Has consciousness been fully explained?

[PixyMisa]

If you are willing to include any use of quantum effects

What quantum effects? The brain is not a quantum device. We can create and manipulate quantum superpositions. We know how they behave. They play no role in the function of the brain.

(such as moving information backward through time)

Doesn't happen.

extra dimensions (such as those speculated in string theory)

Cannot possibly be relevant. Such dimensions may exist, but we cannot detect them with our most precise experiments, so, like quantum superpositions, it is impossible for them to be relevant.

or particles we don't currently know how to detect

Again, what particles? How can they be relevant if they are undetectable? We can detect neutrinos, for crying out loud, and they have no role whatsoever in brain function. Modern physics experiments are much, much more sensitive to subtle forces and energies than the brain is. You can walk unaffected through a magnetic field that would fry advanced measuring equipment.

But at that point you have included stuff that is considered "supernatural" now.

Which is why I keep saying that you believe in magic. We know that none of these things can be relevant. If they were, we would know about them already. You're just making excuses.

I think that the body's particle configuration IS the best contender for what would be considered someone's soul.

Why should we consider anything to be someone's soul?

 

[Frank Newgent]

Do you think there's a difference between the use of reason to decide how to act vs the use of reason to decide what to believe?

Absolutely not.

What is a belief if not an idea that guides action? What is an action if not a behavior that expresses belief?

How is the decision "I am going to eat less chocolate in the future" not also something like "I believe chocolate is bad for me in the quantities I usually eat it?"

I challenge you to come up with a single decision "how to act" that can't be framed as a decision "what to believe."

I decided to take the time to answer your post although I don't know whether to believe or not believe you will or can understand the distinction between intention and belief that I am attempting to draw.

 

[Clive]

What quantum effects? The brain is not a quantum device. We can create and manipulate quantum superpositions. We know how they behave. They play no role in the function of the brain.

Doesn't happen.

Cannot possibly be relevant. Such dimensions may exist, but we cannot detect them with our most precise experiments, so, like quantum superpositions, it is impossible for them to be relevant.

Again, what particles? How can they be relevant if they are undetectable? We can detect neutrinos, for crying out loud, and they have no role whatsoever in brain function. Modern physics experiments are much, much more sensitive to subtle forces and energies than the brain is. You can walk unaffected through a magnetic field that would fry advanced measuring equipment.

Which is why I keep saying that you believe in magic. We know that none of these things can be relevant. If they were, we would know about them already. You're just making excuses.

You can't explain exactly how the brain produces the phenomena that we call consciousness yet at the same time you insist that various fringe aspects of our current understanding of physics (certainly incomplete and possibly even incorrect in some important respects) couldn't possibly be relevant. If you had happened to have lived well before electricity had been discovered then I can only imagine that your explanation for how the brain produced consciousness would presumably have insisted that it was mathematically proven to consist of a vast array of very small cogs and levers connected with strings and springs.

Now, you may wish to argue that it is very likely that we have already gained a sufficiently accurate and complete understanding of the relevant physics to be able (in principle) to produce a detailed working theory of consciousness and I suspect many would be willing to buy into that. However, unless you can show us a detailed and convincing argument for how consciousness is created using only currently accepted knowledge of physics and so forth then you also cannot continue to completely deny the possibility that other aspects of physics as we understand it now (or perhaps even as yet undiscovered aspects) may also play some part. Well, I suppose you can, but it just makes me laugh at your incredibly narrow and blinkered view.

You appear to view the world as though we have already discovered and understand everything that could ever be relevant. Why is that?

 

[AkuManiMani]

You can't explain exactly how the brain produces the phenomena that we call consciousness yet at the same time you insist that various fringe aspects of our current understanding of physics (certainly incomplete and possibly even incorrect in some important respects) couldn't possibly be relevant. If you had happened to have lived well before electricity had been discovered then I can only imagine that your explanation for how the brain produced consciousness would presumably have insisted that it was mathematically proven to consist of a vast array of very small cogs and levers connected with strings and springs.

Now, you may wish to argue that it is very likely that we have already gained a sufficiently accurate and complete understanding of the relevant physics to be able (in principle) to produce a detailed working theory of consciousness and I suspect many would be willing to buy into that. However, unless you can show us a detailed and convincing argument for how consciousness is created using only currently accepted knowledge of physics and so forth then you also cannot continue to completely deny the possibility that other aspects of physics as we understand it now (or perhaps even as yet undiscovered aspects) may also play some part. Well, I suppose you can, but it just makes me laugh at your incredibly narrow and blinkered view.

