The Hard Problem of Gravity

[PixyMisa]

Because you cannot be said to observe anything unless you are aware of it. Science is based upon empirical observations; without observations there is no science. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

So are you now saying that consciousness is the same thing as awareness?

Gods, man!! Are you retarded?? The answers to both those questions are right there!

No. You assert that this is so. You could easily be wrong, and not be conscious at all; or these states you attribute to consciousness could have nothing to do with consciousness; or many other possibilities.

Unconscious is, by definition, not conscious.

So are you saying that consciousness is what is referred to in psychology as arousal?

No. I'm using one definition and explaining to you that what you are calling consciousness is not what I'm referring to.

No you're not. In this very post you are using multiple mutually exclusive definitions.

Let me try and break this issue down to you in terms you can possibly relate to since, apparently, plain English is beyond your comprehension:

Feel free!

AMM
Statement 1: Consciousness = X
Statement 2: Cognition = Y(X)
Statement 3: Y does not explain X

Define consciousness and cognition. Demonstrate that cognition is in fact a function of consciousness.

PM
Statement 1: Consciousness = Y
Statement 2: Cognition = Y
Statement 3: Y explains everything

I never mentioned cognition. Tell me how you are defining the term - it's a very broad term, after all - and I will tell you where it fits in.

Of course, the above example is to server as an analogy to our situation. We're both using the same term [e.g. consciousness] but we each are using two completely different definitions for the same term.

I'm not sure how many definitions you are using, since you refuse to supply them, but yes, you're using at least two completely different definitions.

The difference between you and I is that, while I understand your definition

No, you don't, since you have misstated my position repeatedly.

you seem to have a cognitive handicap preventing you from recognizing that I'm using a definition distinct from yours even tho we happen to be using the same term; consciousness.

You don't have a definition.

Wow, metaphore is wasted on you

Metaphor? Is that what they teach you in school these days? The correct term is oxymoron.

Lets just say its a fancy way of saying that it is a self-evident fact.

How about "unsupported assertion". Does that work for you?

Yes I do, because I know that we're referring to two separate things. The fact that you're too slow to realize this is irrelevant.

You are referring to two separate things (at least). You haven't even addressed my criteria.

I've already demonstrated to you in this and threads that I do:

Knowing what someone says is not sufficient, particularly when you then reject it for invalid reasons.

Express 'sourness' in quantitative terms. Explain you could use this information to convey 'sourness' to an individual without taste buds.

Sourness is nothing but a pattern of neural firings. We can take that pattern of firings, map it into another person's brain (someone who has never experienced sourness), and produce in them the experience of sourness via a simple electrical impulse.

That's all any sensation is.

Just because you don't [or atleast claim you don't] know what I mean by conscious does not mean that I don't. The problem is that I understand both of our positions while you only understand your own.

It's not a question of me not knowing what you mean by consicousness. It's a question of you not knowing - as evidenced by the fact that you constantly hop from one meaning to another without even noticing.

You sure do have a meaningful, relevant, objective, and consistent definition; its just not the definition of what I'm referring to.

You don't have a definition.

 

[AkuManiMani]

As I mentioned in a previous post, using classical methods we can do things like determine how fast a critter will fall, or how much energy would be required to move it from one place to another, etc. What one cannot do using such methods is predict how far it will run, in which direction it will run, why it will run or predict any other of an endless number of behaviors that organisms can exhibit.

That doesn't give us any reason to suspect that QM is involved.

P1 This universe operates within the laws of quantum mechanics

P2 QM is, fundamentally, a non-deterministic theory.

P3 Because of this, all apparently deterministic phenomenon are deterministic in appearance only.

P4 For the most part, the behavior of macroscale objects can be approximated using classical [i.e. deterministic] theories such as GR or Newton's laws of motion.

P5 Organisms are macroscale entities whose behaviors do not lend themselves to classical predictions [i.e. they exhibit non-deterministic behaviors]

P6 Macroscopic systems that exhibit non-deterministic behaviors reveal that are sensitive the inherent indeterminacy of QM. These are often referred to as 'poised systems'.

