On Consciousness

[Mr. Scott]

Here is a video that is massively about telepathy and consciousness. Rupert Sheldrake has explained why he hasn't claimed the million dollar prize (from about 49 minutes into the video):

The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY

He also described just as one example how a minor journal refused to publish his results, just because it was about telepathy. So it's not really scientific when journals just refuse to publish his results without even looking at them. It's more about childish fear than a true objective standard.

Rupert Sheldrake has been shown to be a fraud. That's why his results have not been duplicated anywhere. Please discuss him in "General Skepticism and the Paranormal."

 

[Anders Lindman]

Rupert Sheldrake has been shown to be a fraud. That's why his results have not been duplicated anywhere. Please discuss him in "General Skepticism and the Paranormal."

Ok, I will avoid discussing telepathy, but the nonlocal correlations have a solid scientific foundation, such as:

"In recent times the interest for quantum models of brain activity has rapidly grown. The Penrose-Hameroff model assumes that microtubules inside neurons are responsible for quantum computation inside brain. Several experiments seem to indicate that EPR-like correlations are possible at the biological level. In the past year , a very intensive experimental work about this subject has been done at DiBit Labs in Milan, Italy by our research group. Our experimental set-up is made by two separated and completely shielded basins where two parts of a common human DNA neuronal culture are monitored by EEG. Our main experimental result is that, under stimulation of one culture by means of a 630 nm laser beam at 300 ms, the cross-correlation between the two cultures grows up at maximum levels. Despite at this level of understanding it is impossible to tell if the origin of this non-locality is a genuine quantum effect, our experimental data seem to strongly suggest that biological systems present non-local properties not explainable by classical models." -- http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004SPIE.5436..107P

So there is actually more objective verification of nonlocality in the brain than for consciousness itself, lol.

 

[Mr. Scott]

So there is actually more objective verification of nonlocality in the brain than for consciousness itself, lol.

That looks weak. Until the results are replicated by people who are not silly, I'd disregard it.

 

[Anders Lindman]

That looks weak. Until the results are replicated by people who are not silly, I'd disregard it.

Here is a similar claim:

"Your brain is the command center that directs the flow of the precise, highly coordinated information crucial to your body's genetic, chemical, and physiological processes. These processes are based on the interaction of molecules and atoms, and subatomic particles. Though in large part biochemical, these processes have a significant nonlocal component as well." -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ervin-laszlo/why-your-brain-is-a-quant_b_489998.html

Although I didn't find any references in the article. Anyway, I thought is was an interesting article.

 

[crhkrebs]

Communication in this case doesn't mean a transfer of information from one brain to another. It's simply a shared entangled quantum state that makes the other brain respond to the observation of light in the first brain.

Here are other examples of that:

"The existence of nonlocal Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen correlations between pairs of human brains has been indicated in the Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al. experiments(GZEs) and several other subsequent experiments." -- http://www.academia.edu/1798929/A_Proposed_Experiment_on_Consciousness-Related_Quantum_Teleportation

What bothers me is that this is all ass-backwards to how science should be done. Anders, when you are asked, "What are the observations?", you present complex sounding theories which bandy about the terms "quantum entanglement" and "wave function".

Surely, science starts by observations. Experimental conditions are then set up to continuously attempt to reproduce these same observations. Once the observations are reproduced and catalogued, then you fabricate a model that best explains the observations. This is your theory.

So, what is the data/phenomenon that is being observed that would lead us to expect that a "shared entangled quantum state that makes the other brain respond to the observation of light in the first brain?" Are these studies double blind? What are the controls? What possible sources of errors have been considered?

I believe this is what dlorde was getting at earlier. Theories come much later.

 

[dlorde]

/quibble
Isn't it more accurate to say that no external information is tansferred?
/quibble

"However, one possible explanation for entanglement would allow for a faster-than-light exchange from one particle to the other. Odd as it might seem, this still doesn't violate relativity, since the only thing exchanged is the internal quantum state—no external information is passed."
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/quantum-entanglement-shows-that-reality-cant-be-local/

Yes, if you feel that the correlation of quantum state on measurement is a form of information transfer (AIUI there is some debate about this). However, it can't be used for communication.