You appear to view the world as though we have already discovered and understand everything that could ever be relevant. Why is that?

Judging from his posting history, it seems he cares far more about feeling he has an adequate grasp on reality than he does in honestly pursing the truth. A simple way of putting it is that hes just a strait-up know-it-all.

 

[PixyMisa]

You can't explain exactly how the brain produces the phenomena that we call consciousness yet at the same time you insist that various fringe aspects of our current understanding of physics (certainly incomplete and possibly even incorrect in some important respects) couldn't possibly be relevant.

Yes. The reason those fringe aspects of physics are fringe is precisely because they have vanishingly tiny effects on normal matter.

So no, quantum superposition has no role in consciousness. It's physically impossible. Additional dimensions (per string theory, M theory) have no role in consciousness. It's physically impossible. Undetected particles have no role in consciousness. It's physically impossible.

If any of these things had a strong enough effect on normal matter under normal conditions (i.e. roughtly STP) to have any influence on or role in consciousness, they wouldn't be fringe physics (not that quantum superposition is), they'd be bleeding obvious.

If you had happened to have lived well before electricity had been discovered

Back in pre-history, then?

then I can only imagine that your explanation for how the brain produced consciousness would presumably have insisted that it was mathematically proven to consist of a vast array of very small cogs and levers connected with strings and springs.

Then your imagination needs some exercise.

Now, you may wish to argue that it is very likely that we have already gained a sufficiently accurate and complete understanding of the relevant physics to be able (in principle) to produce a detailed working theory of consciousness and I suspect many would be willing to buy into that.

Sure, that too.

What I'm saying here, though, is that it is known to be impossible for the particles and forces Beth is proposing to have any role in consciousness. Neutrinos also have no role. Nor does relativity. Nor does nuclear fission or fusion. Nor do muons. Gravity, even gravity is irrelevant. There's a whole list of things that are irrelevant, and are known to be irrelevant.

If this kind of subtle, weak effect had any role in consciousness, we'd all be DEAD, because we are exposed to a huge range of vastly stronger effects every single day.

However, unless you can show us a detailed and convincing argument for how consciousness is created using only currently accepted knowledge of physics and so forth then you also cannot continue to completely deny the possibility that other aspects of physics as we understand it now (or perhaps even as yet undiscovered aspects) may also play some part.

Of course I can, because it's physically impossible.

Well, I suppose you can, but it just makes me laugh at your incredibly narrow and blinkered view.

It could be that nuclear fusion requires the application of horse manure. You don't know it's not true. Maybe there are horses on the Sun. Maybe that's why they can't get the Tokamaks to work.

You appear to view the world as though we have already discovered and understand everything that could ever be relevant.

Nope.

Why is that?

It's not true at all.

However, there are some things that we can absolutely rule out. Everything that Beth suggested falls into that category.

 

[PixyMisa]

Judging from his posting history, it seems he cares far more about feeling he has an adequate grasp on reality than he does in honestly pursing the truth.

Precisely the opposite, of course.

Which apparently upsets you no end.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Judging from his posting history, it seems he cares far more about feeling he has an adequate grasp on reality than he does in honestly pursing the truth. A simple way of putting it is that hes just a strait-up know-it-all.

Precisely the opposite, of course.

Which apparently upsets you no end.

Actually, TBPH, you inspire extreme emotional responses in me because I'm genuinely appalled that a seemingly intelligent person (like yourself) can so thoroughly cut themselves off from their own potential. You're so completely absorbed (for whatever reason) by what you believe you know that you've totally blinded yourself to just how ignorant and limited you really are. You couldn't even bring yourself to answer a simple question about your own state of being: What are -you- feeling?

I've mentioned a while ago that people's personal limitations bother me; this is especially true when I see that those limitations are willfully self imposed. What I feel toward you is akin to what I feel when I see people brainwashed by cult leaders; except in your case the cultist and cult leader are one and the same -- hence my dual feelings of pity and disgust. I'm not upset because you're some paragon of rationality; I'm horrified because you're a stunted parody of what you could be and you can't even bring yourself to see it.