C Being that organisms exhibit the above properties, it is clear that QM indeterminacy plays a significant role in their functions and overall behaviors.

I very strongly suspect that the reason for this is that those kinds of behaviors are linked inextricably with QM phenomenon.

Slight problem with that. Two slight problems.

One, you have no evidence for this whatsoever.

I've already cited and linked examples where QM has been established to have a role in biological functions.

Two, it's physically impossible.

Apparently not, since there are instances that prove otherwise:

http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/quantum_biology/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070116133617.htm

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/PBD-quantum-secrets.html

http://www.biology-direct.com/content/3/1/15

http://rodgers.org.uk/research

What the heck is a unified theory of life supposed to be?

A quantitative theory that would, among other things, allow us to predict the behaviors of biological entities that current theories cannot.

What we have are a list of biological facts and no coherent theory in which to integrate them and make meaningful predictions.

Starts with E. Ends with volution.[/QUOTE]

Evolution is simply a biological fact; its no more a theory than metabolism or genetic heredity. By "unified theory of life" I mean theoretical system that not only gives a coherent quantitative definition of what distinguishes life from non-life, but also provides a way to describe and predict the behaviors of organisms in much the same way physics allows us to do with particles

The big issue is that our understanding and grasp of the theory [QM] hasn't developed enough to the point where we can translate it to the macroscopic scale very well.

Wrong. Completely wrong. We can, and we do. Just in most cases, it's irrelevant.

Its a known fact that QM [the theory we use do describe and predict small scale processes] is mathematically incompatible with GR [used for extremely large scales]. Clearly, the current understanding of physics is incomplete. For this reason physicist are looking to develop a unified theory that will give us a deeper understanding of the universe we live in.

In the mean time, there is ample evidence that QM plays a non-trivial role in biology and we would do well to investigate the nature and extent of its role.

Instead of constantly claiming that this evidence exists, perhaps you could actually say what it is.

I've referenced and linked supporting evidence repeatedly already, ya thick-headed fool.

There is a major physical difference between an organism and an inanimate object like, say, a rock.I do not think this difference lies simply in the organization of their atoms but in their physical state.

Why not? It's different, it's the only difference, and it fully accounts for all the observed properties.

No. It does not.

For starters, an organism continuously replaces it's molecular components while remaining a contiguous entity. A rock doesn't.

My suspicion is that organisms are expressions of a kind of complex field that organizes the interactions of their constituent atoms.

No such field exists.

EM fields don't exist? This is news to me.

So, magical fields and magical QM. Anything else?

Define 'magical' and explain why you're putting words into my mouth

While I admit that this is speculation, it is based upon reasonable inference from established scientific facts.

What facts are these?

The facts that I've repeatedly linked and referenced. Perhaps if you weren't being deliberately dense and actually bothered to honestly look into what I've been saying you wouldn't have to ask that.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Because organisms actively reduce their internal entropy which, to my knowledge, is something no other naturally occurring object does.

May I ask how you came by that idea?

By reading up on general biology since I was a pre-adolecent child. Its an established fact that biological system maintain a relatively low internal entropy at the expense of increasing the entropy of the surrounding environment.

Here's a link explaining it in more detail if you're curious

 

[quixotecoyote]

By reading up on general biology since I was a pre-adolecent child. Its and established fact that biological system maintain a relatively low internal entropy at the expense of increasing the entropy of the surrounding environment.

Here's a link explaining it in more detail if you're curious

Yes, I'm aware of that part.

I'm more interested in why you think only living things can lower their entropy.

 

[PixyMisa]

P1 This universe operates within the laws of quantum mechanics

P2 QM is, fundamentally, a non-deterministic theory.

P3 Because of this, all apparently deterministic phenomenon are deterministic in appearance only.

P4 For the most part, the behavior of macroscale objects can be approximated using classical [i.e. deterministic] theories such as GR or Newton's laws of motion.

So far, so good.

P5 Organisms are macroscale entities whose behaviors do not lend themselves to classical predictions [i.e. they exhibit non-deterministic behaviors]

Do they? Evidence, please.

P6 Macroscopic systems that exhibit non-deterministic behaviors reveal that are sensitive the inherent indeterminacy of QM. These are often referred to as 'poised systems'.

