Monroe Institute

[Rugby]

Rugby, if you're referring to the book Quantum Enigma, read this: http://www.amazon.com/review/R6TRDL5TUH2LP/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R6TRDL5TUH2LP

It concisely summarises why, even if the book gets the details of quantum mechanics right (and it apparently does), it's still garbage.

it's still garbage? You have a bad attitude.

 

[tsig]

it's still garbage? You have a bad attitude.

He's actually one of the nicer posters here.

What is the connection between consciousness and quantum theory? If consciousness can exist outside the brain then why do we need a brain?

 

[Rugby]

PixyMisa I read the review of the book. The writer of the review seems to have a problem with free will. Do you also question free will? If so, give me your definition of free will. I think I believe in free will but if I am to spar with you on that too, then I want to know a bit more of your position please.

The authors are physicists and they do avoid making theories about the psychological side of the issue. The book is focused mainly on the physics and the history of the discovery. It does a good job of helping a weak minded sap like myself understand the basis of the issue. I must say that it is a bit unnerving.

 

[Joey McGee]

Are you kidding? There are books written about the enigma and college courses taught about it. Einstein said "I have though a hundred times as much about the quantum problem as I have about general relativity theory."

Smarter people than you or me have stated that there is a connection between consciousness and quantum mechanics. I merely stated that it warrants some further investigation on my part. You keep demanding that consciousness does not extend beyond the body. I say that just because it has not been measured does not mean that it does not happen.

Explain is light a wave or a particle? That would be a start.

In 80 years physics still has not solved that problem to everyone's liking. There are several people, such as Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking, who believe that m-theory is correct, but we will need extremely expensive experiments to complete it and prove it and that could take generations.

In the meantime a lot of people, such as Deepak Chopra, have capitalized on the strangeness and mysteriousness of new physics. It's a gigantic woo-magnet. It's incredibly hard to test or prove anything in this area and everyone is battle-weary from the speculation and pontification from woomeisters and the debunking that is necessary afterwards.

If anyone comes up with any solid evidence one way or the other it won't be ignored. It's such a difficult area to do research in I'm sure that any revelations will come from new experiments and researchers.

 

[Rugby]

What is the connection between consciousness and quantum theory? If consciousness can exist outside the brain then why do we need a brain?

The connection does not imply that consciousness can exist outside of the brain, but I guess one could extrapolate to that position. It was/ is not an easy thing to comprehend. It has to do with atoms in certain tests showing and influence of the "observer". The test has been repeated many times. There are many interpretations of what it means, some of which are pretty "spooky" to use Einstein's description. I feel it is worth further study on my part.

 

[Rugby]

In 80 years physics still has not solved that problem to everyone's liking. There are several people, such as Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking, who believe that m-theory is correct, but we will need extremely expensive experiments to complete it and prove it and that could take generations.

In the meantime a lot of people, such as Deepak Chopra, have capitalized on the strangeness and mysteriousness of new physics. It's a gigantic woo-magnet. It's incredibly hard to test or prove anything in this area and everyone is battle-weary from the speculation and pontification from woomeisters and the debunking that is necessary afterwards.

If anyone comes up with any solid evidence one way or the other it won't be ignored. It's such a difficult area to do research in I'm sure that any revelations will come from new experiments and researchers.

What better place than here to serve as a woo filter? I still have an open mind.

 

[Rugby]

He's actually one of the nicer posters here.

I enjoy PixyMisa. No bad intended on my part.

 

[PixyMisa]

PixyMisa I read the review of the book. The writer of the review seems to have a problem with free will.

So does science.

Do you also question free will? If so, give me your definition of free will. I think I believe in free will but if I am to spar with you on that too, then I want to know a bit more of your position please.

I don't question so much as answer it, as so many have done before:

Libertarian free will is a logical contradiction.

Compatibilist free will is an incontrovertible reality.

The authors are physicists and they do avoid making theories about the psychological side of the issue.

No they don't. They do make theories; they just refuse to examine or even acknowledge them. Libertarian free will is precisely such a theory.