 

[rocketdodger]

I decided to take the time to answer your post although I don't know whether to believe or not believe you will or can understand the distinction between intention and belief that I am attempting to draw.

Whether you believe or not, that doesn't affect your intentions to act one way or another?

Your future statements in this conversation will be identical in both cases?

Sorry Frank, I don't believe you. And that means my end of the future of this conversation is going to be different than if I did believe you. Because belief corresponds with intention to act.

 

[rocketdodger]

You can't explain exactly how the brain produces the phenomena that we call consciousness yet at the same time you insist that various fringe aspects of our current understanding of physics (certainly incomplete and possibly even incorrect in some important respects) couldn't possibly be relevant. If you had happened to have lived well before electricity had been discovered then I can only imagine that your explanation for how the brain produced consciousness would presumably have insisted that it was mathematically proven to consist of a vast array of very small cogs and levers connected with strings and springs.

Now, you may wish to argue that it is very likely that we have already gained a sufficiently accurate and complete understanding of the relevant physics to be able (in principle) to produce a detailed working theory of consciousness and I suspect many would be willing to buy into that. However, unless you can show us a detailed and convincing argument for how consciousness is created using only currently accepted knowledge of physics and so forth then you also cannot continue to completely deny the possibility that other aspects of physics as we understand it now (or perhaps even as yet undiscovered aspects) may also play some part. Well, I suppose you can, but it just makes me laugh at your incredibly narrow and blinkered view.

You appear to view the world as though we have already discovered and understand everything that could ever be relevant. Why is that?

This is like saying we can't be sure some huge number is reachable using normal arithmetic because nobody has done it yet.

Maybe new mathematics would be needed to get to that number, eh?

 

[rocketdodger]

It could be that nuclear fusion requires the application of horse manure. You don't know it's not true. Maybe there are horses on the Sun. Maybe that's why they can't get the Tokamaks to work.

This made me laugh so hard ...

 

[rocketdodger]

If you are willing to include any use of quantum effects (such as moving information backward through time), extra dimensions (such as those speculated in string theory), or particles we don't currently know how to detect, then sure. But at that point you have included stuff that is considered "supernatural" now.

Well, yes, but I have to reiterate what Pixy has been harping this whole discussion -- it would be very irrational to posit that such trivial forces had any effect at all on consciousness.

Just like it would be irrational for me to assume the behavior of an instance of a program I am examining was due to some quantum anomaly in a transistor somewhere -- especially when I didn't even understand the program to begin with.

We know how neurons work. There is so much we don't know about the behavior of a bunch of neurons, and so much of what we do know fits perfectly with what we know about consciousness, that it is simply not reasonable to make the kind of assumptions people like Penrose have made.

Honestly, read this and tell me it doesn't sound just the least bit insane: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR I mean, come on, the man thinks Platonic ideals for ethics and aesthetics are encoded in the fabric of the universe, and we can access them via biological quantum computing. That doesn't sound insane?

Wouldn't it be far more reasonable to simply assume that there is some emergent or epiphenomenal behavior coming from the billions of neurons firing in some amazing patterns than to just assume apriori that no neural network behavior could ever explain our consciousness and instead our brains are somehow tapping into the universal quantum computer to perform nondeterministic calculations that somehow make Platonism true?

 

[AkuManiMani]

Well, yes, but I have to reiterate what Pixy has been harping this whole discussion -- it would be very irrational to posit that such trivial forces had any effect at all on consciousness.

Just like it would be irrational for me to assume the behavior of an instance of a program I am examining was due to some quantum anomaly in a transistor somewhere -- especially when I didn't even understand the program to begin with.

We know how neurons work. There is so much we don't know about the behavior of a bunch of neurons, and so much of what we do know fits perfectly with what we know about consciousness, that it is simply not reasonable to make the kind of assumptions people like Penrose have made.

Honestly, read this and tell me it doesn't sound just the least bit insane: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR I mean, come on, the man thinks Platonic ideals for ethics and aesthetics are encoded in the fabric of the universe, and we can access them via biological quantum computing. That doesn't sound insane?

Wouldn't it be far more reasonable to simply assume that there is some emergent or epiphenomenal behavior coming from the billions of neurons firing in some amazing patterns than to just assume apriori that no neural network behavior could ever explain our consciousness and instead our brains are somehow tapping into the universal quantum computer to perform nondeterministic calculations that somehow make Platonism true?