This is true in some specific cases, but irrelevant.

C Being that organisms exhibit the above properties, it is clear that QM indeterminacy plays a significant role in their functions and overall behaviors.

This is not a syllogism. It includes unfounded assertions and unrelated statements. It is not logically sound.

I've already cited and linked examples where QM has been established to have a role in biological functions.

Name one.

Apparently not, since there are instances that prove otherwise:

http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/quantum_biology/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070116133617.htm

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/PBD-quantum-secrets.html

http://www.biology-direct.com/content/3/1/15

http://rodgers.org.uk/research

Chemistry, chemistry, chemistry, unfounded speculation, and chemistry.

Could you at least try to come up with something relevant?

A quantitative theory that would, among other things, allow us to predict the behaviors of biological entities that current theories cannot.

Like what?

Evolution is simply a biological fact; its no more a theory than metabolism or genetic heredity.

Fail. Fail and double fail.

By "unified theory of life" I mean theoretical system that not only gives a coherent quantitative definition of what distinguishes life from non-life

That's easy. All you do is decide what you want the definition to be.

but also provides a way to describe and predict the behaviors of organisms in much the same way physics allows us to do with particles

You mean, statistically? We can already do that.

Its a known fact that QM [the theory we use do describe and predict small scale processes] is mathematically incompatible with GR [used for extremely large scales]. Clearly, the current understanding of physics is incomplete. For this reason physicist are looking to develop a unified theory that will give us a deeper understanding of the universe we live in.

True.

Also, does not address the point.

Also, irrelevant.

I've referenced and linked supporting evidence repeatedly already, ya thick-headed fool.

No you haven't. You've referenced what you claim to be supporting evidence, but isn't.

No. It does not.

For starters, an organism continuously replaces it's molecular components while remaining a contiguous entity. A rock doesn't.

Some rocks do. It's all down to the organisation of the atoms. Put them in the right way round, and off it goes.

EM fields don't exist? This is news to me.

They exist. They do not exhibit anything resembling the properties you are suggesting.

Define 'magical' and explain why you're putting words into my mouth

You said:

My suspicion is that organisms are expressions of a kind of complex field that organizes the interactions of their constituent atoms.

No such field exists. No such field is possible. It is contrary to all physical law. That's pretty much how we define "magical".

The facts that I've repeatedly linked and referenced.

The facts you are referencing fall into three categories: Irrelevant, speculative, and wrong.

Perhaps if you weren't being deliberately dense and actually bothered to honestly look into what I've been saying you wouldn't have to ask that.

I'll ask again, then: What facts?

 

[AkuManiMani]

Because you cannot be said to observe anything unless you are aware of it. Science is based upon empirical observations; without observations there is no science. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

So are you now saying that consciousness is the same thing as awareness?

Its what I've been saying for the passed several pages or so now. I'm glad you've finally realized that.

Let me break it down for you:

Awareness and consciousness are, what we call in the English language, synonyms.

Synonyms are words which mean the same thing.

So when I interchange between the two words 'awareness' and 'consciousness' I'm not changing definitions; I'm referring to the same thing.

Its and astounding concept, I know, but its one you'll have to learn to grasp if you want to meaningfully communicate with other human beings

No. You assert that this is so. You could easily be wrong, and not be conscious at all; or these states you attribute to consciousness could have nothing to do with consciousness; or many other possibilities.

Consciousness is the experience of anything. I know that I am conscious right now because I am experiencing.

So are you saying that consciousness is what is referred to in psychology as arousal?

Roughly, yes.

Define consciousness and cognition. Demonstrate that cognition is in fact a function of consciousness.

Consciousness is the state of subjective experience. Cognition is the conscious performance of logical functions. This is what is colloquially referred to as thinking.

I'm not sure how many definitions you are using, since you refuse to supply them, but yes, you're using at least two completely different definitions.

No, no, no. You misunderstand. I am using one definition; you are using another. The total number of definitions is two. For whatever reason, you appear to be having difficulty grasping my definition.

No, you don't, since you have misstated my position repeatedly.