 

[dlorde]

Consciousness seems to be a local phenomenon yet the brain seems to operate to some extent nonlocally! So, if there are nonlocal correlations within one brain, it should in theory be possible to have nonlocal correlation between different brains!

"Brain 'entanglement' could explain memories

Subatomic particles do it. Now the observation that groups of brain cells seem to have their own version of quantum entanglement, or "spooky action at a distance", could help explain how our minds combine experiences from many different senses into one memory." -- Full article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18371-brain-entanglement-could-explain-memories.html

If you'd bothered to read the original paper, you'd have discovered that the NS article's talk of 'their own version of quantum entanglement' was a poor journalistic analogy. The original paper doesn't mention quantum entanglement at all, saying:

We show that when the composite activity of a local neuronal group exceeds a threshold, its activity pattern, as reflected in the LFP, occurs without distortion at other cortex sites via fast synaptic transmission.

So, no. No quantum entanglement, no non-local operation. Just slack journalism and lazy reading.

 

[dlorde]

Ok, I will avoid discussing telepathy, but the nonlocal correlations have a solid scientific foundation.

Paper published in 2004, no refereed citations since, and only 3 other citations - all by a certain Fred H. Thaheld.

Not a solid enough foundation to be taken seriously by anyone else, it would seem.

 

[Anders Lindman]

So, what is the data/phenomenon that is being observed that would lead us to expect that a "shared entangled quantum state that makes the other brain respond to the observation of light in the first brain?" Are these studies double blind? What are the controls? What possible sources of errors have been considered?

I have seen several sources. Here is another one:

"Einstein‐Podolsky‐Rosen (EPR) correlations between human brains are studied to verify if the brain has a macroscopic quantum component. Pairs of subjects were allowed to interact and were then separated inside semisilent Faraday chambers 14.5 m apart when their EEG activity was registered. Only one subject of each pair was stimulated by 100 flashes. When the stimulated subject showed distinct evoked potentials, the nonstimulated subject showed “transferred potentials” similar to those evoked in the stimulated subject. Control subjects showed no such transferred potentials. The transferred potentials demonstrate brain‐to‐brain nonlocal EPR correlation between brains, supporting the brain's quantum nature at the macrolevel." -- http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/1.3029159

 

[crhkrebs]

And in the 18 years that this has been published (is this a peer reviewed quarterly?) have these same observations have been duplicated over and over again by other labs?

If not, that would have me worried.

 

[Wowbagger]

I don't think we need quantum entanglement to explain memories, or any other aspect of how the brain, mind, or consciousness works.

I think theories such as the convergent/divergent zones one are sufficient. They can explain memory without resorting to exotic realms of physics.

Even if that particular theory proves to be not entirely accurate, I am willing to bet it is still more useful for understanding memory, than "quantum entanglement". The "C/D Zones" theory is at least in the ballgame when it comes to developing drugs, treatments, techniques, etc. for working with memory. QM is not.

 

[Dancing David]

As I explained earlier, it's not about any transfer of information. It's a shared state of waves that changes simultaneously and nonlocally across space. It's consistent with ordinary physics, so it's not even an extraordinary claim.

Um, this is nonsense.

 

[crhkrebs]

I looked up the Physical Essays Quarterly. It is not a Physics Journal in the strict sense. It publishes speculative essays on anything remotely connected to physics. It also publishes essays by non-physicists and non-scientists.

I looked up one of the authors, Dr. Amit Goswami, of the article linked by Anders. He even has a website. While he seems to have legit credentials, his musings are more Deepak Chopra than Stephen Hawking. To whit:

http://www.amitgoswami.org/

My question is why, if these researchers were real scientists doing real science, was this not published in a peer reviewed physics or physiology, or neurology journal? Why were there no follow ups and no duplication of results by other labs?

I think this all leads to one conclusion. This is all WOO!