Who cares how insane it sounds? For all we know, the theory may be roughly analogous to whats really going on. Its no more radical than digital physics or any of the other ideas floating at the theoretical frontiers of science.

Theres no need to a priori assume anything other than what you immediately experience. You just need to be able to face unknowns and uncertainties with a shrug and then just keep on diggin'. Thats what honest science is all about, IMO.

 

[Frank Newgent]

I decided to take the time to answer your post although I don't know whether to believe or not believe you will or can understand the distinction between intention and belief that I am attempting to draw.

Whether you believe or not, that doesn't affect your intentions to act one way or another?

Your future statements in this conversation will be identical in both cases?

Sorry Frank, I don't believe you. And that means my end of the future of this conversation is going to be different than if I did believe you. Because belief corresponds with intention to act.

How will your end of the future of this conversation be different from what it would be if you believed me RD?

 

[Malerin]

You can't explain exactly how the brain produces the phenomena that we call consciousness yet at the same time you insist that various fringe aspects of our current understanding of physics (certainly incomplete and possibly even incorrect in some important respects) couldn't possibly be relevant. If you had happened to have lived well before electricity had been discovered then I can only imagine that your explanation for how the brain produced consciousness would presumably have insisted that it was mathematically proven to consist of a vast array of very small cogs and levers connected with strings and springs.

Now, you may wish to argue that it is very likely that we have already gained a sufficiently accurate and complete understanding of the relevant physics to be able (in principle) to produce a detailed working theory of consciousness and I suspect many would be willing to buy into that. However, unless you can show us a detailed and convincing argument for how consciousness is created using only currently accepted knowledge of physics and so forth then you also cannot continue to completely deny the possibility that other aspects of physics as we understand it now (or perhaps even as yet undiscovered aspects) may also play some part. Well, I suppose you can, but it just makes me laugh at your incredibly narrow and blinkered view.

You appear to view the world as though we have already discovered and understand everything that could ever be relevant. Why is that?

Nicely said.

 

[Beth]

What quantum effects? The brain is not a quantum device. We can create and manipulate quantum superpositions. We know how they behave. They play no role in the function of the brain.

We don’t know that. You can claim they play no role. You may well be right. But it hasn’t been established one way or the other. Hence, I am not certain.

Doesn't happen.

There is empirical evidence that supports this idea. You can claim it doesn’t happen. You may well be right. But it hasn’t been established one way or the other. Hence, I am not certain.

Cannot possibly be relevant. Such dimensions may exist, but we cannot detect them with our most precise experiments, so, like quantum superpositions, it is impossible for them to be relevant.

You can claim it isn’t relevant. You may well be right. But it hasn’t been established one way or the other. Hence, I am not certain.

Which is why I keep saying that you believe in magic. We know that none of these things can be relevant. If they were, we would know about them already. You're just making excuses.

No. I’m not making excuses. I’m explaining why I am not as certain of your claims as you appear to be. You can call unknown physical effects magic if you want, but that isn’t the generally accepted meaning. I find it to be an emotional ploy; an attempt to sway others to your POV by demeaning other possibilities.

Why should we consider anything to be someone's soul?

Clearly you don’t have to. My point was that RD’s claim that there was no eternal soul in the manufactured person was not proven. If there was such a thing as a soul, then it could included as an aspect of a person manufactured in that manner.

You can't explain exactly how the brain produces the phenomena that we call consciousness yet at the same time you insist that various fringe aspects of our current understanding of physics (certainly incomplete and possibly even incorrect in some important respects) couldn't possibly be relevant.
…
However, unless you can show us a detailed and convincing argument for how consciousness is created using only currently accepted knowledge of physics and so forth then you also cannot continue to completely deny the possibility that other aspects of physics as we understand it now (or perhaps even as yet undiscovered aspects) may also play some part. Well, I suppose you can, but it just makes me laugh at your incredibly narrow and blinkered view.

Thanks. That is exactly how I feel about it but cannot express so concisely.

Yes. The reason those fringe aspects of physics are fringe is precisely because they have vanishingly tiny effects on normal matter.

Are you familiar with chaos theory? Vanishing tiny effects on normal matter can lead to significantly different outcomes.