I just posted a link where I stated your position accurately, and you concurred. You've yet to demonstrate that you even understand my position. I'm pretty competent in my communication skills, so I'm left to conclude that this failure to understand reflects deliberate refusal on your part or a cognitive handicap.

You are referring to two separate things (at least). You haven't even addressed my criteria.

We've already discussed your criteria at length in passed discussions. They do not sufficiently define what I'm referring to.

Knowing what someone says is not sufficient, particularly when you then reject it for invalid reasons.

You should apply that knowledge to yourself.

Sourness is nothing but a pattern of neural firings. We can take that pattern of firings, map it into another person's brain (someone who has never experienced sourness), and produce in them the experience of sourness via a simple electrical impulse.

That's all any sensation is.

Why do certain patterns of neuronal firings produce this sensation and others don't?

Why do patterns of neuronal firing produce any sensations at all?

Can said sensations be reproduced by some other means? Why or, why not?

If yes, then by what fundamental mechanism are they produced?

If not, explain what they are?

If you don't know --

JUST.....ADMIT....IT

It's not a question of me not knowing what you mean by consicousness. It's a question of you not knowing - as evidenced by the fact that you constantly hop from one meaning to another without even noticing.

Its a question of you having such a poor intuitive grasp of the English language that you don't even recognize synonyms unless they are explicitly pointed out to you as such. Your handicap is no fault of mine.

You don't have a definition.

Your stubborn refusal to accept or comprehend a given definition doesn't demonstrate a lack of definition.

 

[PixyMisa]

I hate to tell you this, but awareness and arousal are completely different things.

As I said, you are using two mutually exclusive definitions of consciousness, sometimes in the same sentence!

 

[PixyMisa]

Oh, and awareness and consciousness are different things too.

Anyway, I've put you on ignore, since this conversation is going nowhere. Perhaps you could try answering some of the questions other people have raised about your rather curious claims.

 

[AkuManiMani]

P5 Organisms are macroscale entities whose behaviors do not lend themselves to classical predictions [i.e. they exhibit non-deterministic behaviors]

Do they? Evidence, please.

Provide me with a classical physical theory that can predict the future behavior of an organism.

P6 Macroscopic systems that exhibit non-deterministic behaviors reveal that are sensitive the inherent indeterminacy of QM. These are often referred to as 'poised systems'.

This is true in some specific cases, but irrelevant.

I'm stating that this is true in the relevant case of organisms. Your objection is invalid.

C Being that organisms exhibit the above properties, it is clear that QM indeterminacy plays a significant role in their functions and overall behaviors.

This is not a syllogism. It includes unfounded assertions and unrelated statements. It is not logically sound.

You've not successfully identified a single unfounded assertion in my list of premises, and each of the statements are clearly and explicitly related. For you to assert that it is logically unsound exhibits that you are in error or that you are deliberately lying. In either case, its a blow to your credibility.

http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/quantum_biology/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0116133617.htm

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...m-secrets.html

http://www.biology-direct.com/content/3/1/15

http://rodgers.org.uk/research

Chemistry, chemistry, chemistry, unfounded speculation, and chemistry.

Oh, so the law of quantum mechanics becomes void in chemistry? What specific claims in the above links are 'unfounded" and by what criteria are you dubbing them so?

Could you at least try to come up with something relevant?

Can and have. Every link I provided is directly relevant to the topic at hand. You're simply refusing to accept them as such because the contradict your position. You're being willfully dishonest. Another shot to your credibility.

A quantitative theory that would, among other things, allow us to predict the behaviors of biological entities that current theories cannot.

Like what?

What do you mean "Like what"? What part of the above sentence are you referring to?

Evolution is simply a biological fact; its no more a theory than metabolism or genetic heredity.

Fail. Fail and double fail.

What is "Fail" and "double fail"?

By "unified theory of life" I mean theoretical system that not only gives a coherent quantitative definition of what distinguishes life from non-life

That's easy. All you do is decide what you want the definition to be.

By what criteria should one decide on a particular definition?

but also provides a way to describe and predict the behaviors of organisms in much the same way physics allows us to do with particles

You mean, statistically? We can already do that.

