Freeman Dyson Atomic Awareness

[BadBoy]

Hi,

Just watched a bit of the debate on youtube "Dangerous Ideas - Deepak Chopra & Richard Dawkins 2013-11-09".

I only watched a bit of it because I find debates with Deepak Chopra a waste of time, and often follow a similar path.

However, Deepak Chopra talked about Freeman Dyson and how he believes in Atomic Awareness. Poor old Richard Dawkins accused Deepak of missunderstanding him and that F Dysin should sue him.

I then found this quote from FD:
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/466596-it-is-remarkable-that-mind-enters-into-our-awareness-of

That is to say, I think our consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another. In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states which we call "chance" when they are made by electrons

I actually am finding that difficult to understand. Especially the bold part. Is he suggesting, as Deepak says that atoms have awareness, or am I not understanding this, or is this just a word salad full of Deepak style woo. Was Richard Dawkins wrong about Freeman Dyson?

Oh, and I did a quick search to see if there was already a thread on this, but didnt find one (and thats not to say that one doesnt exist).

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I can't answer your question, sorry, above my pay grade. However, I have heard similar thoughts expressed by many VERY prominent physicists, not just Dyson. I still don't quite understand to be honest. But the concept of "mind" in many various forms does seem to pop up quite frequently in physics. I always took it symbolically myself, because I simply can't get my head around quantum physics literally proclaiming, "mind is already inherent in every electron" - Dyson

 

[PixyMisa]

Translation: Freeman Dyson thinks that consciousness is magic.

With respect to the quote on Goodreads, everything he says is wrong.

That's kind of depressing, actually.

 

[macdoc]

Have at it .....I don't buy it...

Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology: a neurophysical model of mind–brain interaction
Jeffrey M Schwartz1, Henry P Stapp2 and Mario Beauregard3,4,5,*
+ Author Affiliations

1UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute760 Westwood Plaza, NPI Los Angeles, CA 90024-1759, USA
2Theoretical Physics Mailstop 5104/50A Lawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryUniversity of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-8162, USA
3Département de Psychologie, Centre de Recherche en Neuropsychologie Expérimentale et Cognition (CERNEC)
4Département de Radiologie
5Centre de Recherche en Sciences Neurologiques (CRSN), Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, succursale Centre-Ville, MontréalQuébec H3C 3J7, Canada
*Author for correspondence.

Next Section
Abstract

Neuropsychological research on the neural basis of behaviour generally posits that brain mechanisms will ultimately suffice to explain all psychologically described phenomena. This assumption stems from the idea that the brain is made up entirely of material particles and fields, and that all causal mechanisms relevant to neuroscience can therefore be formulated solely in terms of properties of these elements. Thus, terms having intrinsic mentalistic and/or experiential content (e.g. ‘feeling’, ‘knowing’ and ‘effort’) are not included as primary causal factors. This theoretical restriction is motivated primarily by ideas about the natural world that have been known to be fundamentally incorrect for more than three-quarters of a century. Contemporary basic physical theory differs profoundly from classic physics on the important matter of how the consciousness of human agents enters into the structure of empirical phenomena. The new principles contradict the older idea that local mechanical processes alone can account for the structure of all observed empirical data. Contemporary physical theory brings directly and irreducibly into the overall causal structure certain psychologically described choices made by human agents about how they will act. This key development in basic physical theory is applicable to neuroscience, and it provides neuroscientists and psychologists with an alternative conceptual framework for describing neural processes. Indeed, owing to certain structural features of ion channels critical to synaptic function, contemporary physical theory must in principle be used when analysing human brain dynamics. The new framework, unlike its classic-physics-based predecessor, is erected directly upon, and is compatible with, the prevailing principles of physics. It is able to represent more adequately than classic concepts the neuroplastic mechanisms relevant to the growing number of empirical studies of the capacity of directed attention and mental effort to systematically alter brain function.

mind consciousness brain neuroscience neuropsychology quantum mechanics
The only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality—the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical—as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/360/1458/1309.full

 

[PixyMisa]

Yeah. From that abstract:

Contemporary basic physical theory differs profoundly from classic physics on the important matter of how the consciousness of human agents enters into the structure of empirical phenomena.

No. No it doesn't.

Contemporary physical theory brings directly and irreducibly into the overall causal structure certain psychologically described choices made by human agents about how they will act.

Nope.

This key development in basic physical theory is applicable to neuroscience, and it provides neuroscientists and psychologists with an alternative conceptual framework for describing neural processes.

Wrong again.

Indeed, owing to certain structural features of ion channels critical to synaptic function, contemporary physical theory must in principle be used when analysing human brain dynamics.

Nope. Unless you are describing the structural features of ion channels. Above that level, it doesn't matter, any more than it does for describing baseball.

Oddly, they avoid the word quantum throughout the abstract, even though it's in the title.

 

[BadBoy]

Yeah. From that abstract:


No. No it doesn't.


Nope.


Wrong again.


Nope. Unless you are describing the structural features of ion channels. Above that level, it doesn't matter, any more than it does for describing baseball.

Oddly, they avoid the word quantum throughout the abstract, even though it's in the title.

A reputable journal though...

why do you say they are wrong. I myself are no more enlightened by reading the abstract above though. I assume that in:

Contemporary physical theory brings directly and irreducibly into the overall causal structure certain psychologically described choices made by human agents about how they will act.

Contemporary physical theory means Quantum mechanics? But I cant see why this makes atoms aware, or even tat this can affect the way we think. Though I didnt read the whole article.