So no, quantum superposition has no role in consciousness. It's physically impossible. Additional dimensions (per string theory, M theory) have no role in consciousness. It's physically impossible. Undetected particles have no role in consciousness. It's physically impossible.

Just because you say it doesn’t mean it’s true. Why should I believe you about these matters? You may well be right, but I remain uncertain.

If any of these things had a strong enough effect on normal matter under normal conditions (i.e. roughtly STP) to have any influence on or role in consciousness, they wouldn't be fringe physics (not that quantum superposition is), they'd be bleeding obvious. .

Just because you say it doesn’t mean it’s true. Why should I believe you about these matters? You may well be right, but I remain uncertain.

What I'm saying here, though, is that it is known to be impossible for the particles and forces Beth is proposing to have any role in consciousness. Neutrinos also have no role. Nor does relativity. Nor does nuclear fission or fusion. Nor do muons. Gravity, even gravity is irrelevant. There's a whole list of things that are irrelevant, and are known to be irrelevant.

Care to post some cites for those claims? Or are you just making claims without evidence?

However, there are some things that we can absolutely rule out. Everything that Beth suggested falls into that category.

Since they have been absolutely ruled out, that would imply that such theories have been tested and the results were conclusive. If you are correct, then studies supporting your claims should be available. Until I’ve reviewed such studies and found them as conclusive as you apparently have, I’ll remain uncertain.

Well, yes, but I have to reiterate what Pixy has been harping this whole discussion -- it would be very irrational to posit that such trivial forces had any effect at all on consciousness.

Pixy does not have a convincing arguing about why such possibilities should be considered impossible and assigned a probability of zero. I’m not arguing that such ideas are correct. I would agree that such theories have a low probability of being correct. Nevertheless, low probability alternatives are sufficient to justify uncertainty about how consciousness actually works, which is all I have claimed.

Wouldn't it be far more reasonable to simply assume that there is some emergent or epiphenomenal behavior coming from the billions of neurons firing in some amazing patterns than to just assume apriori that no neural network behavior could ever explain our consciousness and instead our brains are somehow tapping into the universal quantum computer to perform nondeterministic calculations?

You wanted to know why I wasn’t certain. I don’t think that making reasonable assumptions based on current knowledge is tantamount to having certainty in the conclusions derived from those assumptions. They may be reasonable but they are still assumptions.

 

[PixyMisa]

We don’t know that. You can claim they play no role. You may well be right. But it hasn’t been established one way or the other. Hence, I am not certain.

Wrong. Completely wrong. We DO know. They don't play any role. It's physically impossible.

Beth, you are talking nonsense. And you have not at any point responded to the reasons why none of these things are impossible; you just keep insisting that we don't know.

It's. Not. True.

No. I’m not making excuses.

Yes, that's precisely what you're doing.

I’m explaining why I am not as certain of your claims as you appear to be. You can call unknown physical effects magic if you want, but that isn’t the generally accepted meaning. I find it to be an emotional ploy; an attempt to sway others to your POV by demeaning other possibilities.

Then you're not paying attention; at the very least, you have no understanding of science.

Physics - science in general - is not some collectible card game where each new release can change the nature of the game. The unknown is bounded by the known.

We know that brains do not communicate to each other via "oscillations", as Limbo would like us to believe. If it were true, not only would we be able to detect it with ease, we'd all go insane when we got within a hundred yards of a high-tension power line.

We know that consciousness is not a quantum process. The numbers simply don't work; the candidate processes are around 10,000,000,000,000 times too short-lived to have any involvement.

We know that higher dimensions postulated by string theory have no role in consciousness. Even if they exist, we can't detect them with our finest measuring equipment - and we can easily track individual atoms.

No, Beth. All you are doing is using sciencey-sounding words to mask a claim of magic.

Clearly you don’t have to. My point was that RD’s claim that there was no eternal soul in the manufactured person was not proven.

Yes it is. Such a thing is impossible.

If there was such a thing as a soul, then it could included as an aspect of a person manufactured in that manner.

There's no such thing as a soul. It's impossible.

Thanks. That is exactly how I feel about it but cannot express so concisely.

Clive is, as I've noted already, dead wrong.

Are you familiar with chaos theory? Vanishing tiny effects on normal matter can lead to significantly different outcomes.

Sure. Irrelevant.