The book is focused mainly on the physics and the history of the discovery. It does a good job of helping a weak minded sap like myself understand the basis of the issue. I must say that it is a bit unnerving.

But it gives you entirely the wrong impression, and that's why the book is garbage. Free will and consciousness have absolutely nothing to do with quantum mechanics.

Garbage In - libertarian free will - Garbage Out - the utterly confused notion of created reality.

 

[PixyMisa]

Are you kidding? There are books written about the enigma and college courses taught about it. Einstein said "I have though a hundred times as much about the quantum problem as I have about general relativity theory."

Sure. So?

Smarter people than you or me have stated that there is a connection between consciousness and quantum mechanics.

Perhaps so. They're dead wrong. Roger Penrose is undoubtedly smarter than me by some measures. He is also dead wrong, hopelessly wrong, in his theories of quantum consciousness.

I merely stated that it warrants some further investigation on my part.

It doesn't.

You keep demanding that consciousness does not extend beyond the body.

I demand nothing. I merely point it out as established scientific fact.

I say that just because it has not been measured does not mean that it does not happen.

Whoa there.

We have three facts to hand:

First, it's impossible.
Second, it's undetectable.
Third, it explains nothing.

Put those together, and yes, it means that it does not happen.

Same thing applies to homeopathy, or astrology, or any of the hundreds of other fashionable myths.

Explain is light a wave or a particle? That would be a start.

No.

 

[PixyMisa]

The connection does not imply that consciousness can exist outside of the brain, but I guess one could extrapolate to that position.

That's exactly the problem. There is no such connection, and the fact that the book asserts there is - on the basis of the authors' unexamined and logically incoherent assumptions - leads readers like you to extrapolate from that error to further errors.

That's why I said that the book is garbage.

It was/ is not an easy thing to comprehend. It has to do with atoms in certain tests showing and influence of the "observer".

That's the problem again. This is completely wrong - but in a subtle way - and leads you up the garden path into the realms of quantum quackery.

There is nothing spooky, mystical, or weird about quantum mechanics. It's just the way the Universe works. It has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur–Vaidman_bomb-tester

It's impossible according to classical mechanics. It's also real, and works - it's not a thought experiment, it's actually been built. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness.

 

[jfish]

Certainly in a normal state of being, the brain and consciousness are tied together. There are plenty of documented cases that point to the possibility that consciousness can exist independently of the brain. There isn't any irrefutable proof of this, however.

So where does this leave us? Many have concluded that the inquiry has gone far enough - since replicatable proof does not exist (or at least not to the extent that broad segments of society will accept it), then we should stop investigating such notions. Some feel the effort still might lead to something remarkable and elect to pursue an ongoing exploration. Others feel they've already proven to themselves that consciousness is ongoing and feel that the value of continued exploration for personal gain far outweighs putting time and effort into proving to others the reality they've experienced. I don't see any problem with encouraging further exploration among those who are inclined and have the wherewithal to do so.

 

[PixyMisa]

Certainly in a normal state of being, the brain and consciousness are tied together. There are plenty of documented cases that point to the possibility that consciousness can exist independently of the brain.

No there aren't.

There isn't any irrefutable proof of this, however.

There's no evidence whatsoever.

So where does this leave us? Many have concluded that the inquiry has gone far enough - since replicatable proof does not exist (or at least not to the extent that broad segments of society will accept it), then we should stop investigating such notions.

Should we keep investigating the idea that the world is only 16,000 miles around, as Columbus believed? Should we keep investigating the idea that every element "seeks its own level"?

Some feel the effort still might lead to something remarkable and elect to pursue an ongoing exploration. Others feel they've already proven to themselves that consciousness is ongoing and feel that the value of continued exploration for personal gain far outweighs putting time and effort into proving to others the reality they've experienced.

These people are wrong.

I don't see any problem with encouraging further exploration among those who are inclined and have the wherewithal to do so.

If that's what they want to do, fine. As long as everyone understands that what they are doing is a pathetic mockery of real science.

 

[dlorde]

Certainly in a normal state of being, the brain and consciousness are tied together.