 

[PixyMisa]

A reputable journal though...

Or at least, it was...

why do you say they are wrong.

Because they're wrong. What they are saying has no basis in theory or evidence.

I myself are no more enlightened by reading the abstract above though. I assume that in:

Contemporary physical theory means Quantum mechanics?

Yep.

But I cant see why this makes atoms aware, or even tat this can affect the way we think.

Right. Because it doesn't.

Though I didnt read the whole article.

Won't help. The paper is absolute garbage, one unfounded assertion after another. If you do read it, though, you'll quickly find that they are arguing against the validity of scientific naturalism - arguing explicitly that science does not and cannot work. Their evidence for this? None. Not one iota. They're just using quote-contemporary-physical-theory-unquote as a smokescreen.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Where atoms store their teeny, tiny, sub-atomic minds? Do we need a new theory of quark entanglement?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I'll looking forward to Dr. Chopra's article in the Magazine of Transcendental Flapdoodle.

 

[macdoc]

Um the entire paper is linked...I don't buy it but some apparently do and get by the censors of nonsense.

 

[Almo]

Depressing. As that one person's .sig says, "Reality is what's left when we stop believing."

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Depressing. As that one person's .sig says, "Reality is what's left when we stop believing."

Depressing?

 

[Cuddles]

I actually am finding that difficult to understand. Especially the bold part. Is he suggesting, as Deepak says that atoms have awareness, or am I not understanding this, or is this just a word salad full of Deepak style woo. Was Richard Dawkins wrong about Freeman Dyson?

Yes. While Dyson has done important work in the past, his views on conciousness are rather odd, to say the least. From Wiki:

Dyson has suggested a kind of cosmic metaphysics of mind. In his book Infinite in All Directions he writes about three levels of mind: "The universe shows evidence of the operations of mind on three levels. The first level is the level of elementary physical processes in quantum mechanics. Matter in quantum mechanics is [...] constantly making choices between alternative possibilities according to probabilistic laws. [...] The second level at which we detect the operations of mind is the level of direct human experience. [...] t is reasonable to believe in the existence of a third level of mind, a mental component of the universe. If we believe in this mental component and call it God, then we can say that we are small pieces of God's mental apparatus"

It's a bit like Einstein really. No-one could ever claim that Einstein wasn't by far one of the most important figures in the development of quantum mechanics. But an awful lot of his work in that area was specifically to try to prove it all wrong because, famously, "God does not play dice". Similarly, Dyson has been a very important figure in some parts of quantum mechanics, but he may not be the best choice to try to explain what it actually means since his views are very much at odds with the vast majority, and some of the time don't actually make much sense at all.

Some other quotes from and about Dyson on Wiki:

Dyson cheerfully admits his record as a prophet is mixed, but "it is better to be wrong than to be vague."

with a contrarian streak that his friends find refreshing but his intellectual opponents find exasperating. "I have the sense that when consensus is forming like ice hardening on a lake, Dyson will do his best to chip at the ice", Steven Weinberg said of him.

Oliver Sacks, said: "A favorite word of Freeman's about doing science and being creative is the word 'subversive'. He feels it's rather important not only to be not orthodox, but to be subversive, and he's done that all his life."

Essentially, he's a very intelligent and academic troll. If he has an idea, he'll happily push it in the face of orthodoxy just for the hell of it - he doesn't care if it's wrong just as long as it results in an interesting discussion. This is certainly not a bad thing, and is in fact an important part of the scientific process. But it does very much show up the problem with appeals to authority. "This must be right because Freeman Dyson said it" would never be a good argument, even on topics where he actually is an authority. He's just as likely to be pushing some unorthodox, probably wrong but potentially interesting idea as he is anything else.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I sometimes wonder if the problem people have with the whole "The observer is part of the experiment" business is merely a matter of language.
At one level, of course the observer is part of the experiment. Yes, if the experiment is designed to look for particles , particles it will find.

BUT.

There seems to be a perversely mystical view that this implies the observer creates the universe which creates the result the observer just created.

(As an aside- This reminds me of the post modernist view that the constraints of language force minds to create reality; that because 17th century Polynesians had no word for "galleon" they did not see a galleon, but a giant duck or something.
Polynesians were damn good canoe builders , excellent open water navigators and knew the difference between a bloody big canoe and a duck when they saw them. If they had no word for "Galleon" on day one, you can bet your shirt they had one next day.)
Language in fact does not create reality, it constrains our ability to communicate our views of reality.

Is there a similar confusion between the the obvious fact that our ability to observe sets constraints on our interpretation of reality with a supposition that we actually create reality by observing it?

It sometimes seems to me that such confusion exists.

The Lunar Maria date from 3-4 billion years ago. So does a chunk of Greenland gneiss a few feet from me right now.

I'm pretty confident that whatever created those , it did not involve human conscious awareness or linguistic ability.

 

[Aepervius]

The main problem is that people think the observer is a conscious person. Actually it isn't, and I wish we would rename it to "measruing apparatus" or "measurement effect" and kick that observer thing in the oblivion dungeon of woodom.

ETA: and Dyson is quite acting on faith/opinion/belief here, so i would not take the whole as very serious.

 

[shadron]

Depressing?

Depressing in the sense which Neil deGrasse Tyson refers to his hero, Isaac Newton, giving up on the development of gravitational theory at the three-body problem and throwing it all into God's hands, only to have desCartes (?) develop a perturbation theory that can analyze such problem.

See this. The important part about Newton is at about 9:40-12:40, but the entire lecture is masterful.