If it were relevant, none of us would ever be conscious in the first place. Physical effects many orders of magnitude stronger than anything you are proposing are happening to us all the time, and making no difference to the outcome whatsoever.

Just because you say it doesn’t mean it’s true. Why should I believe you about these matters?

Because I'm giving reasons. Which you are ignoring.

You may well be right, but I remain uncertain.

As I said, all you are doing is making excuses.

Just because you say it doesn’t mean it’s true. Why should I believe you about these matters? You may well be right, but I remain uncertain.
Care to post some cites for those claims? Or are you just making claims without evidence?

I did. You ignored it.

Here's a good one to start with - Max Tegmark stomps on Penrose's (and all the lesser lights') quantum mind nonsense: http://www.sustainedaction.org/Explorations/problem_with_quantum_mind_theory.htm

The general point is this: The brain cannot be sensitive to these very very tiny and subtle effects, because we live our lives bathed in a sea of fluctuating radiation and forces that would instantly drown them out. These things are so subtle that in some cases we can't detect them at all, when we routinely detect individual subatomic particles.

If the brain were a quantum device, we'd all be dead every time our body temperature strayed from the region of absolute zero.
If the brain depended on string theory higher dimensions, we'd all be dead every time the Moon moved in its orbit.
If the brain depended on information moving back in time... Sorry, that one's just nonsense.

Since they have been absolutely ruled out, that would imply that such theories have been tested and the results were conclusive.

No, Beth. PAY ATTENTION.

They have no role to play in the brain, in the production of the conscious mind.

Does consciousness work via nuclear fusion? No, don't be silly.
Does consciousness work via gamma rays? No, don't be silly.
Does consciousness work via k-mesons? No, don't be silly.
Does consciousness work via superconductivity? No, don't be silly.
Does consciousness work via plate tectonics? No, don't be silly.
Does consciousness work via frame dragging? No, don't be silly.

There's an infinite list of things that are real and measureable that we know don't have any role to play in consciousness. You don't get to misinterpret speculative physics and claim that we don't know that something so tiny it can't even be measured magically has a causal role in consciousness.

If you are correct, then studies supporting your claims should be available. Until I’ve reviewed such studies and found them as conclusive as you apparently have, I’ll remain uncertain.

Start with some basic physics - the four forces, their relative strengths, the fundamental particles. Stop treating physics like magic. Stop, as I've said, making excuses.

Pixy does not have a convincing arguing about why such possibilities should be considered impossible and assigned a probability of zero.

I do; I've presented it; you have never even addressed it.

 

[rocketdodger]

How will your end of the future of this conversation be different from what it would be if you believed me RD?

At the very least, I typed different characters on my keyboard.

Is that not action?

I plan to type different characters than I would otherwise.

Is that not intent to act?

Your claim was that belief is not equivalent to intent to act. That claim is unverifiable -- any belief you hold is going to affect your intent to act. Even if you purposefully don't intend to act any differently, that is intending to act as if you were not intending to act differently.

 

[Clive]

So no, quantum superposition has no role in consciousness. It's physically impossible. Additional dimensions (per string theory, M theory) have no role in consciousness. It's physically impossible. Undetected particles have no role in consciousness. It's physically impossible.

What does physically impossible mean when you use it? For example, would you say wormholes are physically impossible?

If any of these things had a strong enough effect on normal matter under normal conditions (i.e. roughtly STP) to have any influence on or role in consciousness, they wouldn't be fringe physics (not that quantum superposition is), they'd be bleeding obvious.

What is this threshold value that you seem to have decided is necessary before any particular effect is strong enough to have an influence on consciousness (which, by the way, you can't explain except by hand waving in the general direction of emergent properties)?

Then your imagination needs some exercise.

I have a suggestion for you. Try to imagine that you might be wrong. Seriously. It's the first step to wisdom.

If this kind of subtle, weak effect had any role in consciousness, we'd all be DEAD, because we are exposed to a huge range of vastly stronger effects every single day.

Kind of like how the the subtle and weak effects of individual photons (or are those waves?) impacting the cells in our retina have no effect on our consciousness?

Of course I can, because it's physically impossible.

There you go again...

It could be that nuclear fusion requires the application of horse manure. You don't know it's not true. Maybe there are horses on the Sun. Maybe that's why they can't get the Tokamaks to work.