Physicists predict the behaviors of subatomic particle statistically, but those statistics are fed into a theoretical frame work. I'll give you one guess as to what its called.

Its a known fact that QM [the theory we use do describe and predict small scale processes] is mathematically incompatible with GR [used for extremely large scales]. Clearly, the current understanding of physics is incomplete. For this reason physicist are looking to develop a unified theory that will give us a deeper understanding of the universe we live in.

True.

Also, does not address the point.

And what point would that be, pray tell?

Also, irrelevant.

Just an observation; you've a habit of using that term for any statement that you disagree with-- whether it is cogent or not.

I've referenced and linked supporting evidence repeatedly already, ya thick-headed fool

.

No you haven't. You've referenced what you claim to be supporting evidence, but isn't.

Incorrect. You simply dismiss any evidence presented that does not agree with your position by fiat. This is something you do invariably in every single discussion I've observed you in. I've yet to see you admit to any error, or even the remotest possibility that any of your positions could be incorrect. You are among the most intellectually dishonest participants on this forum and I'm fast losing patience with you.

For starters, an organism continuously replaces it's molecular components while remaining a contiguous entity. A rock doesn't.

Some rocks do. It's all down to the organisation of the atoms. Put them in the right way round, and off it goes.

Evidence?

EM fields don't exist? This is news to me.

They exist. They do not exhibit anything resembling the properties you are suggesting.

Evidence???

No such field exists. No such field is possible. It is contrary to all physical law. That's pretty much how we define "magical".

So basically, magic is anything, asserted or actual, that does not conform to your set expectations. Brilliant.

The facts you are referencing fall into three categories: Irrelevant, speculative, and wrong.

Hand-waving dismissals of every opposing argument is not argumentation. You're going to have to provide evidence.

I'll ask again, then: What facts?

The facts you've convinced yourself don't exist

 

[AkuManiMani]

Oh, and awareness and consciousness are different things too.

Oh..?

>>>aware<<<

Part of Speech:
adjective

Definition:
knowledgeable

Synonyms:
acquainted, alert, alive, appraised, appreciative, apprehensive, apprised, attentive, au courant, awake, cognizant, >>>conscious<<<, cool*, enlightened, familiar, go-go, groovy*, grounded, heedful, hip*, in the know, in the picture, informed, into*, know the score, know what's what, know-how, knowing, latched on, mindful, on the beam, on to, perceptive, plugged in, receptive, savvy, sensible, sentient, sharp, tuned in, up on, wise, wise to, wised up, with it*

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/aware

Once again, demonstrably wrong.

Anyway, I've put you on ignore, since this conversation is going nowhere. Perhaps you could try answering some of the questions other people have raised about your rather curious claims.

You've already been ignoring everything I, and every contrary poster, has said. Why even bother going thru the formality of putting me on a list? Oh, well... /shrug

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Being that organisms exhibit the above properties, it is clear that QM indeterminacy plays a significant role in their functions and overall behaviors.
.
.
.
http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/quantum_biology/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0116133617.htm

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...m-secrets.html

http://www.biology-direct.com/content/3/1/15

Well, I went through the these particular articles, and I'm by no way any good in physics or biology but I know discourse somewhat, and it seems to me that we should backtrack quite a bit here. Especially since your assertion includes the modality 'significant'; not only in regards to biological function but to behaviour overall (by which you then at least implicitly have connected it to saying QM is significant in processes which we call "conscious", not only through passive evolutionary progress but in terms of playing an active "steering" role for the function).

At least those articles talk about QM in four general ways: 1) That QM can be used to 'understand' physical processes better; 2) the processes we thus seek to understand is going on at 'very low' scales; 3) almost all of them point out that they do not know 'how much' of a role QM plays, only that there is some at a the very rudimentary level; 4) none of them implies that QM is to be regarded as significant when it comes to brain function or even behaviour when it comes to 'directing' behaviour, more like suitable for 'understanding' underlying processes. And in the case such interpretation can be made, it would have to be reformulated as 'directed through evolutionary processes' through very long time-scales.