What other state of being is there? (you may need to define what you mean by a 'state of being' in respect of human existence, and what it means for that not to be 'normal').

There are plenty of documented cases that point to the possibility that consciousness can exist independently of the brain. There isn't any irrefutable proof of this, however.

There are many claims, but no evidence. There is no conceivable physical mechanism, no physical hypotheses, and no claim I've heard that doesn't contradict what we already know about how the universe behaves. Plus, all the evidence we do have indicates beyond reasonable doubt that consciousness is a product of the functioning of the brain...

People still have doubts? Probably because either they aren't aware of all the above, or simply don't want to believe it. We all have experiences of things that aren't externally real, and it can be hard to distinguish the internal from the external.

... I don't see any problem with encouraging further exploration among those who are inclined and have the wherewithal to do so.

Such research is ongoing, for example, the AWARE study.

 

[marplots]

Consciousness without a brain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotaxis

And that, I think, is at the root of the arguments here. I think of human consciousness as part of a spectrum, certainly specific to humans as much as "human eyesight" is, but not special or mysterious -- even if not fully elucidated.

It's the mystification of what we experience that seems to drive the non-materialist side.

 

[dlorde]

Consciousness without a brain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotaxis

If chemotaxis is a form of consciousness, then so is any tropism or response to the environment. Doesn't this effectively devalue the word?

 

[PixyMisa]

I'd say so. Chemotaxis is a form of awareness, but not consciousness.

 

[jfish]

Let's try a little evaluating some possible explanations of a couple of data points. Suppose 2 people were placed in separate isolated chambers and went into an assisted state of mind that was subjectively unique. If it helps, we can start by calling it body asleep/mind awake. While in this state these individuals experience the same things at the same time (meet each other, meet others, travel to places together). Their respective experiences are recorded verbally while in this state allowing playback and verification. The recordings show the overlap and simtanaity in time.

Another two individuals (a man and a woman) are placed in the same state in isolated chambers and they meet in a non-physical way. They have what might be termed etherial sex. While there are similarities to intercourse, the depth of the experience far exceeds anything achieved through traditional intercourse. There are other subjective components that are unique. After returning to normal waking state, they compare their respective experiences and find complete agreement as to their shared experience.

Let's assume these two examples are replicatable experiences. While not everyone can easily experience things like this, enough people are able to do so with some practice that the results don't seem to be simple anomalies. What explanations come to mind as to the nature and cause of these observable/replicatable phenomena?

 

[steenkh]

Let's assume these two examples are replicatable experiences. While not everyone can easily experience things like this, enough people are able to do so with some practice that the results don't seem to be simple anomalies. What explanations come to mind as to the nature and cause of these observable/replicatable phenomena?

You are asking for explanations of a hypothetical phenomenon?

 

[PixyMisa]

Let's try a little evaluating some possible explanations of a couple of data points. Suppose 2 people were placed in separate isolated chambers and went into an assisted state of mind that was subjectively unique. If it helps, we can start by calling it body asleep/mind awake. While in this state these individuals experience the same things at the same time (meet each other, meet others, travel to places together). Their respective experiences are recorded verbally while in this state allowing playback and verification. The recordings show the overlap and simtanaity in time.

Another two individuals (a man and a woman) are placed in the same state in isolated chambers and they meet in a non-physical way. They have what might be termed etherial sex. While there are similarities to intercourse, the depth of the experience far exceeds anything achieved through traditional intercourse. There are other subjective components that are unique. After returning to normal waking state, they compare their respective experiences and find complete agreement as to their shared experience.

Let's assume these two examples are replicatable experiences. While not everyone can easily experience things like this, enough people are able to do so with some practice that the results don't seem to be simple anomalies. What explanations come to mind as to the nature and cause of these observable/replicatable phenomena?

You made it all up.

 

[dlorde]

What explanations come to mind as to the nature and cause of these observable/replicatable phenomena?

They are imaginary.

Suppose I had the powers of Superman, and could demonstrate them at will - what explanations come to mind as to the nature and cause of those observable/replicatable phenomena?