Thanks for the laugh. Perhaps you've been reading Wikileaks more than I have but I can find no mention of horse manure on the wikipedia page about the Tsar Bomba. But wait, step a little closer... yes, I do believe there's a whiff of horse manure on your breath.

 

[Beth]

We don’t know that. You can claim they play no role. You may well be right. But it hasn’t been established one way or the other. Hence, I am not certain.

Wrong. Completely wrong. We DO know. They don't play any role. It's physically impossible.

You keep saying that. But saying it doesn’t make it true. We don’t yet understand how consciousness works or how to reproduce it artificially.

Beth, you are talking nonsense. And you have not at any point responded to the reasons why none of these things are impossible; you just keep insisting that we don't know.

Yes. It’s because I don’t know that those things are impossible. As near as I can tell, the reason you think I should conclude it is impossible is because PixyMisa says so. Sorry, but I don’t find that a convincing reason.

I’m explaining why I am not as certain of your claims as you appear to be. You can call unknown physical effects magic if you want, but that isn’t the generally accepted meaning. I find it to be an emotional ploy; an attempt to sway others to your POV by demeaning other possibilities.

Then you're not paying attention; at the very least, you have no understanding of science.

I’ll simply have to disagree with you there. This is just another emotional ploy on your part.

Physics - science in general - is not some collectible card game where each new release can change the nature of the game. The unknown is bounded by the known.
We know that brains do not communicate to each other via "oscillations", as Limbo would like us to believe. If it were true, not only would we be able to detect it with ease, we'd all go insane when we got within a hundred yards of a high-tension power line.

I haven’t said anything about ‘oscillations’ nor have I claimed anything about how brains communicate to each other.

We know that consciousness is not a quantum process. The numbers simply don't work; the candidate processes are around 10,000,000,000,000 times too short-lived to have any involvement.

Actually, according to the Wikipedia article RD linked to above

These proposed alternative processes have the advantage of taking place within Tegmark's time to decoherence.

Again, I’m not claiming that this hypothesis is correct. I’m merely pointing out that there are hypotheses that propose that consciousness relies on quantum processes. These hypotheses are not proven to be false or impossible. Until we actually understand how consciousness works, we cannot conclusively rule out all such possibilities. Hence, I am not certain.

We know that higher dimensions postulated by string theory have no role in consciousness. Even if they exist, we can't detect them with our finest measuring equipment - and we can easily track individual atoms.
No, Beth. All you are doing is using sciencey-sounding words to mask a claim of magic.

Again you are using the emotional ploy of equating unknown possible physical causes to magic. I’m not claiming these hypotheses are correct, I’m explaining why I am not as certain of your claims as you think I should be.

Are you familiar with chaos theory? Vanishing tiny effects on normal matter can lead to significantly different outcomes.

Sure. Irrelevant.
If it were relevant, none of us would ever be conscious in the first place. Physical effects many orders of magnitude stronger than anything you are proposing are happening to us all the time, and making no difference to the outcome whatsoever.

Just because you say it doesn’t mean it’s true. Why should I believe you about these matters?

Because I'm giving reasons. Which you are ignoring.

I’m not ignoring your reasons. I find them unconvincing and frequently irrelevant. You say that if chaos theory had an impact on the workings of the mind, we'd all be dead. Apparently that’s supposed to be a convincing reason why tiny effects can’t have any impact on the way consciousness works. It’s not. At least, it’s not convincing without some supporting evidence as to why this would be the case. Got any?

Just because you say it doesn’t mean it’s true. Why should I believe you about these matters? You may well be right, but I remain uncertain. Care to post some cites for those claims? Or are you just making claims without evidence?

Here's a good one to start with - Max Tegmark stomps on Penrose's (and all the lesser lights') quantum mind nonsense: http://www.sustainedaction.org/Explorations/problem_with_quantum_mind_theory.htm

I’ve read that. Tegmark’s argument works well against the original proposal, but not against the more general concept. The Wiki argument cited above states that alternative processes have been proposed that do not have that flaw. This argument is not sufficient to conclude it is impossible.

The general point is this: The brain cannot be sensitive to these very very tiny and subtle effects, because we live our lives bathed in a sea of fluctuating radiation and forces that would instantly drown them out. These things are so subtle that in some cases we can't detect them at all, when we routinely detect individual subatomic particles.

