool experiment done at the California Neuroscience Institute that I saw described on PBS' Science Frontiers with Alan Alda. The subject is put in a chair such that his entire visual field is a monitor. The monitor displays an alternating pattern of two images: horizontal red stripes and vertical blue stripes. In normal vision, the subjective experience is a sort of purple plaid pattern (that is you see them both at the same time). If you put filters that make the red only visible to one visual field and blue only visible to the other, the subjective experience is that you only see one or the other at a time, and they switch every once in a while.
(Nothing in the objective world is changing, just the subjective experience, much like optical illusions where there is an ambiguity--you only see the silhouette spinning clockwise or counterclockwise, but not both at the same time.) Meanwhile, the subject is attach to a sophisticated sort of EEG. The EEG is attached to a computer program that can be taught to recognize the brain scans that match the experience of seeing one or the other of the two patterns. That is, before long the computer can tell by the brains can what the subject is experiencing.

Here's a 60 minutes report from about a year ago where researchers are able to identify subjects' thoughts such as "screwdriver", "hammer", "igloo", "castle", "addition" or "subtraction", solely from brainscan pattern (the first half is relevant; the second is mostly ethical considerations and Lesley Stahl wetting her pants that her brain is "just molecules").

I think we will continue to learn which structures and functions in the brain are "the seats of consciousness". I don't understand how quantum mechanics will have anything to do with this.

I agree. I'm not sure where the pessimism comes from among some philosophers / researchers, that consciousness may be an insoluble paradox. The computational model for the mind is so suggestive -- all knowledge based on nets of comparison functions (x is A, y is not-A), consciousness the highest-level comparison function, likely recursive (I was I, now I'm not) -- that even if it's not the whole story, the gaps that remain should only offer even more knowledge about the nature of the brain and body and their relation to consciousness, not insuperable barriers to understanding.

Until we're sure those gaps even exist, like you, I don't see the point of invoking QM to explain them.

 

[fuelair]

I've been investigating Roger Penrose and I found out that he wrote a book about consciousness entitled "The Emperor's New Mind". In it, he argues that classical mechanics are insufficient to study and understand the process of human consciousness, and that quantum mechanics is closer to becoming a tool to understanding it.

Since the issue of Artificial Intelligence has been argued here before, and dualists have argued that you can't explain the "magical" process of consciousness through science and math; it occurs to me that maybe we haven't been fair to the process and appeared too simplistic with our explanations, and we have not fully reviewed in what way is it that consciousness can be approached (And the way Penrose suggest is Quantum Mechanics).

(And considering that things behave very different at the Quantum Level, it looks like this could be a clue to the apparent "mystery" to the behavior and nature of consciousness)

This is why I invite anyone who can contribute their thoughts and knowledge about how consciousness can better be understood from the Quantum Mechanics point of view.

And that includes people who have read Penrose's book and can give their layman version of what's more or less addressed in such book (Trying not to spoil us the surprises too much )

Why in the name of the FSM would ANYBODY think any form of MECHANICS could explain "conciousness". "Now here we see the electron cloud helping Joe recognize his mental image of himself as valid!"

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Interesting responses. I pretty much started this thread to read people's opinion on the matter, before I launch myself into Penrose's book. Now I'm having doubts as to wether or not I should make the investment.

 

[Dancing David]

Um, here is the deal neurotansmitters are above the QM level, as are neurons.

 

[Wowbagger]

QM might not provide the answer, but perhaps something else, that we know nothing about (yet) will. I can't tell you what that something else is (yet), but no matter what that thing is: Consciousness won't ever be simple until we find out what it is (eventually).

That's my take, as nebulous and uhelpful though it may be (for now).

 

[Apathia]

Ah! This thread reminds me of one I started back when.
DrKitten intervened and so became one of my favorite JREF people.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59996

 

[!Kaggen]

Consciousness is self referential.
It creates itself.
It therefore can only be recognized by itself.
The question for me is not how does consciousness arise, which is answered above, but why does consciousness create itself?

Consciousness creation by matter assumes that matter is conscious.
Clearly a form of dualism in the light of the above.
Penrose's honest mistake is making this dualism explicit by hypothesizing that consciousness is created by matter through QM.

To avoid this dualism I believe the why of consciousness can only be explained within its borders using its substance, thought.

 

[Robin]

Consciousness is self referential.
It creates itself.

And you know this - how?

 

[!Kaggen]

And you know this - how?

I think