I think the clearest formulation is to be found in Ogryzko's article (Biology Direct), although we're still talking about quite low-level scales here [emphasis mine]:

Indeed, if it has taken Humankind only few decades to approach the use of entanglement in quantum information technology, one can wonder why Life, in billions of years of evolution, could not also learn to take advantage, finding in entanglement an alternative resource for stabilizing biological order.

To summarize, entanglement can provide biology with a conceptual ingredient that had been missing from the molecular explanations of life dominating the field for the last 50 years. A philosopher could see in it the physical counterpart of an old dictum – 'the whole is more than a sum of its parts', reflecting the aspect of life that cannot be reduced to molecular structure and interactions. A modern information theorist would see entanglement as an independent resource for information processing in living cells, additional to the molecular 'nuts-and-bolts' mechanisms (including epigenetic templating), which would be tempting to relate with the LOCC operations in this context.

In short, I don't think those articles are a rebuttal to Tegmark.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Consciousness is the experience of anything. I know that I am conscious right now because I am experiencing.

I originally posed this question to westprog, but I think it would be interesting to hear your take on it as well. It might lead us to a kind of conceptual edge.

If we were to take away all the "content" in your experience, would you 'experience nothing', or would there be 'no experience'?

 

[westprog]

Whether or not something can compute on its own is irrelevant to whether or not it computes period, unless you are using a definition of "compute" that explicitly says otherwise.

I don't think it's irrelevant to point out that to compute, you need some hardware and a source of energy. Whether or not you need software is a matter of definition.

 

[westprog]

If a computer could perfectly simulate consciousness, yes. Currently, we have no computers that can do that.

I agree with you here. A virtual computer is a computer and a simulation that was indistinguishable from consciousness would be conscious. But while we have virtual computers, we don't have vitual consciousness...yet.

The only thing that computers simulate that people think will be equivalent to the thing itself is consciousness. Nobody thinks that a computer simulation of the weather is the same thing as weather. Indeed, the idea is ridiculous. We don't think that a computer model of a tornado will give us the same experience as the real thing. Yet because consciousness is inaccessible, we think that somehow the simulation is identical to the real thing. Because we know nothing about the physics of consciousness, the argument is essentially from ignorance.

The only computer simulation that is a perfect equivalent of the thing simulated is of another computer program.

 

[westprog]

Yes. The bulk statistical properties of matter can be and are approximated quite well using classical deterministic theories, without employing QM. The thing is, what I'm referring are a class of phenomenon whose behaviors do not lend themselves well to such an approach. I am, ofcourse, referring to the behaviors of living organisms.

As I mentioned in a previous post, using classical methods we can do things like determine how fast a critter will fall, or how much energy would be required to move it from one place to another, etc. What one cannot do using such methods is predict how far it will run, in which direction it will run, why it will run or predict any other of an endless number of behaviors that organisms can exhibit.

I very strongly suspect that the reason for this is that those kinds of behaviors are linked inextricably with QM phenomenon.

That's certainly possible. However, it's also possible that the behaviour of living creatures is possible in principle, but in practice it's to complex. It's not possible to predict what will happen to a handful of sand thrown into the wind, but that's entirely classical in behaviour.

 

[westprog]

Because organisms actively reduce their internal entropy which, to my knowledge, is something no other naturally occurring object does.

I'm not sure that this is true. It may be true that no other object does so consistently.

Reversing entropy needs energy of course - and there's nothing thermodynamically impossible so long as the entropy books balance.

This is something that's been covered in a lot of evolution discussions. I'm sure that one of those could be plugged in to explain it better.

 

[PixyMisa]

The only thing that computers simulate that people think will be equivalent to the thing itself is consciousness. Nobody thinks that a computer simulation of the weather is the same thing as weather. Indeed, the idea is ridiculous. We don't think that a computer model of a tornado will give us the same experience as the real thing. Yet because consciousness is inaccessible, we think that somehow the simulation is identical to the real thing. Because we know nothing about the physics of consciousness, the argument is essentially from ignorance.

The only computer simulation that is a perfect equivalent of the thing simulated is of another computer program.

Consciousness is a computer program.

 

[westprog]

Consciousness is a computer program.