So, according to PM, if we can’t detect something, it can be conclusively concluded that it has no effect at all. At the same time you are also claiming that any effects would be lost in the noise of all the similar effects that we are constantly subjected to. Neither of those are convincing arguments. Do you need me to explain why or do you know enough about science to understand why those arguments are not strong enough to conclude that something is impossible?

If the brain were a quantum device, we'd all be dead every time our body temperature strayed from the region of absolute zero.
If the brain depended on string theory higher dimensions, we'd all be dead every time the Moon moved in its orbit.

So you say. Yet, like most of your claims, I have seen no evidence for such results. For example, it has recently been documented that photosynthesis depends on quantum properties. Does photosynthesis happen only in the region of absolute zero? Clearly, biological entities can make use of quantum properties for biological processes unrelated to consciousness. Why should I conclude it is impossible that consciousness might be a biological process that makes use of such properties?

If the brain depended on information moving back in time... Sorry, that one's just nonsense.

The only problem with claiming it is nonsense is the empirical data that supports the notion.

Since they have been absolutely ruled out, that would imply that such theories have been tested and the results were conclusive.

No, Beth. PAY ATTENTION.
There's an infinite list of things that are real and measureable that we know don't have any role to play in consciousness. You don't get to misinterpret speculative physics and claim that we don't know that something so tiny it can't even be measured magically has a causal role in consciousness.

If you were to take your own advice and PAY ATTENTION, you might have noticed that I haven’t claimed anything of the sort. I’ve brought up these speculations as reasons why I cannot be certain that your claims are correct. I am not claiming those speculations are correct, only that they are alternative possibilities. You say they are impossible, which is a very strong claim. You have not provided any arguments that, when examined, actually support such a strong claim.

If you are correct, then studies supporting your claims should be available. Until I’ve reviewed such studies and found them as conclusive as you apparently have, I’ll remain uncertain.

Start with some basic physics - the four forces, their relative strengths, the fundamental particles. Stop treating physics like magic. Stop, as I've said, making excuses.

I can’t help but notice that you’ve neglected to provide any cites that would support your claims regarding the impossibility of such things. Telling me I should study basic physics is not an appropriate response to a request for evidence in the form of studies that would actually support your claims.

 

[rocketdodger]

I’ve read that. Tegmark’s argument works well against the original proposal, but not against the more general concept. The Wiki argument cited above states that alternative processes have been proposed that do not have that flaw. This argument is not sufficient to conclude it is impossible.

Yes Beth but at some point a reasonable person (there is that word again -- reason ) should say "well we had a hypothesis, it turned out to be way off, lets stop barking up this tree."

What the Penrose/Hameroff camp are doing is just applying band-aid after band-aid in an attempt to keep this absurdly unstable construction of a hypothesis from crumbling down into the pile of rubble it really is.

It is clear to any reasonable person (there is that word again) that Penrose/Hameroff want human thought to be beyond algorithmic because of emotional reasons and they are looking for a way -- any way -- to get their "want" to become "is."

That doesn't mean their arguments are wrong. But it does mean that perhaps one should take their arguments with a grain of salt and, in particular, perhaps question whether the 15th version of their argument that has been cobbled together in response to the 14th criticism is getting to be nothing more than an exercise in futility on their part.

Never mind that their argument is utter bollocks when you view it in the grand scheme of things. Think about this -- their argument is based on their claim that human mathematicians can escape incompletness when generating mathematical thoughts. OK. If that is true (and it isn't, that is one of the main criticisms, google "Lucas/Penrose fallacy" ), what about everyone else? What about monkeys, and dolphins, and dogs? What about mentally disabled people? Do all neurons exhibit this quantum stuff, or just those of really smart people? If so, what on Earth does it do for a creature that can't do math in the first place -- including many humans? How does being able to summon non-determinism affect any of the daily decisions we make and which we consider consciousness, and are all clearly algorithmic in nature? Certainly we can get self-reference, body maps, decisions, vision processing, memory recall, etc, without relying on some non-deterministic calculation. I doubt you will find a single reference on the entire internet that explains in any coherent way (no pun intended) how this quantum stuff is supposed to actually affect our neurons and modify, never mind actually originate, our thoughts.

They just haven't thought it through. It isn't reasonable.