 

[crhkrebs]

Here Dr Goswami shows his scientific proof for the existence of God:

http://www.amitgoswami.org/scientific-proof-existence-god/#more-228

From the interview:

To give you one example, in biology there is what is called the theory of punctuated equilibrium. What that means is that evolution is not only slow, as Darwin perceived, but there are also rapid epochs of evolution, which are called “punctuation marks.” But traditional biology has no explanation for this.

However, if we do science on the basis of consciousness, on the primacy of consciousness, then we can see in this phenomenon creativity, real creativity of consciousness. In other words, we can truly see that consciousness is operating creatively even in biology, even in the evolution of species. And so we can now fill up these gaps that conventional biology cannot explain with ideas which are essentially spiritual ideas, such as consciousness as the creator of the world.

There actually is a good reason for punctuated equilibrium to exist. Read Stephan j. Gould.

This is just the "God of the gaps" meets anthropomorphism meets Deepak Chopra. Woo!

 

[Zeuzzz]

Deepak hates being called woo. If you address anything he says directly without resorting to that word he's fine, he just hates the label. As Michael Shermer found this out in his debate with him, and promptly gave up using the term after a few minutes of dialogue, and following that went rather quiet and let Sam Harris do the majority of the debate and talking.



And the answer to the title of the video, in my opinion, is no. Not anymore than Santa Claus has a future, anyway.

 

[crhkrebs]

1) Michael Shermer was being polite and conciliatory

2) Deepak spends a lot of time and verbiage trying to dress up the old "god of the gaps" argument. It's new lipstick on an old sow. It's still woo and it's still wrong.

 

[PixyMisa]

Deepak hates being called woo.

That's his problem. The label is entirely accurate.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Cool. Woo hoo woo woo hoo woo hoo.

I'm a massive woo woo woo.

Woo.

Now what does woo mean?

I'd rather people attacked an argument than used a largely meaningless label.

Sam Harris won that debate hands down by the way.

 

[Frank Merton]

Woo.

Now what does woo mean?

I'd rather people attacked an argument than used a largely meaningless label.

Exactly.

If my daughter tells me she saw a man riding a bicycle, I say, "that's nice" and continue what I'm doing. If she says she saw a two-headed man riding a bicycle, I put down what I'm doing and ask for details.

How, though, do the two stories differ? They are both about nothing more than what my daughter reports having seen. Neither contains any woo. Still, for some queer reason I believe one and not the other. For all I really know my daughter was in her room on the computer all day and saw nothing even resembling a bicycle.

We judge everything based on what we already think about the world, and I don't think there exists any two-headed men riding bicycles. Still, I trust my daughter, so now I have to find out more. (Trust her or not, it is not likely she will convince me of this one).

To me, woo is merely a way of saying I think the man has two heads. It doesn't fit with what I already think about things, and the misfit is significant. For me to accept it, a major rethink is going to be needed. Before I can, in effect, change my world, I need abundant reason.

As has been said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unfortunately, what is an extraordinary claim to one person often is not to another.

 

[quarky]

Exactly.

If my daughter tells me she saw a man riding a bicycle, I say, "that's nice" and continue what I'm doing. If she says she saw a two-headed man riding a bicycle, I put down what I'm doing and ask for details.

How, though, do the two stories differ? They are both about nothing more than what my daughter reports having seen. Neither contains any woo. Still, for some queer reason I believe one and not the other. For all I really know my daughter was in her room on the computer all day and saw nothing even resembling a bicycle.

We judge everything based on what we already think about the world, and I don't think there exists any two-headed men riding bicycles. Still, I trust my daughter, so now I have to find out more. (Trust her or not, it is not likely she will convince me of this one).

To me, woo is merely a way of saying I think the man has two heads. It doesn't fit with what I already think about things, and the misfit is significant. For me to accept it, a major rethink is going to be needed. Before I can, in effect, change my world, I need abundant reason.

As has been said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unfortunately, what is an extraordinary claim to one person often is not to another.

Nice.

In a universe that appears to be malleable, regarding our expectations,
woo is just a way to dodge boredom and the oppression of logic.

I don't think it begins from a state of knowledge, and it is mostly despicable.

Ultimately, it's all woo.