You don't know that.

 

[PixyMisa]

You don't know that.

Yes I do.

What else can it be?

The brain is a computer. Consciousness is the result of brain activity. That makes consciousness a computer program.

 

[Mercutio]

Yes. The bulk statistical properties of matter can be and are approximated quite well using classical deterministic theories, without employing QM. The thing is, what I'm referring are a class of phenomenon whose behaviors do not lend themselves well to such an approach. I am, ofcourse, referring to the behaviors of living organisms.

Gee... if only one of us were a behaviorist. Oh, wait! I am! Ok, proceed.

As I mentioned in a previous post, using classical methods we can do things like determine how fast a critter will fall, or how much energy would be required to move it from one place to another, etc. What one cannot do using such methods is predict how far it will run, in which direction it will run, why it will run or predict any other of an endless number of behaviors that organisms can exhibit.

We can do this much much much better than you appear to think we can. Especially when we look at behavior in the molar sense.

I very strongly suspect that the reason for this is that those kinds of behaviors are linked inextricably with QM phenomenon.

Because both are somewhat unpredictable? That's like saying stop signs must be painful because sunburn is red. Do you have an actual reason to suspect that QM adds anything to the equation? Positive evidence?

And yet we do not yet have a working, unified theory of either the brain or life in general. What we have are a list of biological facts and no coherent theory in which to integrate them and make meaningful predictions. Basically, what I'm saying is that we haven't yet devised a unified theory of life that can be integrated into our body of physics. I feel that the evidence suggests that integrating life into the framework of QM would be a major step towards developing such a theory.

Pixy already alluded to evolution; we can go a step further and demonstrate that the process of selection works in behavior as well; that is a perfectly good reformulation of operant conditioning.

Its true. People often DO invoke QM in scientific discussions because it seems so weird and mysterious that it appaears to allow room for 'magic' and 'god' or other forms of 'woo'. I find your accusation of me attempting to invoke magic, while understandable, to be deeply offensive. That is not MY intention here -- in fact it is the polar opposite. I'm proposing using QM, not as a way to mystify life, but as a method to unravel the mystery of life. As far as I'm concerned, the term 'supernatural' is an oxymoron because anything that exists exists within the realm of nature.

If you had a more coherent picture of what consciousness is (it is no surprise, I agree with Pixy that you are conflating several different terms), you would find much less here to unravel. And no need to invoke QM.

Nature, as far as we can tell, is based upon the laws of QM and life [being part of nature] must be describable in quantum mechanical terms. The big issue is that our understanding and grasp of the theory hasn't developed enough to the point where we can translate it to the macroscopic scale very well. This is a problem that can and, I believe, inevitably will be overcome. In the mean time, there is ample evidence that QM plays a non-trivial role in biology and we would do well to investigate the nature and extent of its role.

I look forward to evidence of this non-trivial role. Thus far, the only role I have seen for it is to take the place of Descartes' pineal gland, or a magician's smoke and mirrors. In practice, it is not used to explain, but to hand-wave.

QM doesn't have to work differently in the brain in order for it to play a role in the functioning of the brain. There is something major being missed in our current approach to tackling, not only the brain, but of all biological processes. Its probably something that, in hindsight, will seem incredibly obvious.

It is something that will become much clearer once you have settled your definitions. Operationalization is the key to clearly framing your problem; your definitions are all over the place. Not as bad as Iacchus used to be, but on that continuum; just because one sense of a word is synonymous with one sense of another word, does not mean that the two words are functionally identical. Our language is much more complex than that.

There is a major physical difference between an organism and an inanimate object like, say, a rock. I do not think this difference lies simply in the organization of their atoms but in their physical state. Thermodynamically, living things are very strange entities and I would like to understand why this is so. It cries our for explanation.

I humbly submit that the question is much simpler than you allow yourself to think.

My suspicion is that organisms are expressions of a kind of complex field that organizes the interactions of their constituent atoms. I also suspect that QM will play a major role in understanding this class of field. While I admit that this is speculation, it is based upon reasonable inference from established scientific facts.

And you wonder why we used the term "magic"? You sound like Sheldrake here!